Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Articles Of Impeachment Now In Mitch McConnell's Turf; Sen. Elizabeth Warren Confronts Sen. Bernie Sanders; Lev Parnas Spills More Beans; Trump Senate Impeachment Trial About To Open As New Documents Shed Light On Giuliani's Efforts In Ukraine; Rick Wilson Has A Warning For Democrats; President Trump Signs First Stage Of Trade Deal With China. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired January 15, 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]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

A lot going on. We're going to catch you up on all the big headlines right now.

Historic day on Capitol Hill. The House formally delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate which will now try President Trump on charges against him.

And with that trial about to begin, there's new evidence emerging from one of Rudy Giuliani's indicted associates about the attempt to get Ukraine's president to investigate Trump's political enemies, including Joe Biden. We're going to take a look at all of it for you.

That evidence also includes text messages suggesting that Marie Yovanovitch, the ambassador to Ukraine who was fired by President Trump, was under surveillance while stationed in Kiev. I'm going to talk to a former U.S. ambassador who calls that shameful.

Also, President Trump trying to take the American public's focus off impeachment and with an eye on the November election, signing the first stage of a trade deal with China. It is designed to give a big boost to struggling American farmers.

And a CNN exclusive, we now know what was said in that tense exchange between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders at the end of last night's debate. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What?

WARREN: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SANDERS: You know, let's not do it right now. You want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion.

WARREN: Any time.

SANDERS: You called me a liar, you told me -- all right, let's not do it now.

TOM STEYER (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't want to get in the middle. I just want to say hi, Bernie.

SANDERS: Yes, OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: We are going to dig into that straight ahead and see whether those hard feelings may impact the race. We have big developments tonight on the impeachment of President Trump, the trial of President Trump about to get underway in the Senate.

And there is a lot to talk about with Frank Bruni, Laura Coates and Josh Geltzer. A lot to talk about. Thank you all for joining us. I appreciate it.

Frank, I'm going to start with you. We have Andrew Johnson in 1869. We have Bill Clinton in 199. Donald Trump today, now in 2020. The history and the gravity of this moment at the start of an impeachment trial, it is extraordinary, isn't it?

FRANK BRUNI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It is extraordinary. And I think it's sometimes easy to forget that because he has lately adopted such a cavalier attitude about it. You know, he suggested that maybe the Senate should just kind of dismiss this out of hand and not even have a trial.

This is, this is the utmost gravity that you can have. This is the third impeachment ever. I wish I could say we were looking forward to a trial where we would get to the truth, but I have a feeling it's going to be a trial certainly on the Republican side just full of partisan posturing.

But as, as Democrats have taken to saying he will be impeached forever, this goes down in the history books, it's a very short list and it's not an honorable one.

LEMON: Cavalier on the surface but don't you think he's fuming?

BRUNI: I think -- I think he is. But I do think one of the strategies that he has pursued somewhat successfully under stress to say is he has made it seem like such a farce, like search a pro forma partisan exercise that people didn't really look over here.

LEMON: Laura, I want to bring you in now. Delivering these articles of impeachment to the Senate means that Mitch McConnell is now running the show, not Nancy Pelosi. This is a major turning point in what we can expect to see and how the events are going to unfold now.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It is. And, of course, as she tried very hard to try to have her hand at least tip the scale in favor of getting information about what the trial would look like, how was she to pick her House managers, was it going to be a witness-heavy testimony and trial, was it going to be document heavy?

[23:04:56]

And that's going to be the crux of what everyone is looking at going forward and the crux of why she chose to have a litigation heavy in terms of experience, group of House managers because litigators are the ones who make documents come to life.

Criminal prosecutors are the ones who are able to use testimony of witnesses to bring their case to light. and so now you've got people who are litigators who are going to have to rely, because we're not sure yet, Don, if there are going to be any witnesses, even though Bolton said he wants to testify, we have to rely on those documents coming to light. And those beginning to speak for the actual House managers. So, it's a turn of events, but third time in history.

LEMON: Yes. Josh, listen, Nancy Pelosi appointed primarily lawyers to be impeachment managers. What does this tell you about what we can expect from this trial?

JOSHUA GELTZER, FORMER LAWYER, DOJ & NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Well, we know going in that the Republicans are going to resist putting facts on display, and so lawyers often say if you don't have the facts, you argue the law.

There's a lot of law here because there were discussions in the House by experts about what constitutes an impeachable offense and why what Trump seems to have done to abuse public office, public trust for private gain is in some ways the paradigmatic impeachable offense.

And I think we're going to hear that translated by lawyers into things that senators can understand that hopefully the American people can understand too.

LEMON: But was that convincing -- that wasn't convincing to the Republican Party.

GELTZER: It hasn't been convincing yet to the Republicans in the Senate, but we are learning more every day that fills out the picture. That's part of what's so astonishing about this. Right?

We have new documents yesterday, new documents today. A television interview tonight filling out the pictures of what happened. And so, if there is an open mindedness to hear that fuller picture, it is still emerging. That's why having a real trial, not a sham trial, is so important to get it all out there.

LEMON: Does that, does that further -- does that put more pressure, Laura, to the Republican senators, do you think?

COATES: Absolutely. I mean, but for now, but for that delay, and you can quibble about whether or not Nancy Pelosi's tactic to delay handing over the articles of impeachment was a successful failure, a failed success story, but ultimately it led to a couple of things.

What my colleague talked about, the idea of John Bolton now saying, all right, I'll testify. It's also about the now -- these documents that have come out that haven't specifically outlined the quid pro quo statements, et cetera, but what they have talked about is pointing back that it, b, did not stand for Burisma, it stood for the Bidens in the investigation.

The announcement of such, that Marie Yovanovitch, the now ousted ambassador did perhaps have some really clear reasons to fear for her personal safety, and that it wasn't about rooting out corruption. It was about trying to ensure there was political leverage for Donald Trump and his campaign reelection campaign.

All these things have come out now. And so, you have all this information. How are the senators going to say, you know what, I think we should just put that toothpaste back in the tube. It behooves them at this point nor to at least show the hint of objectivity, that they're willing to actually go and investigate.

And if they don't do it, Don, they've got the weight of precedent against them. They've had 15 impeachment trials, including judges over the course of the 200 plus history of the Senate. And this would be the first time ever if they did not call any witnesses. Is this the hill they want to die on? I hope not.

LEMON: Frank, listen, she -- Nancy Pelosi has said, at least it was reported that she saw it on the show, to hold the articles of impeachment. Do you think that was her strategy, that she knew possibly that there was new information that was going to come out? And if so, then why did they rush this? Because it seemed to be -- you know?

BRUNI: Yes. I don't think she knew that new information was going to come out, but I think she knew it was always a possibility. And I think yet more information will come out as this trial goes on. I mean, it's kind of extraordinary because you think of a trial -- and this trial --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: That doesn't mean the Republican senators are going to allow this new information to go into evidence.

BRUNI: There's no guarantee of that at all.

LEMON: That we see about today.

BRUNI: There are a handful of senators who are in a tough spot either because they have styled themselves as people of conscience or because they actually are in states where, if they just support Trump blindly and don't seem to be concerned about anything else, their reelection chances could be hurt.

That's true of Susan Collins, that's true of Cory Gardner in Colorado. So, there are some senators who are in a tough spot. But the majority of senators want this to go away. They don't care about new information. They do not want to hear witnesses. And the question is whether that handful of senators who are different are going to be able to have any sway.

LEMON: What happens if more, if new information comes out? Because there's been new information related to this case almost every day, Josh. What happens if it continues to come out throughout this trial?

GELTZER: Well, it should keep going to the Senate. It should keep going to all of us the way it's been doing. But contrary to what some senators seem to be suggesting, there's no cut-off for this. There's even no cut-off in a normal trial if relevant evidence comes to light.

[23:10:00]

That's the dramatic scene from so many movies in TV shows. You march in. You figure out a way to put it in front of the jury.

LEMON: You're making the point I made earlier, using television shows as an example. Chris Cuomo told me, TV shows are not a good example. You can weigh in on that, Laura. But goa ahead, Josh. Sorry.

GELTZER: Well, no. TV shows often do exaggerate, but in this sense they are right, that there is not a cut-off time, there isn't a set moment. And if information that's relevant keeps coming out and it seems to because it's coming out by the day -- even by the hour today -- that should go to the U.S. Senate.

LEMON: Laura, then what is the purpose of the chief justice, then? I mean, does -- who has the power here? Is it the chief justice? Is it Mitch McConnell? Who has the say over whether new information or new evidence is allowed to come into this trial?

COATES: Well, that answer depends on the amount of votes they have in the Senate. Remember the chief justice is going to be presiding over the trial, acting essentially as a judge would to weigh whether or not things are going to be more relevant than prejudicial, more probative. Meaning it goes to the meat of the actual matter.

But ultimately, unfortunately for people thinking about TV as a prime example, the idea here that the Senate could actually outvote and vote down and overturn a particular ruling of the chief justice, which seems at odds to people. Looking at a presiding member of the Supreme Court looking at this whole thing.

And remember back when the Clinton impeachment trial, you had the Supreme Court justices saying I did nothing and I did it very well. So that might ultimately be the goal here.

But think about how you play this out to its logical conclusion, Don. Imagine, if you will, that the testimony comes in or the House managers are talking about evidentiary documents and using exhibits, things that they are hoping to become admissible perhaps, some kind of quibble about it in front of the cameras.

What is the Senate going to do? I'm going to turn a blind eye to things that may lead down to a productive inquiry? It would be very hard-pressed even though this is not a criminal matter. This is where it shines it's political. You could have someone saying this is a political court. You can kind of do what you want here. It's unprecedented. Why not now?

LEMON: Interesting. Thank you all. I appreciate it.

Accusations throne including the word liar uttered at least three times. We've got the audio of what Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were saying to each other during a tense moment after last night's debate, and you're going to want to hear all of it.

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Now to the state of the race and our CNN exclusive, the tense exchange between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders at the end of last night's debate.

(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: You know, let's not do it right now. You want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion.

WARREN: Any time.

SANDERS: You called me liar -- you told me -- all right, let's not do it now.

STEYER: I don't want to get in the middle. I just wanted to say hi, Bernie.

SANDERS: Yes. Good. OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, let's discuss now with Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen and Bill Press, the host of the Bill Press Pod. Bill Press Pod. Is there a cast in there or it's just called Bill Press pod?

BILL PRESS, HOST, BILL PRESS POD: That's it, pod.

LEMON: Bill Press Pod, all right. I like that. Good evening to both of you.

PRESS: Hi, Don.

LEMON: Hilary, I'm going to start with you. Happy New Year to both because I haven't seen you at all. You know, that is a type of moment between candidates that we don't normally hear.

HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right.

LEMON: It's just real and raw, don't you think?

ROSEN: You know, super spontaneous, people I've heard all day are saying, well, she knew she was mic'd. She did this on purpose. That to me did not look like on purpose. It looked like she was kind of seething through that part of the debate.

And you know, if people go back to the -- watch the debate, Elizabeth Warren actually tried to diffuse this issue. She said, I don't want to talk about this. Bernie is my friend. You know, let's move on, when questioned about this private meeting that they had had originally.

But, you know, I think it pissed her off that Bernie denied that he ever said it. Look, he was trying to get her not to run for president, so why -- who do we believe? Like I believe Elizabeth Warren.

LEMON: Bill?

PRESS: Well, first of all, wow, that's a wow moment. I've seen -- rarely seen an exchange like that between candidates, but it was -- I agree with Hilary. It was for real. She was pissed off. I'm just glad that they did not do that during the real debate, that they both made an effort of detente to downgrade it to -- to downplay it, if you will, even though the tension was still there.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: No. I think it got more tension after they did it after the debate. But go on.

PRESS: Well, thanks to CNN, right? Thanks to the mic still being on, right. Well, I got to, here's where I am. Look, I'm a progressive, OK. I love -- we have the two best progressives in the country running for president. I'd be thrilled if one of them became the nominee or one of them became president. I'd love to get them both in a room and say, hey, knock it off.

LEMON: Don't you think this is a sort of spat that hurts --

PRESS: I mean, focus on Donald Trump.

LEMON: -- Democrats, Bill?

PRESS: Yes, if it continues it definitely hurts Democrats. And it's up to them. And I think neither one of them want this. I do think their goal is to get the nomination and to focus on Donald Trump.

LEMON: Yes.

PRESS: And I think that's what we're going to see.

LEMON: Yes. I agree.

ROSEN: You know --

LEMON: Hilary, Senator sanders has repeatedly referenced a video of him saying that women could be elected. Here's the video. Watch.

ROSEN: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man, in my view a woman could be elected president to the United States. The real issue is whose side are you on. Are you on the side of workers and poor people? Or are you on the side of big money and the corporations?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Does it let him off the hook?

ROSEN: No, because that was from 1988. Like I said, you know, this meeting that has been referenced multiple times, this private meeting that took place last year, obviously was a meeting where Bernie Sanders was trying to dissuade Elizabeth Warren from running for president, thinking that they would share the same base.

[23:19:59]

Now, what we know now is interesting about where their voters are. Elizabeth Warren is actually the second choice of most of Bernie Sanders' voters. But Bernie Sanders is actually not the second choice of most of the Warren voters we know from polling. Those voters go to Biden and to Buttigieg.

And I think that's because Bernie Sanders voters are the most, you know, rabid, most passionate, most loyal, and there is like a ceiling on them. But I think Warren is, yes, equally as progressive, but I think that people who move to Warren sort of said that Bernie's time is done.

LEMON: Hilary, you're going to -- you're going to kill me. Listen, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Save your tweets and e-mails. I don't really -- you know I don't care. But maybe she's saying if you want Trump to -- if you want to beat Trump at this moment -- I'm just talking maybe there is a context to the conversation -- he's saying at this point maybe there's a man, maybe a man has a better chance. And then you hear this conversation in the black community. Maybe there's a white man who has a better chance.

ROSEN: Yes.

LEMON: You understand what I'm saying, don't you, Hilary?

ROSEN: Yes.

LEMON: OK. For the sake of argument.

(CROSSTALK) ROSEN: I don't think it's inherently racist or sexist to have that

argument.

LEMON: OK. That's what -- OK, good.

ROSEN: I don't.

LEMON: You get what I'm saying.

ROSEN: I really don't.

LEMON: So, but maybe that was the context of the conversation and then --

ROSEN: It might have been and that's why I think for him to sort of not actually be open about it and just say if that's what he meant, say that's what he meant.

But she obviously has gone through a period on the campaign trail where she is feeling under the gun, where she's feeling judged as a woman. And I think that there is an insensitivity around, like her frustration on that.

LEMON: OK. Go ahead, Bill.

PRESS: I was just going to say, I think Hilary may have just called me rabid on national television, but I don't want to get into that here.

LEMON: You two sound like Bernie and --

PRESS: I know.

ROSEN: The best kind of rabid.

PRESS: I just want to point out, look, who knows -- there were two people in that room --

LEMON: Right.

PRESS: -- Hillary and Bernie Sanders -- who knows? I mean, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. We really don't know what was said. I tend to believe the woman always as Hilary does as well. It usually works out that way.

But I want to tell you about the first conversation I had with Bernie Sanders. When he -- I talked to him the first time March 2014 about the idea that he might run for president. I heard this rumor. And he told me a couple things.

One, he said his real goal was that he thought progressive issues like single payer minimum wage had to be the heart of the 2016 primary. He didn't think Hillary Clinton would herself raise those issues, so somebody had to do it.

He told me he had talked to Elizabeth Warren about doing it. He wasn't sure she would. And that if she did, he would -- if she didn't, rather, he would consider running.

Now, he didn't directly say it, but I certainly took that as saying if she does, I'm not going to go. Now, flash forward four years, and I understand where Bernie felt, hey, I did the run the last time for progressives and, you know, I got a right to do it this time and I should have that lane all to myself. Elizabeth Warren disagreed.

ROSEN: I think a little push on that front, right, that he deserved it and she doesn't.

PRESS: Sure. But, no. And I understand why he would think that way, having done as well as he did in the primary. But obviously Elizabeth Warren had every right to run. And for a while -- I mean, she's run an incredible campaign. For a while I thought she was going to beat Bernie in that left lane and she still might.

LEMON: I feel like I'm having the conversation with them right now.

PRESS: Yes.

LEMON: Thank you, guys.

PRESS: I think be we both agree on what the goal is, the goal is to beat Trump.

LEMON: Thank you, guys. I appreciate it.

(CROSSTALK)

ROSEN: Yes. And you know, one --

LEMON: I've got to go. Go ahead quickly, please.

ROSEN: I was going to say I don't think Bernie Sanders is a sexist. I don't mean to say that.

LEMON: Yes.

ROSEN: He doesn't -- he doesn't operate in identities, whether it's race or whether it's gender. He operates in class, right?

LEMON: Yes.

ROSEN: He sees the world in rich people and poor people. And -- but that is dismissive sometimes to, you know, to people like women and people of color.

LEMON: I get it. Thank you both. I appreciate it.

PRESS: All right, Don.

LEMON: Hilary, thank you for the lovely Christmas present. Thank you so much.

Horrifying, unbelievable, that's what my next guest is saying about the text messages that suggest former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was being surveilled by associates of Rudy Giuliani. Talk about I thought they hated spying.

I'm going to get more from former Ambassador Jim Melville, next.

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Outrage from diplomats tonight after text messages between indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas and Republican congressional candidate Robert Hyde are revealed. They appear to show the two discussing the surveillance of ousted U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Texts that are dated before Yovanovitch was re-called by the president.

Tonight, Robert Hyde speaking to CNN affiliate Sinclair's America this week, claiming they were playing, just joking around.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT HYDE (R), CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, CONNECTICUT: It was just colorful, we were playing. I thought we were playing. I didn't know he was -- I didn't know he was so serious.

I'm not Lev. I barely know the guy. I was never a close associate of Lev Parnas. I like his character. We had a lot of laughs and joke a little bit, of course. But to try to throw me under a bus somehow, to be some kind of just joking around on WhatsApp.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Well, Parnas telling MSNBC tonight that he didn't take Hyde seriously and that he never believed Ambassador Yovanovitch was in danger.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST, MSNBC: So, you thought that this was him making it up, you didn't believe he actually had the ambassador under surveillance?

[23:30:01]

LEV PARNAS, RUDY GIULIANI'S ASSOCIATE: No, absolutely not.

MADDOW: Are you clear on whether or not there was even an actual physical threat or a threat of personal intimidation against Ambassador Yovanovitch?

PARNAS: Never from my side or anybody I know.

MADDOW: You didn't worry that she was actually in physical danger?

PARNAS: Never, never.

MADDOW: Because you didn't believe Mr. Hyde?

PARNAS: No. I didn't believe Mr. Hyde, no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So joining me now to discuss, the retired U.S. ambassador to Estonia, James Melville. Ambassador, thank you for your time. I appreciate you joining us here tonight. Hyde and Parnas --

JAMES MELVILLE, RETIRED U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ESTONIA: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: -- are playing the texts, suggesting surveillance of Ambassador Yovanovitch. They're trying to play it off as a joke. But the texts, they are really disturbing.

They show Hyde talking to Parnas about Yovanovitch's electronic devices and her location, quote, "She talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off. She's next to the embassy. Not in the embassy. Private security. Been there since Thursday." Later saying people in Ukraine, quote, "Are willing to help if we/you would like a price."

There's nothing funny about these texts.

MELVILLE: There is something very disturbing about the whole series of incidents here and it gives you a deeper understanding for why Ambassador Yovanovitch would think that she was under some kind of threat. And, you know, who are these people? And what were they up to? And who else or who in government had sort of set them on this task is a question I wonder about.

And I certainly hope that there is going to be a serious investigation as to all the circumstances here so that we know what the real truth is.

LEMON: There's another text, ambassador, where Hyde crudely expressed surprise that Trump hadn't fired Yovanovitch. The president had the power to, so --

MELVILLE: Yeah.

LEMON: -- why not just fire her? Why was she put in this situation?

MELVILLE: Well, he had no reason to fire her in terms of her performance and doing her job as ambassador to Ukraine. You know, she was unparalleled at work and her dedication and her record. There is no reason to fire her.

LEMON: In the president's call to Ukraine's president, Zelensky, he told Zelensky that career diplomat Yovanovitch was bad news and that she was going to go through some things.

MELVILLE: Right.

LEMON: I just want to play her response to that. Here it is.

MELVILLE: Yeah.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANIEL GOLDMAN, DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY: What did you think when President Trump told President Zelensky, and you read it, that you were going to go through some things?

MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: I didn't know what to think, but I was very concerned.

GOLDMAN: What were you concerned about?

YOVANOVITCH: She's going to go through some things. It didn't sound good. It sounded like a threat.

GOLDMAN: Did you feel threatened?

YOVANOVITCH: I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: And nobody knew what that was about. Do we have a better idea now?

MELVILLE: Well, I don't know if we really have a better idea of exactly what happened and what was behind those words, but I suspect Mr. Pompeo would have a pretty good idea of it. And as far as I know, he's still not -- not said anything, not stood up for Ambassador Yovanovitch or the service.

It's extremely demoralizing to the Foreign Service and the State Department when you have leadership that just abdicates all its responsibility for standing up for its people and its institution.

LEMON: There is some -- I want to read at least one text. But there are some texts between Giuliani and Attorney Victoria Toensing in February of 2019. Toensing texted, quote, she said, "Is there absolute commitment for her to be gone this week?"

And Giuliani replied, yes. Not sure how absolute. We'll get a reading in morning and call you. Pompei -- Pompeo, you know, I guess that's an autocorrect --

MELVILLE: Mm-hmm.

LEMON: -- is now aware of it. Talked to him on Friday.

Listen. There are a lot of questions about what role the secretary of state played in all of this.

MELVILLE: Right.

LEMON: What answers do you need?

MELVILLE: Well, I remember when Ambassador McKinley quit and Secretary Pompeo was denying that the ambassador had ever brought a request to stand up for Ambassador Yovanovitch to his attention. And I just think that over the time that Secretary Pompeo has been in office, he has repeatedly been shown to be at least shading the truth.

[23:35:03]

MELVILLE: And, you know, he keeps referring to the mission set, but the mission set should also include some exercise of serious leadership, and I just see that completely lacking in his performance.

LEMON: Ambassador Melville, thank you for your time. I really appreciate it.

MELVILLE: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: The president's impeachment trial is about to begin just as the race for the White House is really heating up. My next guest has a real warning for Democrats: If they don't start handling both of these things differently, they could hand President Trump his second term.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: President Trump's impeachment trial is about to get underway in the Senate as new evidence is revealed, but there is no indication the Senate will allow it to be considered.

Let's discuss now with Republican strategist Rick Wilson, who is the author of "Running Against the Devil." Wow! The articles of impeachment leave the House. We're going to talk about this book and that. So, we're going to talk about the articles of impeachment.

RICK WILSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Sure.

LEMON: Good evening to you. Good to see you, by the way.

WILSON: How are you?

LEMON: Leaving the House, arriving at the Senate today, you think that more evidence should be allowed. There is more investigating to be done. You think Hyde --

WILSON: We never hit bottom, Don.

LEMON: OK, so go on.

WILSON: There is always something new. There is -- because they have engaged in this long pattern of obstruction and a cover up, there will always be more things that are relevant to this decision in the Senate that should be brought forward.

LEMON: Yeah.

WILSON: And I know Mitch McConnell will mightily resist that, but the House needs to walk and chew gum here and continue to expose some of these things. We didn't anticipate the Hyde thing coming along as it has in this tranche of information we got today. But all these messages are relevant to this case.

LEMON: There is some new information that I got in. New Lev Parnas interview with The New York Times. You saw the one --

WILSON: I saw the other one, not the Times.

LEMON: This one is from The New York Times. According to the interview, Giuliani and President Trump came up with a plan before Parnas went to Ukraine in February of 2019. Let me read this. This is from the Times.

Mr. Parnas said, Mr. Giuliani walked away to call Mr. Trump and return with a new plan. He said that he would represent Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman as well as the president, a move that might afford their shared mission, the confidentiality of attorney/client privilege.

Mr. Giuliani has denied Mr. Parnas's account of that. And, in fact, John Dowd initially put out a statement saying essentially that Parnas was on the team.

WILSON: These guys cannot stop lying --

(LAUGHTER)

WILSON: -- and they can't stop trying to retroactively conform their stories. This thin veil of attorney/client privilege, it doesn't exist when you're doing a bunch of criminal stuff.

LEMON: Yeah.

WILSON: And this guy, the irony of Rudy's career is he started out at the SDNY busting corruption, public corruption and scumbags and money laundering.

LEMON: You worked on the campaign --

WILSON: I worked on '97 campaign and 2000 campaign. I worked for him in city hall as an advisor. I mean, this guy has -- he has gotten himself as the proof case of "Everything Trump Touches Dies." And Trump --

LEMON: That's your last book.

WILSON: That's my last book. Trump has destroyed him so thoroughly now. The thing about Rudy that he doesn't understand now is that Trump has hung him out to dry already. He's already been killed. He just doesn't know he's dead yet.

LEMON: Yeah. During our debate last night, Biden spoke about the attention Trump gives him.

WILSON: Sure.

LEMON: I want you to listen to this.

WILSON: OK. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I've been the object of his affection now more than anybody else in the stage. I've taken all the hits he can deliver. I have support across the board. And I am not worried about taking on Donald Trump at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Should Biden be worried that he is on Trump's radar, as he puts it, more than anybody else?

WILSON: I think it's a validation that Trump worries about Biden, that he engaged his legal counsel and this constellation of weirdo scumbags and these Europeans mobsters and whatever else to try to take out Joe Biden. He tried to use the power of the presidency and the federal government to suborn a foreign power to do an oppo drop on Joe Biden.

That says something about Biden. Trump fears Biden. I think he fears him because Biden is not -- he's not as easily caricatured as a Bernie or a Warren or perhaps other people in the field.

LEMON: Is it -- what do you think? Who has the best shot?

WILSON: I try not to pick the nominee in this book. I really try hard. I warn about Bernie being Trump reelection insurance, RIP my Twitter, you know.

LEMON: OK.

WILSON: But I think Biden is probably the one, but I'm not trying to pick their nominee.

LEMON: OK, OK, let's talk about this, "Running Against the Devil." You write the Democratic Party is in the verge of doing the impossible: handing Donald Trump the 2020 election. It's time someone gave them the tough love that they so obviously need. What's the tough love?

WILSON: The tough love is to tell them they can't run a national campaign. They got to go in the swing states and work those. Ignore California. You know how they're going to vote. Ignore Mississippi and the red states. You know how they're going to vote.

Get to work and do the work Hillary Clinton didn't complete in Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Florida and Arizona. You got to do that. You got to focus on that. The second thing is you have to make this a referendum on Trump. It's not about policy.

[23:45:00]

WILSON: It's not about climate change or health care or guns or anything else. It's about Trump.

LEMON: Yeah. WILSON: If they don't make it a referendum on Trump, they will lose.

LEMON: If Democrats can't tell Americans a tale of how greed, corruption and self-dealing define Trump's Washington, they need better writers.

WILSON: They do. Trump's corruption is a gigantic weapon. It is a sword to cut off his head in the hands of the Democrats if only they will apply it properly. That's part of the referendum on Trump, to show that this is a guy who promises everyone everything, but he's there to make money for himself and his family. He is profoundly corrupt. The most corrupt president in our history by far.

LEMON: Oftentimes you'll come on the show and you come up with a thing. Will say, it is so easy, I can't believe they didn't say this.

(LAUGHTER)

WILSON: Right. It really is. You know, they have a tendency to try to shame people like Donald Trump.

LEMON: Yeah.

WILSON: You can't shame him, but you can communicate to everybody else that what he does is shameful.

LEMON: He doesn't play by the rules and Democrats have -- they have a tendency, obviously, to play by the rules and he doesn't.

WILSON: Right. I lack that rule-playing problem, so --

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: It's always a pleasure.

WILSON: Thank you, Don. I appreciate it.

LEMON: Good luck with the book.

WILSON: I appreciate it.

LEMON: Thank you so much. Rick's new book again is "Running Against the Devil," not "Running with the Devil."

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: We'll be right back.

(LAUGHTER)

WILSON: That's going to be on media tomorrow.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: On the day the House sent the articles of the impeachment to the Senate, President Trump made sure he put the economy front and center, signing phase one of his trade deal with China. The agreement coming nearly two years after Trump launched a costly trade war that hurt American farmers and led to a $28 billion bailout by taxpayers.

Joining me now to discuss are CNN political commentators Catherine Rampell and Mike Shields. Good evening, one and all.

MIKE SHIELDS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good evening.

LEMON: To both of you, I should say. Catherine, the Iowa caucus is less than three weeks away. Impeachment articles are headed to the Senate. And here is President Trump in a photo op with the Chinese counterpart, announcing a new trade deal. Timing of this, is it all about 2020?

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it's not about 2020 at this point. He's clearly very worried about his constituents in red states being annoyed with him. Remember, we have had two rounds of bailouts for farmers as a result of his trade wars. That are now larger than the auto bailout that we have had under Obama that Republicans hated.

So he is very clearly concerned about not losing these voters. Whether or not they actually came out ahead of where they would be in an alternate universe, we didn't actually start these trade wars, we didn't still have, for example, tariffs on $360 billion worth of Chinese goods, I think is an entirely different question. Maybe we're better off than we were three months ago, but maybe not where we would have been in that alternate universe without the trade wars.

LEMON: Mike, is it more of a political win for President Trump than anything else considering some experts point out not more was gained in this initial deal? Plus, American taxpayers have spent $28 billion bailing out farmers because of this trade war.

SHIELDS: It's a huge win for the president. And I think it's just -- I mean, on its face, it's obvious it's a win. First of all, the timing of this, you know, the Chinese don't play games on how they negotiate things and how things get timed. There may be some countries where President Trump can sort of time something out.

He was actually frustrated. There has been reporting on this, that he couldn't do one-on-one negotiations with the Chinese because they have a very formal traditional way of negotiating things. I think the timing of this coincidental.

But secondly, look, this is $200 billion of goods being purchased by the Chinese, particularly in the farming and manufacturing sectors. That's great for the American worker. That's awesome. And look, the president said, I'm going to finally stand up to China. There are farmers today who are saying, I am glad that we took a little bit of heat to get to where we are. The last time anyone did anything on China was PNTR in 1998.

Every politician gives lip service standing up to China. President Trump has created new leverage. And by the way, many of the tariffs, the original tariffs are still in place. He is still creating leverage for phase two and phase three. And what he is doing is standing up for the American worker. I think the Democrats would be better to talk about anything else other than this because the contrast between this victory and what is going on in the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue is really stark.

RAMPELL: You know, I'm old enough to remember when Republicans were protrade and premarket, and this is neither of those things. This is not capitalism. This is mercantilism. That is what Trump has implemented here. As you point out, we still have tariffs.

SHIELDS: Explain that to a manufacturing worker who is getting a job from this.

RAMPELL: They are not getting jobs. You know why they are not getting jobs?

SHIELDS: Don't say this is mercantilism to a farmer. They are going --

RAMPELL: No. They are not getting jobs because Trump has kept in place tariffs on the inputs that manufacturers buy, including steel and aluminum, which is not even within the universe of what we are talking about here, but all sorts of other Chinese goods that are in the inputs that U.S. manufacturers buy and use to make goods that we then sell to American consumers and that we export around the world.

So they are not doing well. That is why you see investment falling. That is why you see manufacturing in a recession. It's been in a recession for the past five months.

SHIELDS: Eighty billion dollars-worth of manufacturing purchases from the Chinese is a massive victory. The idea that you can go to them and say, yeah, but this is really mercantilism, just ignore that fact. I think it's a great argument.

[23:54:59]

SHIELDS: I think Democrats should record what you said and play it to every farmer and every manufacturing worker in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Pennsylvania.

RAMPELL: Manufacturers are losing out on all sorts of business around the world. Their costs are higher as a result of this. We now have four studies in place. We have --

SHIELDS: Right. They have been left behind and this president ran --

RAMPELL: Because of the tariffs.

SHIELDS: -- to represent them and the Democratic Party doesn't care about it anymore.

RAMPELL: No, no, no. They are facing higher costs because of the tariffs. The tariffs are paid by Americans. They are paid by American businesses --

SHIELDS: The tariffs are creating leverage --

RAMPELL: They are paid by Americans. They are creating leverage against ourselves.

LEMON: I have to go.

SHIELD: This is very --

LEMON: Are farmers really happy about this? I don't know. Listen, I got to go. We are out of time. But I thank you both. We will continue this conversation because I think it's an important one. Again, this is phase one. There is a lot more to talk about. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Catherine. Thank you for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)