Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
Lev Parnas Told MSNBC, President Trump Knew All His Moves; Documents Show Parnas' Communications; Articles Of Impeachment Now In The Senate; What Warren And Sanders Said In Tense Moment After CNN Debate; Senators Will Be Sworn In Tomorrow As Trial Jurors; Chief Justice John Roberts To Be Sworn In Tomorrow To Preside Over Trump's Impeachment Trial; Senate Trial Timeline; Trump Signs First Stage Of Trade Deal With China. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired January 15, 2020 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Have a very good night. Thank you for watching. "CNN TONIGHT" with D. Lemon now.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: You know why they want, well, right on the nose. Look at you.
CUOMO: I feel good.
MACCALLUM: That was great.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Once every 100 shows.
LEMON: Why do they do it? They do it because they want it to die. They wanted to just go by the wayside.
CUOMO: They lie, they deny, and defy. And that is politics at its worst and the cure for it is exposure. You doing it, the media doing it. The senators doing it. It's their job.
LEMON: You're trying to justify your earlier guest, aren't you?
CUOMO: No, I don't have to. Certainly not to you. Of all people. Although you did buy dinner the last time. I saw it, but showed me.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: That is his best defense.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: This is why they don't want witnesses, you just heard it from Kellyanne. She's a sharpest his best.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: She had nothing on any of it. LEMON: Yes. Well, look, you book who you want. I'm not going to go
there.
CUOMO: Yes, I know you're going to say. Go ahead.
LEMON: No, no, no. You can book who you want on your own show.
CUOMO: I will not censor. I will not silence. I will expose arguments --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: That's not censoring. That's not censoring.
CUOMO: -- good and bad. She didn't lie or weight through it, Don. She spins. She doesn't lie or weigh through it.
LEMON: That's not silencing. They're imbedded -- they're imbedded in their own lies and they're imbedded in their own, so. You can do that. I have never heard --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: But it is not hard to say that you disagree with what's happening. It's not a political thing.
LEMON: I just --
CUOMO: It's not real. That's not lie.
LEMON: This is -- I just -- I'm not going there.
CUOMO: You started it.
LEMON: I'm not going to waste any more time on that.
CUOMO: You started it.
LEMON: What I want to say is, you sound like your kid. You sound like Mario.
CUOMO: He's right too what he said.
LEMON: You started it. Here's why -- this is -- can we talk about the trial?
CUOMO: Go ahead.
LEMON: Let's talk about the trial.
CUOMO: Go ahead.
LEMON: Because you were saying how can you have a trial with no witnesses?
CUOMO: Yes, there's no such thing. LEMON: Which I think you're right. There's no such thing. There's also no such thing at a trial -- as a trial with no evidence. Mr. Attorney, a trial with no new evidence.
Everybody who is watching us know they've seen a show like law and order. You've seen "Matlock." You've seen "Perry Mason." You've seen "Ironside." You've seen all of the shows. People come in and say, your honor, we got some new evidence that just came in. We want to present it to you or the jury or to everyone. Right?
It happens. It you get new evidence, it comes in, you present it. The other side may say objection, we haven't had the chance to go over it. The judge may say approach the bench and we'll take a look. But you do get a chance to present the evidence. Just because new evidence comes in it doesn't make that new evidence illegitimate. Right? Not legitimate.
CUOMO: Yes. Few things. One, why didn't it come in? Because federal prosecutors weren't releasing it.
LEMON: Right.
CUOMO: Who are those federal prosecutors who work for? Attorney General Barr.
LEMON: Right.
CUOMO: So that's not on congress. Why can't they get the testimony that they needed to kind of close the circle on some of these things? Because those people are refusing to testify and the president is hiding them.
Now TV shows I don't think are the best guide for reality in --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: I'm just using it as an example.
CUOMO: Right. But I'm saying this. Here's the problem for these senators. OK? And I do think people can get this. Forget about a law degree.
They don't accept the record from the House. We do not stipulate to any of these facts. Well, but then how can you not create a fact record of your own?
LEMON: Right.
CUOMO: If you're not going to accept what the House how do you not have witnesses?
LEMON: Right.
CUOMO: How do you do your job then?
LEMON: They don't want to. CUOMO: And that's where they're stuck and they're just relying on
people saying I already know how I feel, Don Lemon. I already know how I feel. I don't need to hear anything else. That's not why they are banking on but that's not why they take the oath.
LEMON: Yes. Well, there you go. And that's what we're living in.
CUOMO: That's why we're needed more than ever.
LEMON: The person -- the person who create that --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: There's never been a better time for us to be doing our job.
LEMON: In the common par lanes now alternative facts where did that come from?
CUOMO: Kellyanne said it.
LEMON: There you go. And that's where we're living in.
CUOMO: And it's one thing. If they want to battle facts, they should do that. That's what the truth demands. Hiding from the facts and doing it with the help of the Senate, that is not what the truth demands.
LEMON: Imbedded in their own lies. They're imbedded.
CUOMO: There's a lot of lying going on, no question about it.
LEMON: Thank you, sir.
CUOMO: D. Lemon, get after it.
LEMON: I'll see you. Nice job last night. Nice job.
CUOMO: Thank you.
LEMON: Hey, listen, people said the debate lacked sparks last night. I thought it was very substantive. I actually really enjoyed it. And it was -- I watched the analysis some of it before I fell asleep last night. I watched the analysis.
It is a very different experience watching at home, I must tell you, because I did agree with a lot of the analysis from the folks. It's really a different experience. The people you guys thought -- meaning you guys. I'm not pointing out, I'm not pointing to you specifically, not singling at you specifically. I mean, everybody.
You guys thought did really well or whatever. I would say that I watched a lot of it with my mom on the phone. I was sitting there with Jim. You guys thought did really well, we were like were they watching the same debate? It's a different experience watching it at home than being in the room.
CUOMO: Am I surprise with that? I thought people were going to go for it. This is their last time to be together.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: Twenty, 19 days out from Iowa. Some of them are going to be involved in this trial. I didn't see people putting it all out there.
LEMON: Yes. But I do think that when you're in the room you think that people are going to, you know, as we were sitting there, I was talking to my mom, she said, what do they expect them to do? Like have a fistfight or jump all over each other?
[22:05:03]
It was, I thought it was good that they actually were substantive. And they didn't, there were no major cat fights except for the thing about, you know, can a woman be president or not.
CUOMO: Well that's just about the truth between Warren and Sanders. I don't --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: But you don't -- but you don't know -- you don't know the context of that conversation. Because -- and people are going to yell at me or whatever.
CUOMO: Me too.
LEMON: Saying that a woman can't be president. Well, a woman isn't president right now.
CUOMO: A woman hasn't been president.
LEMON: A woman has not been president.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: It's different than a woman couldn't be.
LEMON: But you don't know the context of the conversation.
CUOMO: I just think they should -- 100 percent. We don't know the context.
LEMON: Yes, right.
CUOMO: But I'll tell you what's interesting to see.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: Is people say we have no idea what was really said.
LEMON: Right.
CUOMO: Wait a minute.
LEMON: You don't.
CUOMO: You've got a woman who is also a U.S. senator who is telling you what was said. Since when do we hear women saying what happened and we say well, we can't believe it. It's just her.
LEMON: No, I'm not saying -- I'm not saying I don't believe her.
CUOMO: No, but I'm saying a lot of people are arguing that, Don.
(CROSSTALK)
'LEMON: But you don't know the context. Maybe he's saying a woman -- maybe he's saying -- and I said this the other night. Maybe he is saying, and I don't know. So, I don't know. But that folks who are in the places that matter that they are not in a place right now and they could be.
They're -- I think they're wrong that a woman should be able to be president. Right? And you should be able to vote for a woman. But maybe those people just aren't in a place that they want to vote for a woman to be president of the United States.
CUOMO: Yes, maybe. Maybe.
LEMON: That they are wrong. Yes.
CUOMO: Maybe. I don't think it really matters that much.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: I think the truth of the matter asserted matters.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: And I think that the fact that these Democrats have to convince people in this country some of whom support the president --
LEMON: Right.
CUOMO: -- that they are better for this country --
LEMON: Right.
CUOMO: -- and better than he. And I think they're doing that less than trying to impress each other even in a primary contest.
LEMON: Yes. But if you look at the people who were on that stage last night, when you say a woman can't be president. A woman hasn't been president. The people on the stage aren't representative of the Democratic Party or the demographics of this country last night either.
So, there's a lot to talk about. And we have the audio of what they -- what was said on that stage. There's a whole lot to go around. The whole lot of nuance or what have you.
Listen, I believe both of them. Maybe it was misconstrued. I don't know. But we'll find out.
Thank you, sir. I'll see you. Nice job last night.
This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.
We have a lot to get to. Because the House making history tonight delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate. A picture Americans haven't seen in more than 20 years. I remembered really vividly 20 years ago.
And at a very -- at the very same moment as impeachment managers are walking over from the House, we have new revelations from thousands of pages of evidence. Rudy Giuliani's associate Lev Parnas has turned over to House impeachment investigators. And that evidence goes right to the heart of all of this.
There's this exchange between Giuliani and attorney Victoria Toensing. Talking about kicking out Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. Toensing asking if there's an absolute commitment for her to be gone the next week.
Giuliani replying -- Pompeo clearly, that was a spell check mistake for Pompeo -- is now aware of it. Talked to him Friday.
So, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo knew about the campaign against one of his own ambassadors. A campaign that apparently included surveillance of her in Kiev before she was ordered to get on the next plane out. And did nothing to stop it.
Remember when the president on that infamous phone call with the president of Ukraine said Yovanovitch was going to go through some things? Well, she sure did.
There's also a voice mail from Victoria Toensing calling Parnas on April 23rd to say, "hey, Lev, V.T. here. We've got a request to talk to the big one. So, I just want to get the latest from you. If I could."
The big one. Wonder who that could be? Listen to what Parnas told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow just a few minutes ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST, MSNBC: What do you think is the main inaccuracy or the main lie that's being told that you feel like you can correct?
LEV PARNAS, Rudy GIULIANI'S ASSOCIATE: That the president didn't know what was going on. President Trump know exactly what was going on. He was aware of all my movements. He -- I wouldn't do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president.
MADDOW: In terms of the president and what he said about you, he said about you and Mr. Fruman, Igor Fruman. "I don't know those gentlemen. I don't know about them. I don't know what they do." You're saying that was not a true statement from the president.
PARNAS: He lied.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: And let's not forget the evidence from Parnas released late last night including a letter from Giuliani to Zelensky requesting a meeting as the president's personal attorney and saying that he was working, quote, "with the president's knowledge and consent."
Well, this is evidence that goes directly to the charges against the president. That he abused the power of his office to try to shake down Ukraine to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and his son. And that he obstructed Congress by stonewalling, refusing to allow his aides to testify and refusing to turn over documents.
[22:10:04]
So, in the face of this new evidence, why is there anybody in the Senate who doesn't want to question witnesses like Parnas or John Bolton? Yet, several Senate Republicans today are refusing to commit to allowing new evidence that might emerge during the trial.
And Susan Collins is asking why the new Lev Parnas evidence is only being revealed now? Well, that answer is pretty simple. The DOJ still had it. This is a hat tip to CNN's Marshall Cohen. Thank you, Marshall.
Marshall points out that the Justice Department seized Parnas' phones and other evidence when he was arrested last October. He only recently got his devices back and got permission from a judge to give evidence to Congress.
But there's also Democrats haste to impeach the president. Let's be honest and to do it before Christmas. If they had taken more time, would they have called Parnas? Would they have more evidence? Well, they acted quickly. We'll never know. Now it's up to the Senate. And the battle over whether they'll call any witnesses at all when the trial gets under way.
The president and his allies threatening to call Hunter Biden. The anonymous whistleblower. And even Adam Schiff. Listen to what he tells Wolf Blitzer about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): This is really not a serious thing. This is something the president uses a talking point. I'm not sure what my testimony would be since I'm not a fact witness accept he's guilty, you should convict him. I'm not sure that's particularly helpful to the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So, let's turn to someone who has been very helpful to the president. The Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. You remember he said this less than a month ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: He's singing a different tune now and it sounds a lot like kumbaya.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCONNELL: We will pledge to rise above the petty factualism and due justice for our institution, for our states and for the nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Well, rise above the petty factualism. Huh? Sounds good for the microphones and the cameras. Hard to do that when you said out loud for those very same microphones and cameras that you are not impartial at all.
Sources telling CNN the president is going back and forth on whether he wants some of his Republican flame throwers in the House to be part of his defense team. Even though McConnell is advised against that.
Now the president who made his name in reality TV loves nothing better than a big show. So, we'll see. Team Trump also teasing the idea of adding another attorney to the team headed by Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow.
But let's cast our minds back to long time ago and far, far away. A time when a different president, a Democrat was on trial. And a Republican impeachment manager promised to get to the truth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Now I hope at the end of the day it is our desire to get o the truth that guides us all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: The truth is, this president will have the black mark of impeachment on his record forever. Nothing can change that.
We have a lot more revelations from those thousands of pages of evidence of Lev Parnas. But will any of this move the Senate to call witnesses? That's a question for Shimon Prokupecz, Susan Hennessey, Harry Litman.
And a CNN exclusive. The story behind this dramatic exchange between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in the moments after last night's CNN debate. Now we know what was said. And we have the audio coming up.
[22:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: The president's impeachment trial now about to get underway in the Senate. Explosive new allegations tonight from Lev Parnas. The indicted Rudy Giuliani associate who is a key figure in the Ukraine scandal. Parnas claims Trump, quote, "knew exactly what was going on." End quote.
I want to bring in now Shimon Prokupecz, CNN's crime and justice reporter, Susan Hennessey, national security and legal analyst, and Harry Litman, a former deputy associate -- assistant attorney general -- excuse me. Sorry for screwing your title. Thank you very much for joining me, all of you.
Shimon, I'm going to start with you. Indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas was on Rachel Maddow tonight. We were watching a lot of it together. We played some of him tonight. He said that he didn't do anything without -- and I want to get it right because it's very important.
Without the consent of President Trump or Rudy Giuliani. And that the president was, quote, he said, "a liar." But we won't hear from him under oath in the impeachment proceedings as far as we know.
SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: As far as we know. Right now, there's no plans. We don't know if any witnesses really are going to come forward. Certainly not Mr. Parnas at this point or any indication.
You know, we heard a lot from him tonight saying that he was there operating and Ukrainians certainly believe that he was there working for the president. I think that's a very significant, if true, that is significant point that he made as well.
And like you said, we probably won't hear from him. But what's most important for Lev Parnas and all of this. Yes, there is the idea that he wants to tell the truth and help this country and come forward. But he's also hoping in the end to get some kind of deal from the Southern District of New York. And he has the potential to face a significant amount of time in prison if he's convicted.
[22:20:04]
And so, his concern obviously also is that he's trying to get someone to say thank you for your cooperation. We want to give you a deal. Come in and talk to us and then hopes that perhaps he could somehow get some kind of a plea deal by coming forward and revealing some of this information.
LEMON: Talk to me about this here. Hey, Lev. V.T. here. We've got a request to talk to the big one. So, I just wanted to get the latest from you. If I could. I know it's late there, I'm sorry." Tell me about that.
PROKUPECZ: So, this is -- this is quite an interesting --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: Victoria Toensing.
PROKUPECZ: Victoria Toensing is a lawyer. She's obviously close to the president. She's close to the Rudy Giuliani. She's heavily involved in the middle of all this in the Ukraine. Her husband Joe DiGenova, folks we know him. He would appear on Fox a lot. A lot of times with Rudy Giuliani talking a lot about this Ukraine stuff.
She's interesting because she's also representing a Ukrainian oligarch.
LEMON: But they are husband -- weren't they a husband and wife team --
(CROSSTALK)
PROKUPECZ: They are husband and wife team.
LEMON: -- who worked who represented the president. Correct?
PROKUPECZ: There was talk of them potentially at some point coming in during the Mueller investigation --
LEMON: Right.
PROKUPECZ: -- and representing the president.
LEMON: They appear on Fox News.
PROKUPECZ: They do. And it's really interesting because she's also representing an oligarch in the middle of all of this who was indicted by the U.S. attorney in Chicago for bribery.
And what she was trying to do set of meetings with the Attorney General, William Barr, to try and fight to this extradition proceedings, to try and get them to essentially not extradite Mr. Firtash to the -- back to the United States to face charges.
LEMON: Harry, let's play more. This is from Rachel Maddow's interview. This time talking about the Vice President Mike Pence. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: When Vice President Pence went over there in September 1st, again, than President Trump instead. You believe and you have reason to believe that Vice President Pence was tasked at that meeting with getting President Zelensky to announce investigations of Joe Biden specifically.
PARNAS: Yes.
MADDOW: And to tell him that they wouldn't get aid until they?
PARNAS: I don't know exactly what he was -- but it was all -- (CROSSTALK)
MADDOW: (Inaudible) about the investigation.
PARNAS: So, like I said the aid itself was something that I think the president decided to do what to call. But it was, I think a reaction to that there was no announcement being made after so many attempts and so many promises.
MADDOW: So, holding the aid was the president's own sort of innovation to add to the leverage --
PARNAS: I think so.
MADDOW: -- to add to the pressure that people like you --
PARNAS: I think so.
MADDOW: -- and the vice president and Mr. Giuliani --
PARNAS: Yes.
MADDOW: -- and everybody else involved in this effort was putting on the Ukrainian government.
PARNAS: Correct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: What do you think, what's your reaction to Parnas implicating the vice president?
HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: I'd say about 10 percent of his testimony, Don, is kind of surmise is not all that impressive. Same thing with his accusations about Barr. They're not substantiated and they're not personal.
But different with, of course, everything about Giuliani and even the president. The V.T. document you just said makes clear that if somebody close to the president wants to know what's going on, she calls Parnas. He is the man on the ground.
So, it really does substantiate what he is saying about the president. Pence, you know, I'm sure is sweating bullets tonight. Possibly Barr, though, he doesn't sweat a lot. But there were aspects of Parnas' testimony that where I think less compelling than others. But that's a small -- a small sort of slice of it. I wouldn't put that into a category --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: So, you said not impressive?
LITMAN: -- but of course it will be headlines.
LEMON: OK. And I step on you, I'm sorry. LITMAN: Yes.
LEMON: So, you said not impressive.
LITMAN: That's right.
LEMON: But do you think credible?
LITMAN: Well, I think overall, he comes across credibly because corroboration. There's so much of what he says that has key details corroborated with what we already knew. And that's really compelling.
On the other hand, he's a guy with some baggage. He, you know, has a bit of a checkered history and some reason to lie. But, so what you look for there is corroboration. And on the guts of it, especially Giuliani even the president and all this stuff about Yovanovitch, which is, my God, what are they doing.
I think he's well corroborated and he also comes across as calm and credible. I'm not disputing what he has to say about Pence or Barr. But there were a few details and those are among them that seem more surmise on his part. And he has less corroboration to point to.
LEMON: OK. Susan, I mean, isn't this exactly what calling witnesses would be good for? I mean, if telling the truth and he does it under oath. It's critical, it's damming testimony, don't you think?
SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, certainly it gets --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: But if he's lying you could expose it.
HENNESSEY: Right. it certainly gets the idea that there is a much bigger story here. And there are people that we want to hear from under oath. You know, I largely agree with Harry that, you know, some of the things that Parnas was talking about it doesn't seem plausible that he would have that information. Why would Lev Parnas know what had been communicated to the vice president of the United States.
[22:25:01]
Why would he know the personal -- anything about the personal involvement of the attorney general? So literally speaking to those things we can sort of say, well, we aren't really sure if we're going to believe you.
On the other hand, whenever he is talking about his personal communications with Rudy Giuliani. His personal communications with Ukrainian officials, especially communications that he is actually showing us the documentation. he is showing the back and forth that he is having with those officials.
That's highly credible and certainly information that you would imagine any fair-minded senator of either party would say look, at least we want to hear under oath in a manner in which we can interrogate this information what exactly happened here and what is the story.
And if they're not willing to do it because it's part of their higher oath and obligation and constitutional duty, you would think that they would want to do it as a matter of self-preservation. Because this story is coming out one way or another.
And how terrible will it look for people like Susan Collins or Cory Gardner if they participate effectively in a cover up by refusing to call witnesses, refusing to request additional documents, vote to acquit the president only for some period between now and November these various individuals to come forward and tell us the true and by all accounts, devastating story.
LEMON: Susan, Harry, Shimon, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders having what looks like a pretty tense face off at the end of last night's debate. And tonight, you can hear for yourself just how tense it got. We're going to play that audio for you, next.
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: One of the talked about moments from last night's CNN's debate, probably the most talk about actually. Well, one of them actually took place in the moments after the debate ended. I want you just to take a look at this video. You can see Senator Elizabeth Warren walking over to confront Senator Bernie Sanders. She doesn't shake his hand. And words are exchanged. Live viewers weren't able to hear what was said. But now, we've got it all. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), 2020 U.S. DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: I think you called me a liar on national TV?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I-VT), U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What?
WARREN: I think you called me a liar on national TV.
SANDERS: Let's not do it right now. We'll have that discussion. We'll have that discussion, you called me a liar. You called me -- all right, let's not do it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't want to get in the middle of it, I just want to say hi Bernie.
SANDERS: Yeah, good. OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Joining me now. CNN's Senior Washington Correspondent, Jeff Zeleny. CNN Political Reporter, Rebecca Buck. Good evening. Wow.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Don. REBECCA BUCK, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Good evening.
LEMON: Yikes. So, Jeff, you first. The audio from this exchange, it is really extraordinary. Give us the details on their feud. And how did we get here, Jeff?
ZELENY: Well, Don, this has been something that's been brewing for a couple days. Really the conversation underneath, it has been going on throughout the course of the campaign. Can a woman be elected president? Is that going to be part of this campaign? But it started here a few days ago when our M.J. Lee reported that Senator Warren had had a private meeting with Senator Sanders at the end of 2018 talking about the fact that both of them were going to be a candidates for president.
And Senator Warren said at the time that Bernie Sanders had some skepticism about a woman being able to win the presidency. So M.J.'s story really dominated the conversation on Monday. And then by Monday evening, Senator Warren confirmed that account. She said that that's exactly what happened. So, that sort of set the table for this.
Senator Sanders pushed back strongly and said he did not say that. She wouldn't say this. So, of course this was a topic at the debate. And it was striking, because, you know, both of them are holding firm in their position. She says he did say it. He says he didn't say it. He said he's long thought a woman could be president.
But what was most striking in these moment is that they were trying to de-escalate the feud during the debate. They were trying to sort of, you know, move beyond it. But clearly something happened in the debate that Senator Warren was not pleased with. So, the minute the debate was over, I mean, there was still applause ringing in the hall, Don. It was that quick. She made a beeline for him. And you can hear what she said there.
So, she shook his hand going into the debate. She didn't shake going out of the debate. So, clearly she did not like what he said and she accused him of suggesting that she was a liar.
LEMON: Yes. Rebecca, Senator Warren knew she was mic up. She knew that cameras were rolling. And they were following her. But apparently she was so upset that she was willing to confront Sanders on stage. What does that say to you?
BUCK: I mean, that what makes this really unique and unusual, Don, is that Elizabeth Warren had been on the campaign trail with her. She is someone who is so in control and deliberate about everything she does. She's in control of her message, her presentation. This was a moment it appears of raw anger of emotion from Elizabeth Warren.
And yes, you mention, she knew she was on camera. She knew she was still mic up. So, there must have been part of her who knew that this would be captured and talked about. But at the same time this is a very emotional moment. Not the sort of thing that you would typically see among candidates of the same party or even an opposing parties. And certainly not what you would expect among two friends, really and allies like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who abided by this sort of non-aggression pact for most of the election cycle.
Obviously that had started to unravel in recent days and weeks. But this is just a whole new phase of this campaign for the two of them. And really uncharted territory when it comes to their relationship and also this primary and the tone of the primary.
LEMON: Yes. Hi, Jeff, let me just play this exchange one more time, because it's really remarkable. Watch this.
ZELENY: Sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARREN: I think you called me a liar on national TV?
SANDERS: What?
WARREN: I think you called me a liar on national TV.
SANDERS: Let's not do it right now. We'll have that discussion. We'll have that discussion, you called me a liar. You called me -- all right, let's not do it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't want to get in the middle of it, I just want to say hi Bernie.
SANDERS: Yeah, good. OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So, it wasn't played on the broadcast. How did we get this audio?
ZELENY: We got the audio, because of a lot of our colleagues here in CNN and the audio department really spent a lot of time today, looking to see if we had these audio. And initially it seemed that we didn't, because the mic's on the podium were not in use. They were stopped after the debate.
[22:35:03]
That's why we saw this happen last night in real-time on live television. So, it's captured in most every story of the debate last night. But there was a backup audio system. It was not part of the main audio system. So, the sound did exist individually, I'm told in that back up audio system.
So, that is how these sound came to light there. But, Don, interestingly if you watch about 10 seconds before this, Senator Warren is -- you know, she's making the rounds of pleasantries. The debate is just over, she talked to Joe Biden and said good job, Joe. She talks to Tom Steyer. And then she immediately saw Senator Sanders and goes over and her tone changes directly.
I'm not sure if she's angry or not. I think she has a pointed, you know, thing to say him. It's almost like two athletes on the field there. She wanted him to know that she was not pleased with her answer. Now the question is, where does this leave us on these discussion? Both of them are dug in their position.
It's not something that either one of them probably want to continue talking about. But the underlying issue here on electability is a woman, you know, be able to be elected as easily. That is something that is going to be continue to go on here. So, I don't know who it helps politically. We have to sort of see how it plays out, Don.
LEMON: So much to say about this. But I have to go. All right. Thank you both. I appreciate it.
BUCK: Thanks, Don.
LEMON: House Democrats delivering the articles of impeachment which means a trial is about to begin. We are going to give you the full break down of what to expect. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:40:00]
LEMON: Now that the House is delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate with impeachment managers physically walking the articles to the Senate side of the capitol. What happens next? What is official process? Let's get some answers from CNN Congressional correspondent, Phil Mattingly.
Phil, good evening. I hope you're eating your Wheaties and getting sleep. Because you are going to be extremely busy over the next couple of weeks, who knows, months? So, let's break down the next steps here. What can we expect in the week ahead?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, here's what we need to focus on right now. And we are largely in the procedure plus ceremony stage. I think you saw a little bit of it today. And you're going to see a little bit of a repeat tomorrow. All seven of the impeachment managers appointed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi will once again walk from the House chamber to the Senate chamber. This time to officially present the articles on the Senate floor.
And once those articles are received by the Senate and presented, the lead manager in this case will likely be Congressman Adam Schiff. Will read the articles out loud. This will happen starting at noon tomorrow. And two hours later the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts will make his way across the street from the Supreme Court to the United States Capitol.
He will be sworn in to preside over the Senate trial. Shortly thereafter, Chief Justice Roberts, now presiding over the Senate trial will swear in all 100 Senators. Right after that the president himself will be summoned. Notified that this is occurring. He doesn't personally have to attend. His lawyers will of course, but that's the process that we are going to be keeping an eye on over the course of the next 24 hours, Don.
LEMON: OK. So, what happens then? How long could this all play out? I said to you weeks, months. But really, what do you think?
MATTINGLY: Yes, were hoping not months for personal and social lives perspectives. Look, here's a kind of the key things you need to keep an eye on. The trial itself will start an earnest on Tuesday. That's when they will have the vote on the resolution, kind of laying the ground work for the initial stage of the trial.
And the initial stage is this. The House managers will get 24 hours to essentially give their opening arguments. There will be consecutives, thankfully we will be allowed to sleep at some point. But it will spread over a couple days. After that the Trump defense team, the White House defense team will get the same amount of time to present their case. Something I think everybody is fascinated in hearing.
We haven't really gotten many tips as to what they will be presenting over the course of 24 hours. After those two presentations, every Senator will have an opportunity over the course of 16 hours to ask any question they want.
That will be kind of a meat and bones of the second -- the first stage of the trial. And the second stage of the trial -- that will be what everybody is paying attention to, Don, because that is going to go a long way to decide and what comes after that.
LEMON: Senate Leadership Schiff, also released some rules about how the Senators should behave during this trial. Tell us about this rules.
MATTINGLY: So, here's the best description I got up to this point. From a Senator yesterday. Who knew this was coming and said basically arduous. This is going to be very, very arduous, and here's' why. The Senate trial is going to start every single day, Monday through Saturday, once it kicks in the gear at 1:00 p.m. And once it starts every single Senator in attendance is expected to be in their seat. They are not allowed to talk.
And Don, you have spoken to a number of politicians that can probably tell you they enjoy talking. And they certainly enjoy talking on the Senate floor when they get to be out there. That is no longer allowed or possible. There's also a ban on smart phones and electronics.
You can't have your iPhone there, you can't be scrolling through Twitter, you can't be texting or emailing with aides or families or anybody else right now. And this is also the most interesting thing. There's a restriction on reading material. You can only have in front of you something related to the trial. No, magazine, no other documents, no letters to constituents. This is going to be a very lengthy, very (inaudible) process, Don. No question about it.
LEMON: And they have to call Roberts, Mr. Chief justice. I understand during that. Which would be respectful. They should do that anyway. So, though our hopes were dashed. The boss wouldn't let us go to the big championship game on Monday, but here we are.
MATTINGLY: Is this you saying that Ohio State wasn't in the big championship game on Monday. Back handedly. LEMON: Just say congratulations, Don.
MATTINGLY: Congratulations, Don. Congratulations that Ohio has own (inaudible).
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: Thanks, Phil. I appreciate it.
MATTINGLY: Thanks.
LEMON: More and more detail revelations tonight from thousands of pages of evidence from Lev Parnas, voicemails, texts documents. So, how can Republicans claim none of this is relevant to the impeachment trial?
[22:45:03]
John Kasich weighs in, there he is, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: The House making history tonight impeachment managers hand carrying the articles of impeachment over to the Senate. Tomorrow, Senators will be sworn in for the trial and from there a lot can happen. Will there be witnesses, will there be new evidence? Let's discuss. The former Republican governor of Ohio, Mr. John Kasich joins me now. Good evening, sir. Good to see you.
JOHN KASICH, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: All right. This is -- this really hurts. But you know, can you see this, Don? I'm going to --
LEMON: You're drinking the cool aid.
[22:50:00]
KASICH: Yes, Congratulations. I'll tell you. What you ought to be grateful for is you didn't play Ohio State and the ref ripped us off against Clemson, that would have been a better game, but -- (inaudible) from Ohio --
LEMON: Thank you. We have important business to discuss.
KASICH: He's southern Ohio. He's done a great job. I know, but I have to say you won, so there. I bought your mug.
LEMON: All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate the text. You sent me the picture of that mug and you said you're drinking the Kool-Aid. Obviously you never drank Kool-Aid because you spell Kool-Aid with a C. So, can we get on with the important business? We've got to talk --
KASICH: We're both cool.
LEMON: OK. Thank you, OK, great. So here we go. KASICH: Let's go. Here we go.
LEMON: The power in this impeachment is now shifting from Speaker Pelosi in the House to Leader McConnell in the Senate obviously. How much pressure is on your party? You know, how much pressure do you think your party is under to have a fair trial, allowing witnesses, new evidence? Not just to really rubber stamp this, John, seriously.
KASICH: Well, seriously, Don, I'm going to tell you now for the 50th time. The Republican is my subtitle. My title is American, OK? And so I don't like -- I don't understand how they all work. I will tell you this.
Tonight I was in a little town in a Wendy's, and a lady came up to me and she said, you should stop picking on Donald Trump. He's the greatest president since Lincoln. That was in a sort of a rural area of Ohio on my way back home from West Virginia. And there's a lot of that out there.
So how much pressure is there? I think that Murkowski and Collins and maybe Lamar Alexander and Mitt Romney, I think they have to think about their consciences and maybe there are some others. But then you have Democrats, Don, like this guy from Louisiana. You know him, Jones. And the guy from Michigan, you know. I don't know how it's all going to come down.
But to me at the end of the day, it's -- you know, you want to have as much information as you can get. And I heard you say at the top of the hour, though, that, you know, why did the Democrats in the House rush it? I don't think they should have. But they did and we are where we are and so now we're going to have this testimony and we'll see where we are once it's -- once the presentations are made. I'd like more information, not less, myself.
LEMON: Well, just to expand what you just said, I think it's incumbent upon all of them, Democrats and Republicans, to have a conscience, right? It's not just Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.
KASICH: Yes, of course.
LEMON: I think everybody should (inaudible) to be fair.
KASICH: Of, it is. It's on everybody, right.
LEMON: OK. So, listen -- and the -- I have to -- the reason we ask you that is because you're Republican. That's why you're on here, to give us a view of the Republicans.
KASICH: Yes, I'm a Republican, but I'm not on to be a representative of the Republican National Committee. I'm on to give you an analysis of how I see things in our country.
LEMON: OK.
KASICH: And I happen to be a Republican, but I also --
LEMON: As a Republican --
KASICH: Believe or not.
LEMON: As a Republican, the Republicans are making a mistake by continuing, John, to argue that this is purely political impeachment? I mean, the American people aren't dumb. They know what a fair trial looks like, John.
KASICH: It depends -- it depends where you come from as to whether the party is -- you know, if you come from a red state, it's probably not going to hurt you unless this trial goes in a weird direction. If you're from a mixed state where, you know, the publics divided, the guy in Colorado, you know, this is really tough for him. And he's got to use his conscience.
In that case, it's more difficult, more challenging, you try to calculate how is it going to work? I don't think that's the way you ought to do politics. I think you ought to do politics based on what you see and let the chips fall where they may. And that's kind of the way I see it.
Now, the real question is going to be what's going to happen in November. And I thought it was interesting that Bernie and Elizabeth Warren -- I mean, I heard you guys talk about oh, wow -- do you remember the debates we had? They were calling each other everything.
So, it depends who they nominate and what the presentation is and I don't know who said it was you or Cuomo saying, it's who is going to present to the American people the best program for them and their families into the future. That's kind of how I see it.
LEMON: Let's talk about some policy now, because after starting a trade war, today the president signed an initial trade deal with China. You and I talk a lot about this trade issue and how important it is to farmers in states like yours, in Ohio.
KASICH: Yeah.
LEMON: Have they, have they been hurt by the trade war? Will they be helped by this deal?
KASICH: Yeah, of course. Probably. I would think so. But you know, I think this is sort of a settling things down trade deal. There's nothing that's so dramatic. I mean there is a question as to whether the Chinese can actually buy all these products and how it's going to affect their markets. But they've agreed to it and that's good. That's good and to settle this down is good.
But many of the big issues, Don, about them ripping off our companies and forcing technologies, and sort of the structural issues that we have -- that the whole world is concerned about, you know, the western world is all concerned about.
[22:55:09]
People who are interested in free enterprise and free markets, you know, those structural issues have not been resolved in this agreement, and that's really tough. But it's better to not be warring and to give the farmers some relief. That's good. But we are not addressing the -- these issues that are structural in nature. And the question is, are we just kicking that down the road again, only to be dealt with after an election and we're not going to get to it now? So it's sort of a truce more than it is any resolution.
LEMON: Listen --
KASICH: How's that?
LEMON: I think that's -- listen, it is what you think. I think it's important that the farmers get relief. But just remember when folks are out there talking, you're talking to the woman who said that it was the best since Lincoln. Folks understand when you talk about farmers getting relief that is also a social program. Remember that. When you're talking about people in urban programs and urban areas and social programs, farmers getting relief. That is a social program as well. You understand that, right?
KASICH: Yeah.
LEMON: Yeah.
KASICH: Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
LEMON: Because it's relief. When that woman says to you that he's the best -- he's the best president since Lincoln, you are -- it is incumbent on you to --
KASICH: She said that to me. Don, I would have --
LEMON: To tell her the truth about why he is or isn't and --
KASICH: Oh, this had nothing to do with farmers. She's mad at me because she sees me being critical of Trump, OK? I'm just saying to you. And to have an argument with anybody like that doesn't get me anywhere. First, I'm not going to change her. And the second thing, you know, I'm going to be on social media somewhere, which I really don't need. One thing I am concerned about in terms of agriculture are the new rules on the food stamp program. You know, in Ohio --
LEMON: I got to go, though. I'm really far over.
KASICH: You've got to go?
LEMON: Can we continue this? Yes, I got to go.
KASICH: All right. Well then, well do it another time, because the issue is going to be ongoing. You need to feed people when they're hungry. OK.
LEMON: Exactly. That's my whole point. We agree. Thank you. We'll be right back.
KASICH: All right. See you. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
