Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

U.S. Service Members Hurt During Iran's Attack; Sen. Martha McSally Following the Trump Style; President Trump Sticks to his Lies; Lev Parnas Implicates President Trump in the Ukraine Scheme at the Center of Impeachment Trial; Andrew Yang's Wife Reveals She Was Sexually Assaulted. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired January 16, 2020 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

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

A historic day on Capitol Hill and for the United States. The Senate impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump officially opened, it's only the third time in our nation's history that a sitting president has been tried.

And the president had plenty to say about his impeachment today. We're going to put what he said to the test in the Trump fact check.

Lev Parnas, the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, who is a central figure in the Ukraine scandal directly implicates President Trump in the scheme. We're going to see how his accusations may affect the impeachment trial.

And we have breaking news tonight, a U.S. military official telling CNN 11 service members were injured in that Ukrainian -- in that Iranian -- excuse me -- attack on a base housing U.S. troops last week despite the Pentagon saying at that time there were no injuries. The question is, why did it take them so long to correct that initial assessment?

Also, tonight, Evelyn Yang, the wife of presidential candidate Andrew Yang, speaking out publicly, revealing painful allegations of being sexually assaulted by her doctor, hey OB-GYN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EVELYN YANG, ANDREW YANG'S WIFE: What happened to me should have never happened. He was arrested in his office, and he was let back to work. And that's what's very painful is knowing that actually what happened to me could have been prevented.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: You're going to hear her unbelievable story, Evelyn Yang's story a little bit later on in this hour, so stay tuned.

But I want to get right to today's historic news, the impeachment trial of President Trump officially under way right now. Joining me now is Pamela Brown, Amanda Carpenter as well, and Frank Bruni. Good evening to one and all. Frank, I'm going to start with you. Do you think the seriousness and the gravity of this moment, is sinking in for those senators? They're going to have to sit in silence for six days -- for six days a week. I mean, can you believe that.

FRANK BRUNI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. I know. I mean, I think it is a sure hope it is. I mean, it's hard to believe it wouldn't when they actually took an oath, you know. And the chief justice of the Supreme Court you normally don't see in the Senate is over there administering an oath.

LEMON: That was a powerful moment to see the chief justice.

BRUNI: It was extremely powerful, honestly, though, it was also really, really sad.

LEMON: Yes.

BRUNI: Because they all said they were going to administer impartial justice and we know at the end of this the foregone conclusion is going to be a pretty much party line vote. And if that's impartial justice, how does it break down so neatly along partisan lines? It's a kind of disappointing moment in that sense or disappointing preview.

LEMON: Pamela, where is the president's defense team on this, are they set for this trial?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, in terms of the lawyers we could be learning more about who else is on this defense team, what other lawyers are on it that will be arguing on the Senate floor. As you know the White House hasn't made that official announcement yet but that could be coming soon, I'm told.

Now in terms of the GOP allies in the House that the president has wanted to defend him on the floor, that is still very fluid, I'm told tonight, Don, even as the clock ticks down to the Senate trial the president has sort of been vacillating, you know, between his instincts of wanting his most, you know, ferocious defenders on the Senate floor, Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, Mark Meadows, defending him.

And Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, who has been giving him -- telling him, look, I don't think this is a good idea, I think it's a bad idea, this is just going to create chaos on the floor and could turn off some moderate Republicans. And I'm told in light of this that there are no final decision has been made. But it's unlikely, Don, that ultimately the president would go against McConnell.

LEMON: Amanda, I want to play something. This is a completely just reprehensible exchange that took place between CNN's Manu Raju and Republican Senator Martha McSally today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?

SEN. MARTHA MCSALLY (R-AZ): Manu, you're a liberal hack, I'm not talking to you.

RAJU: You're not going to comment, Senator, about this?

MCSALLY: You're a liberal hack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: It's -- I mean, it is really disgusting, it's beneath the dignity of being a U.S. senator, despicable. What's wrong with her?

AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think she lost her cool. She's one of the four most vulnerable Senate Republicans up for reelection this year. And I've got to think honestly in those moments of quiet reflection on the Senate floor which they will be forced to endure, you are thinking about what's coming next and you never know.

This is the Trump administration. We talk about legal strategy. We haven't seen a legal strategy mounted yet from the White House. There's been nothing but attacks. We have no idea how they're going to defend themselves. We'll get our first look at that whenever they file the briefs on Monday, I guess.

But McSally is running for cover. I think she lost her cool and they decided, you know what, let's just monetize this because in the Trump world if you have to make a play for election you have to activate every member of Trump's base because, guess what, there's nobody else.

[23:05:09]

Suburban women are fleeing the Republican Party. Anybody that's kind of up for grabs in the middle is probably turned off by what's going on. So, she's running for cover. She's running for safety, like they're all doing right now because there's nobody else to vote for her.

LEMON: Frank, you had a visceral reaction to that?

BRUNI: Yes. I mean, I just see that and I'm disgusted by it. We've talked about how Donald Trump has remade the Republican Party in his image policy wise but he's also remade the Republican Party in his image style wise and in terms of the way they treat people.

That was pure Donald Trump, you know, smear the person asking you a question, just paint them as being on the other side, don't address the substance of it. Manu Raju asked that question on a completely polite fashion, it was an absolutely on point, no provocative question, and she reacted that way. Chip off the old block, chip off the old --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Conservative media is trying to make this now about Lev Parnas because he's been giving interviews saying now this is about Lev Parnas. But Democrats have been asking for a while now, well, is Mick Mulvaney going to be part of the witnesses now, is John Bolton going to be a witness?

And then they want to -- they've been asking this Robert Blair who is the senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff. So, this is not about lev Parnas.

BRUNI: No.

LEMON: So, they're trying to act like this is all of a sudden about Lev Parnas, right?

BRUNI: Yes, which is ridiculous. This is a question that's central to a trial. Are there going to be witnesses? Do you want to hear new evidence?

LEMON: Right.

BRUNI: This is a very logical question. They did not warrant that response.

LEMON: Pamela Brown, we know the president loves slamming the media, she got a gold star tweet from team Trump today.

BROWN: She did. And it's worth pointing out, look, as Amanda said, it appears she lost her cool. But Martha McCally also doubled down with a tweet, basically saying, yes, I meant what I said and here's the video.

And then also team Trump, the campaign tweeted applauding her for this ridiculous comment she made against my colleague for asking a very fair question to her, saying, you know, three cheers for Martha McSally, and then directing people to give money to her campaign.

As was mentioned, she is up for a tough election fight in Arizona. President Trump has endorsed her. It's also worth mentioning, though, that she essentially blamed Trump, among other factors, for losing in her last election fight for the Senate in Arizona. So, no surprise, though, that team Trump is applauding what she said. But as you pointed out, Don, it was a pretty despicable comment.

LEMON: Yes. And Mark Kelly, I would imagine, got a few dollars as well for people who were turned off.

BROWN: Yes, that's --

LEMON: Mark Kelly is her opponent. Since I imagine he got some donations to his campaign as well from people who are a little bit saner than the folks who are donating to her for that despicable comment and those actions.

Amanda, we also saw a new statement from Senator Susan Collins trying to explain and clarify her position on witnesses, saying that she'll likely support calling -- calling them once both sides get to make their case. OK. I wonder if you think she will -- why does she say likely? Why can't she say this is a trial and of course trials should have witnesses?

CARPENTER: You know, she's trying to appease McConnell. Listen, McConnell knows the exact same thing that Nancy Pelosi did, the longer this trial hangs out goes on the worse it gets for Trump and the Republican Party. And so now there's pressure being applied, there's more information will be coming about Lev Parnas. But there's going to be a new lev Parnas every day.

I mean, earlier today, it has an even bigger story that the Government Accountability Office said that they broke the law in withholding the aid. At a minimum, it's a win for Mitch McConnell that they're even debating whether they should have witnesses at a minimum for a legitimate trial to occur, one, you need someone from the White House. I don't know. Maybe John Bolton because he said he'd like to come.

Someone from the State Department, like Pompeo who is overseeing the removal of the ambassador. And then, someone from the Office of Management of Budget that held up the money. Maybe like Mick Mulvaney. That's a minimum.

LEMON: OK, so, Frank, where do we go from here? Frank, I want you to take up. This is an ad that an anti-Trump Republican group put out against Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The only thing you'll fight for is Trump. You're just another Trump servant. Weak, frightened, impotent, a small man, terrified of a political bully.

So, scared of his tweets you'll do anything Trump orders. Blocking witnesses, stonewalling to keep Trump's corruption secret, breaking your oath to follow the Constitution and the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, these -- that's an anti-Trump Republican group, these are the kinds of ads facing -- that vulnerable Republicans are facing, could this motivate lawmakers to vote for more evidence of witnesses during the trial do you think?

BRUNI: Yes. I think it's possible. I think Cory Gardner is one of the senators to watch. Because while I think he'll ultimately vote for acquittal he might try to hedge that by voting for witnesses or evidence in the meantime.

[23:10:03]

He's not just got a reelection fight in a swing state, his likely opponent is the former Governor John Hickenlooper. So, he really needs to be careful about seemingly to be so deeply and automatically in Trump's packet because that's not going to go over well with the middle in Colorado.

LEMON: Yes. Frank, Amanda, and Pamela, thank you very much. I appreciate it. I have some breaking news I need to report to you now. We're learning

tonight that several service members were injured in that Iranian attack on a base housing U.S. troops last week. Why didn't the Pentagon revise their initial assessment sooner? We'll talk about that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: We have some breaking news tonight. Several U.S. service members were injured during the Iranian missile attack on the Al Asad Air Base outside Baghdad last week. That's despite the Pentagon previously saying there were no casualties.

Joining me now CNN Pentagon reporter Ryan Browne, and CNN military analyst retired lieutenant general Mark Hertling. Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us.

[23:15:02]

Ryan, I'm going to start with you for the reporting on this. We just learned tonight that there were casualties from that Iranian missile attack last week. What do we know about this?

RYAN BROWNE, CNN PENTAGON REPORTER: Well, that's right, Don. We just moments ago received a statement from U.S. Central Command, the military command that overseas U.S. forces in Iraq and the wider Middle East. And in that statement, they said, "While no U.S. service members were killed in the January 8 Iranian attack on Al Asad Air Base, several were treated for concussion symptoms from the blast and are still being assessed.

As a standard procedure all personnel in the vicinity of the blast are screened for traumatic brain injury, and if deemed appropriate are transported to a higher level of care. In the days following the attack out of an abundance of caution some service members were transported from Al Asad Air Base to Iraq to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, others were sent to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait for follow-on screening."

So, again, this is a big revelation here that there were 11 casualties in the attack despite the Pentagon initially saying that there were no casualties. Now concussions sometimes are detected later.

We're being told that the statement was issued tonight because they have learned of the injuries recently. However, some military officials on the ground had been telling local reporters who had visited the base that there had been reports of concussions several days ago. So, it's not clear why the Pentagon messaging was so bumbled on this.

LEMON: All right. General, I want to get to you. Give me your reaction to learning this now and why it wasn't disclosed until today.

MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, I won't discuss the timing, Don, because you're right, it does seem a little bit late. This was probably diagnosed within 24 hours of the attack. And that's because that's the new military protocol on percussive and concussive attacks.

In about 2015, you know, up to the point of about 2015, the military was using normal sports analogies for concussions when a soldier or a marine was involved in an IED blast, as an example they would treat it with the kinds of diagnosis that we learned from football players getting their bell rung or a catcher getting a foul ball off the mask.

Well, after years of -- about 10 years of study the military changed their protocol and they watch very closely, within 24 hours, of anyone being subjected to a percussive attack and then the next day within 24 hours, more questions, are they -- are they -- are there mood swings, are they losing their balance, are their indicators, medical indicators of neurological condition.

So, all of those things are then considered. And then there's literally a six-day protocol depending on how many concussive blasts a military member has experienced, if it's the first one, then certain things happen, if it's the second or third that they've been diagnosed with, then other things happen.

And each period, each one of these six-day periods take about 24 hours in terms of recovery. There's not that kind of treatment that you would get at Al Asad for one of this kind of extensive injuries, if there were some. So that's -- I understand why they might be transferred to Kuwait or the great hospital in Landstuhl, Germany.

LEMON: You know, that was my question. It wasn't a criticism and I don't think you took it that way, but that was just -- that is just the protocol. And plus, they are --

HERTLING: Right.

LEMON: -- not at probably at a facility if they were in the United States, or maybe in Europe somewhere where they can get a better treatment. So, if there is an initial -- and that's just the new protocol, as you said. If there's an initial casualty assessment, is it later found to be incorrect, what is supposed to happen then, general?

HERTLING: Well, you know, concussions are tough to diagnose, Don, and, in fact, in the most extreme cases, here maybe a surprise to many of your viewers, someone who has a concussive based on an IED attack or this kind of last damage, depending on the severity of the injury and the concussion, that individual could actually get a Purple Heart because of the neurological damage that might be caused by these kinds of blast injuries.

So, you know, it's hard to say, hey, within 24 hours you're going to know or within 48 hours you're going to know. It's the entire six-day protocol if a soldier goes through that entire six days where you determine what kind of true injury they have.

This attack happened over a week ago so you would suspect by now they may know some things on those soldiers, or military personnel that were either sent to Kuwait or to Landstuhl. LEMON: But this is why it is of the utmost importance that the administration be transparent and consistent in their statements about --

(CROSSTALK)

HERTLING: Yes, if I can say that, Don.

LEMON: -- what happened.

HERTLING: And I think that's part of the problem. There's so many issues with indicators of a lack of transparency and integrity on some of the small things.

[23:20:02]

When something like this happens, and there's literally an excuse for it, there's rationale behind what the military is doing, it seems to pile on some of the other things, where those in the Defense Department or the administration aren't being as transparent, where you have suspicions about what really is occurring.

But in this case, I think the military, when you read the statement that the military put out, it's on target. But, again, I think what you're suggesting is, past performance by the administration and Department of Defense causes all of us to be a little bit skeptical about what's going on.

LEMON: I'm just saying it's incumbent upon them to be transparent and consistent in their statements about all of it so that we will know what is happening with our troops, especially when it concerns injuries, and even casualties.

HERTLING: Right.

LEMON: Thank you. Thank you very much, general. Thank you, Ryan. I appreciate the reporting from both of you.

HERTLING: Sure.

LEMON: The president had a lot to say about his impeachment trial from the Oval office today but was any of it true? The Trump fact check with Daniel Dale, next.

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: President Trump's impeachment trial officially under way, a defining moment in American history, especially for the president. He said a lot about it today but is what he said true?

Time for the fact check, the Trump fact check with CNN's Daniel Dale. Hello, Daniel.

DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: Hey, Don. LEMON: Let's get started. The president continues to say that he had

a perfect phone call with Ukraine's President Zelensky.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The whole thing with Ukraine, so you have a perfect phone call, there's a call, fortunate -- it was actually two phone calls, you people don't report that. There were two calls, they were both perfect calls. In fact, probably among the nicest calls I've ever met -- made to foreign leaders. Now -- so you had these perfect calls.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Was it perfect?

DALE: Don, I hate punting on your show, but I think as a fact checker, I should leave this to the pundits. I will know that a whole lot of people, including people who testified from his own administration from the government found it far less than perfect.

LEMON: He continues to disparage the whistleblower.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You have a fake whistleblower that wrote a report that bore no relationship to what was said. Everything was false.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: We all know that's not true.

DALE: That's not true. This is his most frequent -- I think you can argue, his biggest lie, and I think we should call it a lie, of this whole impeachment and Ukraine saga. He said this about 50 separate times by my count.

And we know, as I said over and over on this show and others, that the whistleblower's primary complains about the calls or primary allegations were all corroborated by the rough transcript Trump himself released to the public.

LEMON: Let's listen here, him talk about the president and the foreign minister of Ukraine, he said that they completely cleared him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You have now the Ukrainian president and the foreign minister of Ukraine saying there was nothing done wrong. In fact, they said there was absolutely no pressure whatsoever, everything was perfect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Is that exactly what the Ukrainian president and the foreign minister said? DALE: That is not exactly what they said. So, the president of

Ukraine, Zelensky, has made a series of comments that were helpful to Trump's case. He has said, for example, there was no pressure. He said he didn't speak to Trump from the perspective of a quid pro quo, but he did not contrary to what Trump keeps saying, say that Trump did nothing wrong or that everything was absolutely perfect.

In an interview Time magazine published in early December Zelensky told a group of journalists, look, if you're an ally, if you're a strategic partner, he said, and we're at war, you can't go blocking things from us. That's just a matter of fairness. And so, he didn't mention Trump's name there, but it was clearly a criticism of Trump putting a hold on that crucial military aid.

LEMON: Daniel Dale, thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

DALE: Thank you.

LEMON: Rudy Giuliani, associate Lev Parnas implicating President Trump in the Ukraine scheme. The president claims he doesn't know him but there's mounting evidence against that and we'll dig through it, next.

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Giuliani associate Lev Parnas implicating President Trump in the Ukraine scheme at the center of the impeachment trial. The president claims that he doesn't -- he doesn't even know the guy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't know him. I don't know Parnas other than I guess I had pictures taken, which I do with thousands of people, including people today that I didn't meet, but just met him. I don't know him at all, don't know what he's about, don't know where he comes from, know nothing about him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: He's right about one thing. They had a lot of pictures taken together. CNN has uncovered photo and video evidence of at least 11 meetings between Trump and Parnas. And earlier today, Parnas's attorney tweeted out this video of Parnas and Trump at a party in December of 2016. There they are hanging out at Mar-a-Lago. But it's not just photos. There's a lot of other evidence, too.

Let's discuss now with Shimon Prokupecz and Elie Honig. All right, hey, do they know each other?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: I mean, you would think they do, right?

LEMON: Come on, do they know each other?

PROKUPECZ: When you look at all of the --

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Nobody knows Lev Parnas. Nobody knows Lev Parnas.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: The reason I ask is because I -- listen, people come up to me and say, hey, can I get a picture with you? I take pictures with them. I don't know them.

PROKUPECZ: But do you continuously --

LEMON: That's the -- there you go.

PROKUPECZ: -- at events, small events even with --

LEMON: Because that's Trump's excuse, is that I take pictures with people all the time. The difference is, is that the people I take pictures with, I don't communicate -- I don't have evidence where I communicate.

PROKUPECZ: He was also a big Republican donor, so you would think this is someone that is in the circle around people that Trump knows.

LEMON: All right. So, we cleared that up. OK, this e-mail, this is from Trump's outside attorney, Jay Sekulow. We know him. He's been on CNN. He admits to John Dowd -- John Dowd represented Trump in the Mueller investigation, also briefly hired by Parnas.

It is from October and Sekulow writes, "John, I have discussed the issues of representation with the president. The president consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman."

[23:35:02]

LEMON: Trump doesn't know the guy, Shimon?

PROKUPECZ: Clearly the lawyers, the lawyers representing the president --

LEMON: The president consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Furman.

PROKUPECZ: There was concern --

LEMON: Fruman, excuse me.

PROKUPECZ: Right. There was concern about this relationship that Parnas had with the president at the time, so much concern that John Dowd, which we will all remember him from the Mueller investigation, he was very much involved in representing the president at that time, he was concerned of this relationship that he felt he needed to bring it to the president's current attorney, Jay Sekulow, and say, listen, I'm going to represent these guys, is there a problem? That's very clear. There's a reason why that happened.

HONIG: To me the big question is why would Donald Trump need to consent to who Fruman and Parnas --

LEMON: That's my question that I have here that I want to ask you. Is there any scenario where an attorney, Sekulow in this case, would speak to a client like the president about approving representation to a total stranger?

HONIG: It's all about circling the wagon, right? You have this group of attorneys. They want to make sure no one flips and no one goes off the rails. That's why they need to get Donald Trump's go ahead before a particular attorney can represent a particular client who can do damage.

LEMON: Another question, why are these guys all hired the same attorneys?

HONIG: Yea. I was -- I've seen this kind of thing before. When I used to do organized crime cases, takedowns, if we arrest 10 people, 12 people, I could pretty much tell you exactly who the attorneys were going to be the next day when we made the arrest because they work together, they share information, and most importantly they prevent cooperation, or if someone is going to cooperate, either dissuade the person or they tip off everyone else.

PROKUPECZ: In this case, Parnas has said that one of the reasons why he fired Dowd was because he didn't want -- Dowd didn't want him cooperating with the House, with the members of Congress. And so therefore, he saw that as a problem.

The other thing Parnas has also said is that Dowd wanted him to not cooperate, to sort of be a good boy, go along with what was going on and go along with the plan. And Parnas says he had a problem with that, so he fired him.

The other thing that really pissed off Parnas was that the president, when he came out right in the beginning and said, I don't know this guy, I don't know this guy, that really set Parnas off into what we now see him wanting to cooperate and him speaking.

LEMON: So again, right here, think about this, everybody, why do they all hire the same attorneys? It's like a -- think about that. What did you say?

HONIG: Circling the wagons.

LEMON: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Listen, another e-mail. This one is from Dowd to the House Intel Committee after they have requested documents from them. He writes, "Be advised that Messrs. Parnas and Fruman assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump. Thus, certain information you seek in your September 30, 2019 letter is protected by the attorney-client privilege review."

Elie, does this support Parnas's claim about how close he was to the president and his circle?

HONIG: Absolutely. This is what we call corroboration. Look, one of the key points Lev Parnas has been making the last couple days is that he was working through Rudy Giuliani for the president. Here you see another person who would know, an attorney who's represented the president saying the same thing. That's what we call corroboration.

When you're looking at a witness, potential witness like Lev Parnas, it brings back a lot of memories of when I was a prosecutor. Let us remember, he is under indictment, he has got credibility issues. And so what you're looking for is corroboration. Other reliable witnesses, other documents that back him up, a perfect example.

LEMON: Shimon, this is for you, another text from Parnas to an associate that he wrote, "Team Trump dinner celebration. I'm officially part of team Trump." And thanks to the Wall Street Journal. We know that the text was sent on the same day Parnas posted -- that was out of celebrating with Giuliani, that he was out celebrating with Giuliani and Sekulow. It was also the day after Attorney General Barr released his summary of the Mueller report. What's the significance there?

PROKUPECZ: He's out there celebrating the -- what ultimately, what Barr decided, what the attorney general here decided, that the president didn't face -- wasn't going to face any kind of charges, was not going to face any kind of consequences as a result of the Mueller investigation.

And they're in the Trump Hotel together, all of them, Jay Sekulow, Parnas, and Rudy Giuliani, celebrating. And let me tell you, knowing people who work at the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., these guys were there every day.

LEMON: OK.

PROKUPECZ: Every day together.

LEMON: OK, got one more. Elie --

HONIG: Yeah.

LEMON: One more piece of evidence, March 2019, the text from Lev Parnas to Attorney Victoria Toensing. Parnas wrote, "With Rudy and Jay, can't talk, will call you shortly." The second text from Parnas, "On our way to the White House." Here's my question, does Jay Sekulow have any conflict of interest given his own interactions with Parnas?

HONIG: Interesting because he could be a witness now, too, right? He represents Trump and he could be a witness. But boy, the conflicts of interest we see here -- I mean, Rudy is a conflict of interest machine, you got Sekulow, you got Dowd, you got Parnas, all these people who were doing work for the president are both advocates for the president and participants in the conduct.

[23:40:08]

HONIG: That's what makes this --

PROKUPECZ: Here's the one thing they all have in common, they're trying to protect the president, Dowd, Sekulow, Rudy Giuliani. They want to keep everyone on message, making sure that whoever is around them stays on message.

LEMON: Can you call it a cabal? Allegedly.

HONIG: Team Trump.

LEMON: Allegedly.

(LAUGHTER)

HONIG: Team Trump popping bubbly in the hotel.

LEMON: Thank you all. Be sure to watch tomorrow night at 11:00 for more of Anderson Cooper's explosive interview with indicted Giuliani associate, Lev Parnas. And of course, we'll be here live at 10:00 p.m. for "CNN Tonight."

The wife of Andrew Yang in an exclusive and emotional interview, opening up for the first time about being sexually assaulted, allegedly, by her doctor. Her story, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Evelyn Yang, the wife of 2020 presidential candidate Andrew Yang, is revealing a secret she kept for years, something she didn't even tell her husband for a long time. Yang is now speaking out about being a survivor of sexual assault. She is sharing her story exclusively with CNN's Dana Bash. I should warn you, her story is graphic and maybe disturbing to some viewers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Evelyn Yang has a story so secret she never even shared it with most of her own family. But spending time with her husband, presidential candidate Andrew Yang, on the campaign trail and hearing so much gratitude from voters for talking about son, Christopher's autism, made her feel newly empowered.

EVELYN YANG, WIFE OF ANDREW YANG: Meeting people and seeing the difference that we've been making already has moved me to share my own story about it, about sexual assault.

BASH (voice-over): It was 2012. She was pregnant with her first baby and found an OB/GYN who had a good reputation, Dr. Robert Hadden. Initially, she says her visits were routine. But after a few months, things changed. YANG: It started with inappropriate questions around how intimate I was with my husband, sexual activity, just very inappropriate probing questions that were unrelated to my health. The examinations became longer, more frequent, and I learned that they were unnecessary, most of the time.

Most women don't know what you're supposed to get when you're pregnant. I didn't know that you're not supposed to get an exam every time you went to see the doctor. I feel like I put up with some inappropriate behavior that I didn't know at the time was straight up sexual abuse/sexual assault until much later. And I regret having put up with that because it ended up in a sexual assault that was indisputable, quite blatant.

BASH (voice-over): Yang says the worst assault happened when she was seven months pregnant.

YANG: I was in the exam room and I was dressed and ready to go, and then at the last minute he kind of made like an excuse. He said something about I think you're -- you might need a C-section. And he proceeded to grab me over to him and undress me and examine me internally, un-gloved. And at first, I was a little bit like what's going on here?

BASH (on camera): And there was no one else in the room?

YANG: No. In fact, when I think back to most of our exams, I don't think there was somebody in the room.

BASH (on camera): This isn't just inappropriate banter, this is much different?

YANG: Oh, he -- I mean, at that moment, I knew that was -- I knew it was wrong. I mean, I knew, I said -- I knew I was being assaulted.

BASH (voice-over): She says she thought she was the kind of person who would run away, but she couldn't.

YANG: I imagined myself as someone being -- you know, I would throw a chair at him and run out yelling bloody murder. It's not what happened. I was confused and then I realized what was happening, and then I just kind of froze like a deer in headlights, just frozen. I knew it was happening. I remember trying to fix my eyes on a spot on the wall and just trying to avoid seeing his face as he was assaulting me, waiting for it to be over.

BASH (voice-over): She left that day and never went back.

(On camera): Did you tell your husband, Andrew?

YANG: No, I didn't tell anyone. I didn't tell anyone what happened. I didn't tell Andrew or my family because I didn't want to upset them. I thought, this happened to me, I can process this, I can deal with it, I can compartmentalize it, and --

BASH (on camera): And did you? [23:50:00]

YANG: I tried. I tried. But I just didn't want to affect others and I certainly didn't want Andrew blaming himself for not being able to go with me to these doctor visits because honestly, if he was with me in the room, if anyone was with me in the room, this obviously wouldn't have happened. And at the time, he was traveling a lot for his non- profit and most of the scheduling just didn't work out.

BASH (voice-over): Many months later, after her baby was born, a letter came in the mail. Robert Hadden had left his practice.

YANG: I googled him, and there it was. There was a headline that said that he had assaulted another woman, and she reported it to the police. And at that moment, everything just stood still. It was this sense of relief, of finally realizing that I wasn't alone in it. He still picked me, but that it wasn't because of -- it wasn't something that I did. It was, you know, this was a serial predator, and he just picked me as his prey.

BASH (voice-over): It was at that point she told husband Andrew.

YANG: I just needed to tell someone. I needed to share it in that moment because it felt so big to me. I needed that support. And I told him. And he cried. He wasn't bawling. There were tears. And he said it's because he remembered when I told -- when I came home one day ranting about pervy doctors.

I said something, like, why do they let men be gynecologists? It makes no sense. And he remembered that I had made this comment. And he felt so bad. He felt guilty that he didn't make the connection or ask me more.

BASH (voice-over): She found a lawyer who discovered the Manhattan district attorney had an open case against the doctor. Several other women had come forward with similar stories of being assaulted by him.

YANG: And that was just life changing. It felt so good to not be alone in this.

BASH (voice-over): She worked with an assistant district attorney, who was collecting information from 18 women, including Yang, with allegations against Hadden. Yang testified before a grand jury which indicted Hadden on multiple felony sex charges.

YANG: Every time I talk to the ADA, the case was going great. And she was always telling me how strong this case was, how we were going to put him in jail, how he wasn't going to be able to do this to anyone ever again. And all of a sudden, there was this drop-off. I didn't hear from her for months.

BASH (voice-over): Finally, in February 2016, she was told the D.A. agreed to a plea deal with the doctor. He would lose his medical license, register as the lowest-level sex offender, but not go to jail.

YANG: He was getting off with a slap on the wrist basically.

BASH (voice-over): Not just that. Although he was charged on nine counts involving six accusers, he only pleaded guilty to two charges involving two women. Evelyn Yang was not one of them.

YANG: They said that the punishment was the same regardless of how many counts he pled guilty to, that the punishment would have been the same. So it didn't matter. And I thought, well, it matters to me for obvious reasons. And it wasn't until after "Me Too" and the Weinstein case came out that the victims in this case realized that we were betrayed twice.

BASH (on camera): That's how you feel? You feel that you were betrayed twice?

YANG: Oh, absolutely. It's like getting, you know, slapped in the face and punched in the gut. The D.A.'s office is meant to protect us. It's meant to serve justice. And there was no justice here.

BASH (voice-over): The office of Manhattan district attorney, Cy Vance, is the same one that was lenient with Jeffrey Epstein over his registering as a sex offender and also initially failed to prosecute Harvey Weinstein.

[23:55:04]

BASH (voice-over): When asked for a response, the D.A.'s office told CNN that obtaining a felony conviction was the goal in this case. And, "While we stand by our legal analysis and resulting disposition of this difficult case, we regret that this resolution has caused survivors pain."

Though Hadden was not a big name like Weinstein or Epstein, Yang says he did have a powerful protector, Columbia University, which runs the medical facility where he practiced.

YANG: The fact that it's a, you know, a name brand university behind this doctor and using their influence to protect themselves at the expense of the victims in the case.

BASH (voice-over): Some six weeks before Yang says she was assaulted, police went to Hadden's office and arrested him. Another patient told police he sexually assaulted her and licked her vagina during an exam. The arrest was voided, and he went back to seeing female patients.

YANG: What happened to me should have never happened. He was arrested in his office, and he was let back to work.

BASH (on camera): Without anybody in the room?

YANG: Without a chaperone. I mean, at the very least, the bare minimum would be to make sure that there is an aide all the time. And that's what's very painful is knowing that actually what happened to me could have been prevented.

BASH (voice-over): Yang's attorney says there are at least 32 women who now accuse Hadden of sexual assault. Most of them, including Yang, are part of civil suits against Columbia University, its affiliates, and Hadden. Among the allegations, accusing Hadden of aggressively penetrating and groping their bodies and genitalia, forcing them to strip naked, groping their breasts, digitally penetrating them, and licking their vaginas.

The suit also claims Columbia knew about allegations against Hadden, received numerous complaints of serious misconduct, and kept the complaints secret to avoid negative publicity. The lawsuit is still ongoing. Hadden denies all the allegations against him, except the ones he pleaded guilty to.

CNN sent detailed questions to Columbia, including why Dr. Hadden was allowed to return to work after his initial arrest, but the university only responded that the allegations against Hadden were abhorrent and they deeply apologize to those whose trust was violated. Yang fought in court for more than two years to keep her identity anonymous, which makes going public now even more remarkable.

BASH (on camera): Why do you want to do this now? What do you want to accomplish now?

YANG: My personal life and this growing public life, they're not separate. In this case, my experience with the sexual assault and then what happened, all that happened afterwards, is such a powerful and upsetting example of the truth that women are living with every day.

And I just happened to be able to have a platform to talk about it. I need to use that voice. I feel like it's something that's an obligation, but also a privilege and a gift that I get to share my story now, and also help other women.

The process of getting to this point is very hard, you know. I haven't slept in days. This is very hard to come out with, but I hope -- I have to believe that it's worth it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Dana Bash joins me now. Dana, this is really an unbelievable story, and the doctor is a person that we should be able to trust, especially a pregnant woman at her doctor.

BASH: Right. And it's when you're your most vulnerable for a woman. I can tell you that. She said, just like so many of the women in these situations, she trusted the doctor. He had a good reputation at a reputable practice backed by, she said, a name brand university.

LEMON: And what else is so incredible is that she's just one of 32 women, I believe, who accused this doctor. Can he be prosecuted by any of these women?

BASH: Another part of the story is that part of Hadden's plea deal is that the D.A. agreed not to prosecute him for any known offenses. Now, at the time, that was 18 women, as you mentioned. Now, that number is 32 who have accused Hadden of sexual abuse. Their attorney says that they want justice.