Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

President Trump's Handpicked A.G. with Cooked Tough Words on Him; William Barr Says President Trump Never Made Any Requests About Criminal Cases, Including Stone Sentencing; New York Times, Trump Administration Prosecutor Focusing On Former CIA Director Brennan; State Of The Race, Dems Focusing On Nevada, South Carolina, Super Tuesday; Rush Limbaugh Doesn't Think America Will Elect A Man Who Loves To Kiss His Husband. 10-11p ET

Aired February 13, 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: As you heard, he said, he was about the people. Today, a shift in logic. It was always about the Senate and the presidency being of the same party. Listen. This man is all about the game. Be on the lookout for his next play. It's another reason this election matters so much.

Thank you for watching. CNN Tonight, D. Lemon now.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: A shift in logic, can you actually call that logic or a shift in political play?

CUOMO: You can call it that.

LEMON: Yes. I don't know if I would call it logic because it doesn't make any sense.

CUOMO: Well, it makes sense if you stay consistent. If he had said originally, here's the rule, it's fine. He's just playing to advantage.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: And he is a master at doing that. So, you've got to check his game and realize what's going to happen and realize what's at stake in the election because as long as he's in control of the Senate, who knows how much he'll get done that doesn't necessarily reflect the consensus of this country.

LEMON: I think you're right. It's power, as James Carville said, you got to, in order to have power you got to have power. Democrats have to stop winning arguments and they have to start winning elections. Because as we say, it's a cliche, elections have consequences.

And now you have Mitch McConnell who is empowered -- who is empowered by the president and then the president empowers him as well. So, you know, they kind of do it to each other. But that's what happens. Elections do have consequence whether you like it or not. Mitch McConnell has power, the president has power, the Republican

Party has power, the Republican Party is not checking this president, they're not checking Mitch McConnell. So, you know, you get the Supreme -- they get to put on the Supreme Court who they want to put on the Supreme Court if there is a vacancy. That's just what happens.

CUOMO: And courts all across the country.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: All across the country. You know, the Supreme Court --

LEMON: They just nominated three yesterday --

CUOMO: Yes.

LEMON: -- two for New York.

CUOMO: Yes.

LEMON: The southern district and then one at somewhere down south.

CUOMO: Right.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: The Supreme Court is obviously what it sounds like, right. It is the last word on the law in this country. But a lot of law is made in lower courts. They don't get to the Supreme Court on everything.

LEMON: Right.

CUOMO: And they are stocking courts all across the country. You know, I guess the new phrase for Carville would have to be, it's the power, stupid.

LEMON: Yes, and everyone -- you know, people are talking about this whole stop and frisk thing in New York. Well, that is at -- that's at the police level. But then once it goes to court if you're stop and frisk and what happens, who decides on those cases? The judges.

CUOMO: That's right.

LEMON: The judges that he's putting in place. So, And it's interesting because I've been doing some research on stop and frisk. And you know, I've been watching the conservative channels and listening to them. And now they're sort of all in and criticizing Bloomberg --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Talk about shifting.

LEMON: -- on stop and frisk. And if you, listen, I want to send you some of the clips that I've gotten from --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: They were all about it back in the day.

LEMON: All about it. It's my gosh, I can't believe --

CUOMO: All about it.

LEMON: -- that this judge -- this is an activist judge who was wrong and they declared it unconstitutional and it was taking down crime and the levels in New York City. How dare they and it's -- now they're like, well, you know, this Mayor Bloomberg has got some answers, has got to answer for stop and frisk.

Listen, it's the same thing you said about Mitch McConnell. You've got to be consistent in your logic if you want to call it logic. And they are definitely not consistent on this one.

CUOMO: No, but I've got to tell you something. Greg Meeks, the congressman I had on. You know Congressman Greg Meeks.

LEMON: I saw it. Yes, I know.

CUOMO: You know, obviously one of the big names in the Congressional Black Caucus. He was against Mike Bloomberg every time. Remember, they extended the New York City charter to let Bloomberg be mayor a third term. He only --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Twelve years.

CUOMO: And he was against him and stop and frisk was a big reason. So, yes. Meeks is going to have a consistency issue. We dealt with that tonight. But he can back whoever he wants.

Think about how desperate the calculus must be for Democrats if you're going to be for someone, you are against three times and not because of the color of his tie, about an issue that mattered to your constituents lets you know the level of desperation going on in that party.

LEMON: That's going to be a big topic to come because African- Americans are struggling with this whole stop and frisk thing. But at the end of the day, this is just, again, my unscientific survey of what people are willing to forgive or at least give someone a chance about because the number one thing to them is to beat this president and they think that maybe Michael Bloomberg might be the one. But we shall see. We shall see.

CUOMO: You know, I had a great caller, a fan of yours by the way, on my radio show.

LEMON: Shocking.

CUOMO: And she put -- you put it perfectly. You have a ton of fans. I never understand it. But you have a lot of them. She said, you know, stop talking about the African-American voters if

it's a monolith, but do know this. We do want to beat Donald Trump so much so that we will pick whatever candidate it is who will be the least disappointing to us because this idea that we're happy with what we get is silly. It's who is going to be least disappointing because we want to beat Trump. That's an interesting standard as well.

LEMON: Yes, sure is. Wow. Surprised I have a fan. I thought you were the only one.

CUOMO: Yes, you had a lot of fans.

LEMON: I thought you are the only one.

CUOMO: You are the --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: I thought you and your mom were the only two. Thank you.

CUOMO: My mom does like you and my niece who believes she looks like you.

LEMON: And your daughter. Thank you, sir. I'll see you next time.

CUOMO: My wife, too.

LEMON: Thank you.

CUOMO: Contagion. I'll see you later.

LEMON: See you.

[22:05:00]

This is CNN Tonight. I'm Don lemon.

Listen, we have a lot to talk about. Let's talk about the president's attorney general, because that's a big news today.

His loyal defender going public, very public, going on TV to say president's own tweets make it impossible for him to do his job. Bill Barr, wow. Saying that he won't be bullied by anyone, not even his boss. This is what he tells ABC News.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: To have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here about cases pending in the department, and about judges before whom we have cases make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we're doing our work with integrity.

PIERRE THOMAS, CHIEF JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, ABC NEWS: Mr. Barr, the president does not like to be told what to do. He may not like what you're saying. Are you prepared for those ramifications?

BARR: Of course. As I said during my confirmation, I came in to serve as attorney general. I am responsible for everything that happens in the department. But the thing I have most responsibility for are the issues that are brought to me for decision.

And I will make those decisions based on what I think is the right thing to do, and I'm not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody. And I said whether it's Congress, newspaper, editorial boards, or the president. I'm going to do what I think is right.

And, you know, the -- I think the, the -- I cannot do my job here at the department with constant background commentary that undercuts me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Strong stuff, right? He won't be bullied by the president. Sounds tough. Sounds independent. Sounds too good to be true because it is too good to be true.

OK, so, listen -- no one is buying this by the way. I just said the quiet part out loud. Nobody is buying this.

Two ways to look at this. On the one hand, a public rebuke by a sitting cabinet member, the attorney general of the United States, and sure, you could call it that, right? You could call it that if you believe that Bill Barr cherishes his independence from this president. The president who hand picked him for this role, that he runs the DOJ with integrity against all evidence to the contrary.

There's the latest example of the weaponization of the Justice Department. the New York Times is reporting that John Durham -- John Durham is a prosecutor assigned by William Barr to look at the origins of the Russia investigation or as the president said, oranges, of the Russia investigation.

It appears to be, he appears to be hunting for reasons to excuse or to accuse, excuse me, the Obama administration intel officials of hiding evidence, OK.

The FBI, the NSA, have both told Durham that he is wrong, and the Justice Department's own inspector general found the FBI properly opened its investigation.

And let's remember. Bill Barr did everything that he could to get out in front of the Mueller report, to frame it in a way that would make the president happy, putting out a letter with his own conclusions weeks before the report was released to the public.

A transparent attempt to distract from Mueller's actual conclusions. And over the objection of Mueller himself.

So, remember he wrote that Barr's letter did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions. But, sure, you can call it a rebuke or a setup, an attempt to take the pressure off because the president has been saying the quiet part out loud, like I just did.

Mr. President. I'm already doing what you want. Don't put it in writing. Don't tweet about it. And the tell is that the president is not bothered at all by it, not bothered at all.

That's what the press secretary, who has never held a press briefing, Stephanie Grisham says, not bothered by his attorney general publicly complaining about his tweeting. Do you really believe that? And saying that he won't be bullied by the president. Come on, you all.

But look at what this president says. What he does. To absolutely everyone who criticizes him, everyone, everyone who crosses him in any way.

[22:10:00]

Well, you can ask Jeff Sessions who was hounded out of the same job for recusing himself for the Russia -- from the Russia investigation.

But you don't have to go back even that far. There is the case, the recent case of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the Purple Heart recipient, when he crossed the president when he took an oath to tell the truth and then did exactly that in the impeachment investigation.

The president had him fired from his White House job and unceremoniously escorted off the grounds along with his twin brother who had nothing to do with impeachment. Didn't even testify. And the president is still not over it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Vindman was the guy that when we took him out of the building, the building applauded. Many of the people in the building started applauding.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: While a senior NSC official backs up the president's claims, another source tells CNN staffers were -- that CNN -- that staffers were upset when Vindman was escorted out. And then there's a former White House chief of staff John Kelly.

The Atlantic magazine is reporting that he defended Vindman, saying at an event that, quote, "that he did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave. He went and told his boss what he just heard," and then going on to say, "we teach them, don't follow an illegal order. And if you're ever given one, you'll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss."

So, you could ask. Where was all this truth telling when he was working in the White House? Where was it? But this president is not exactly unbothered by what Kelly says, and here's what he tweeted. Yes, of course, tweeting. "When I terminated John Kelly, which I couldn't do fast enough, he knew full well that he was way over his head, being chief of staff just wasn't for him. He came in with a bang, went out with a whimper. But like so many X's, he misses the action and can't keep his mouth shut."

Not exactly unbothered. And how about the president's reaction to the former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a genuine billionaire, a real billionaire, who is campaigning for the Democratic nomination and apparently getting inside the president's head.

So, que the tweet. Complete with insults about his short stature and his energy level. Like I said, all you have to do is look at what this president says and what he does to anyone who criticizes him, anyone who crosses him. Yet the White House claims that the president is not bothered at all by what Bill Barr says.

OK. You could call it a rebuke. Or you could call it a set up. You decide. Don't falling for the okeydokey. The president using the Justice Department as a weapon to get what he wants. But is there rebellion in the ranks? Is there rebellion in the ranks?

Jeffrey Toobin, Catherine Rampell, Garrett Graff, don't answer that because we're going to do it, next.

[22:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So, the Attorney General William Barr, Bill Barr sending a very public message to President Trump saying his tweets and public statements about Justice Department investigations are making it impossible for him to do his job.

There is a lot to talk about. CNN's chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is here. Jeffrey has anything. He never says what's on his mind, political commentator Catherine Rampell, she never does either, and contributor Garrett Graff. That was obviously sarcasm because you guys are always very candid and I appreciate your expertise on this. Good evening to everyone.

Jeffrey, I want to start with you.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, sir.

LEMON: The attorney general saying the president's tweets make his job impossible. I don't know. Is he telling the president not to --

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: It's true. I mean, that is true.

LEMON: But is he saying don't say the quiet part out loud? What's --

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: No. I think we got to -- I think we got to see what happens next. But, you know, I will give the attorney general a measure of credit because he did say to the president, stop doing this.

Now, the press secretary who never talks to the press came out with a statement a couple of hours later saying the president is free to speak his mind as if he were the, you know, still the host of "The Apprentice" as if he had no authority in this area. And basically said he's going to continue doing this.

So, we may soon know whether today was just a performance or whether the president actually stops interfering in the criminal prosecution aspect of the Justice Department.

LEMON: But anyone who has done anything like what William Barr did usually ends up losing their position. Right?

TOOBIN: That's right.

LEMON: OK. So, if he loses --

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: Well, and he hasn't. But you know what, let's see.

LEMON: OK.

TOOBIN: I mean, the president hasn't spoken yet. We've only had this, you know, ridiculous statement from the press secretary. Let's, let's see what he says when he's asked about the president -- the attorney general's statement.

(CROSSTALK)

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well --

GARRETT GRAFF, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The first part of that statement from the White House was the president is not troubled by Bill Barr's comment. You saw earlier that John Kelly tweet which makes clear what happens when the president --

LEMON: Exactly.

GRAFF: -- actually feels like he is actually being criticized. And so, I think that we can interpret the total lack of any outrage from the White House so far about the Bill Barr quote as them saying, this wasn't a real piece of criticism.

RAMPELL: I would also add that if Barr actually feels that his job has been made impossible, there is a way he could respond to that. If his job is so impossible, if it's so inhospitable, he could quit. Right?

LEMON: Yes.

RAMPELL: If he thinks that Trump is making the DOJ appear to be politicized when it's not really politicized, of course, --

LEMON: Yes.

RAMPELL: -- Barr could just say, I'm not going to be part of this.

[22:20:01]

LEMON: I want to read this --

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: If I could say one thing about the interview which in many respects the key question was not asked, which is, OK, if the president didn't tell you to review the sentencing recommendations for Roger Stone, why did you do it? Why, out of all the thousands of sentences that are handed down in America's federal courts, why is this one the one that got the attorney general's attention?

LEMON: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

RAMPELL: Like a four-page filing. Yes.

LEMON: This is another explanation from the Washington Post, and it's a long quote. So here we go.

It says, behind that public fight, according to people familiar with the discussions, is a deeper tension between Trump and Barr's Justice Department over the lack of criminal charges over the former FBI director James Comey and those close to him. The tension was worse than in the past month. These people said, and came to a head Monday.

And then -- and then here there's more where he says, Justice Department Inspectors General Michael Horowitz referred Comey's handling of the memos to prosecutors for a possible criminal prosecution.

But lawyers quickly determined it was not a close call and did not seek to build a case. That sent Trump into a rage, according to people briefed on his comments. He complained so loudly and swore so frequently in the Oval Office some of his aides discussed it for days, these people said.

Trump repeatedly said that Comey deserved to be charged according to their account. Can you - expletive - believe they didn't charge him? Trump said on the night of the decision, those people said.

So that goes back to Trump's enemies list. Do you think -- do you think he -- the DOJ --

TOOBIN: Well, I mean, look, you can have grievances with James Comey. The idea he committed a crime is absurd. The person in a really perilous condition right now is the CNN contributor Andrew McCabe -- Andrew McCabe who is under investigation from the U.S. attorney's office right now and, you know, has had his case dangling out there.

The president obviously wants Andy McCabe prosecuted and it's just grotesque that you have the President of the United States behaving this way with the power of prosecution --

(CROSSTALK) LEMON: But what he's saying is --

TOOBIN: exercise in this way.

LEMON: I mean, you brought in Andy McCabe. But what he's saying is if Flynn and Stone are going to go to jail or be in jail, shouldn't Comey and as you say McCabe. That's how he feels.

TOOBIN: But they did different things. I mean, there's just -- you know, the facts are not -- the facts are not identical. So, I mean, just because he likes the two who are prosecuted and doesn't like the people who weren't prosecuted, that's not a reason.

LEMON: OK, but that's exactly why.

GRAFF: That's exactly Donald Trump's --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: That's -- you're making a point.

GRAFF: -- I think the danger of what he is trying to do to the Justice Department. He doesn't understand why he can't direct which people should be heading to jail and which shouldn't.

RAMPELL: Yes. I mean, there's this old authoritarian line about from my friends everything for my enemies the law. Right? And for Trump it's for my friends everything -- for my enemies whatever I conceive of all the law and all these imaginary crimes to be.

LEMON: How much of this is about Barr facing rebellion within the ranks and he is trying to rescue his reputation, Garrett?

GRAFF: A lot. I mean he -- remember, this is a department, 115,000 employees. The vast majority of which are career public servants. I mean, less than about one-tenth of 1 percent are political appointees. About 120, 150 political appointees in the department. And he just has witnessed this week the second most infamous rebellion in modern Justice Department history. And --

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: You're talking about the four prosecutors --

GRAFF: The four prosecutors leaving the Roger Stone case.

LEMON: One of them resigning outright.

GRAFF: One of them resigning outright. I mean, that's not the type of thing that you see career prosecutors doing.

LEMON: Yes.

GRAFF: And so, I think the lack of response that the department has seen from Capitol Hill, from others in the administration, the lack of outrage, you know, I would not be surprised if Barr is sitting there wondering if he is going to face a much larger set of resignations in the weeks ahead.

LEMON: Well, the spin is when you're talking about the four prosecutors, I think I heard them say, these were Mueller prosecutors.

TOOBIN: Only one was.

LEMON: I said the spin. I did, you know, caveat. Everybody, stay with me.

Is the attorney general telling the truth about whether he has been talking to the White House? That's next.

[22:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: When Bill Barr was asked whether anyone at the White House ever suggested that he open an investigation of anyone he had a patented Bill Barr very careful answer, the kind of careful answer that we have heard from him before.

Jeffrey Toobin is back, Catherine Rampell as well, and Garrett Graff.

OK. Let's play a little bit more of this ABC interview with Barr.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS: Just to be clear here, did you talk to the president at all about your decision regarding the recommendations?

BARR: The recommendations on this case? Never.

THOMAS: Anybody from the White House call you to try to influence you?

BARR: No. Nope. So, I have not discussed the Roger Stone case at the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, Jeffrey, he says he didn't discuss the recommendations with the president. He never discussed Stone at the White House. He keeps it specific. We've heard him parse. We've seen him parse like this before.

TOOBIN: Well, and also why do you need to talk to the president when he's tweeting about it? I mean, Twitter is available to all of us, including the attorney general. And so, the president being so deeply exercised about the sentence recommendation was not news to anyone at the Justice Department. So, the absence of an actual phone call seems sort of irrelevant.

LEMON: Yes. I just want to remind our viewers, and this will be for you, Garrett, the moment when Barr seemed stumped by Senator Kamala Harris's question. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA): Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone, yes or no, please, sir?

[22:30:06]

BARR: The president or anybody else.

HARRIS: It seems you'd remember something like that you will be able to tell us?

BARR: Yes, but I'm trying to grapple with the word suggest. I mean, there have been discussions of matters out there that they have not asked me to open an investigation, but --

HARRIS: Perhaps they suggested?

BARR: I don't know. I wouldn't say suggest.

HARRIS: Hinted?

BARR: I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Prime example of him being careful and evasive.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Those words are so difficult to understand, suggested. What does that mean? It's like English.

GARRETT GRAFT, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: And I think this sort of -- this gets at part of, you know, what Barr is saying when he's saying Trump is making it impossible for me to do my job, which is there's no mystery about what Bill Barr's role is at the Justice Department on a day-to- day basis.

You know, he knows as a good soldier, you know, he has his theory of presidential power, the unitary executive that he is out there to defend Donald Trump. And so he doesn't need Donald Trump sort of giving him sort of minute-by-minute instructions, because he understands the broad sweep of what he's supposed to be doing. He knows what got Jeff Sessions into trouble. And he's lasted much longer and been much popular than Jeff Sessions was.

LEMON: Catherine, more from ABC's interview. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're not a person that responds a lot to criticism, but I am wondering in this version of the job -- you in the job, and when you hear people on Capitol Hill saying, Barr is acting more like the personal attorney of the president rather than the chief law enforcement officer. How irritated does that make you and what do you say to those people? BARR: Well, you know, this goes back to the fact we are in a very

polarized situation, and so in that kind of situation I expect a lot of low blows, and there are a lot of low blows. But I don't respond to that, as you say. But I do think that in the current situation, as I've said, you know, the fact that the tweets are out there and correspond to things we're doing at the department sort of give grist to the mill. And that's why I think it's time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Listen, Catherine, the reason people think that he's acting like the president's personal attorney is not because of polarization. It's because his actions have benefited this president time and time and time and time again.

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Absolutely. Look, I think, there is very little doubt about whether the very misleading statement, the summary that he put out of the Mueller report before releasing the Mueller report, however many days or weeks later -- I forget how long it was -- that that was not in the nation's interest. That was in President Trump's narrow personal interest.

The kinds of things like this slapdash revised sentencing request for a very close Trump ally. That is not in the nation's interest. That is in Trump's very narrow personal interest. If people are seeing parallels between what Barr has been doing and what a personal attorney would do, I think it's evident in that exact interview where -- if you remember Michael Cohen when he testified before Congress, said something to the effect of Trump doesn't need to tell you directly what he wants from you. He speaks in a sort of code and you can figure it out. You can deduce it. And then you can execute whatever it is that he wants.

That's very clearly what Barr himself has been doing, whether or not he gets an official order or an ask or a suggestion or an implication or whatever it is that Kamala Harris had come up with, whatever synonym there is from the president himself. It's very easy to read between the lines or to read literally the tweets.

TOOBIN: And another thing he's done which is start this John Durham investigation of the -- of the investigation of Russia, where he is basically sending Durham to find some dirt on his enemies at the CIA. You know, this is a president who hates John Brennan, who was the head of the CIA under Barack Obama. He is the target of this Brennan -- of this Durham investigation. And today in The New York Times, the story that just broke this afternoon, they are talking about how Durham is determined to find some sort of misconduct.

LEMON: But the agencies are telling him that he has -- his interpretation of what's happening, he doesn't understand the process. They're saying there's nothing to see here. The inspector general is saying that. The Department of Justice --

TOOBIN: And Durham, Durham is a great example of someone who had a good reputation, who has been destroyed by his association with Donald Trump.

LEMON: Jeffrey, I want to get this in. because there's another way that Barr is twisting the rule of law. And it's not really getting that much attention. It is a case that involves the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where a conservative judge is slamming Barr for not abiding by the court's ruling. Explain exactly why this is such a big deal.

[22:35:10]

TOOBIN: This is Frank Easterbrook, who is a Reagan appointee, very respected conservative judge. And basically they decided an immigration rights case. And they said, we want this case applied as our decisions usually apply. And the 7th circuit is based in Chicago, it covers the middle part of the country. And Barr and the Justice Department said, we are not going to abide by this decision within your jurisdiction.

And Easterbrook, who as I say is a well-known conservative federal society member, he has -- he went berserk. He said, how can you not honor a binding precedent in our circuit? And I think, you know, while this case deals with a fairly narrow matter within the Chicago appeals court, the message that the Justice Department is not going to abide by a binding legal ruling is a chilling one and something people should keep an eye on.

LEMON: Are we going to be able to go back after this is all over whether it's a year from now, or five years from now? Will we be able to go back to norms when it comes to the rule of law and with what's happening with our courts and the separation of powers between our institutions?

TOOBIN: As usual, Don, you ask a great question. And as usual, I don't know.

LEMON: Well, you wrote the book on the Supreme Court and others. I just thought you might know.

TOOBIN: I don't know.

LEMON: I thought Jeffrey, you knew everything, but I was wrong.

TOOBIN: No, no, no.

LEMON: Thank you all. I appreciate it.

The former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is rising in the polls. Is it because of his policies or are there a couple billion other reasons?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Now, to the state of the race. Nevada and South Carolina both next in Super Tuesday and with race heating up. My next guest is defeating President Trump will be difficult, but Democrats can pull it off if they pick the right nominee. Thomas Freidman writes for the New York Times opinions section. And he writes, he says this is no ordinary time, no ordinary Republican party, no ordinary incumbent and it will require an extraordinary Democratic machine that triumph if Democrats can choose a candidate who can hold the core of Democratic base and also appeal to Independence, moderate Republicans, and suburban women in the key swing states, they can absolutely defeat Trump.

So, joining me now is Thomas Friedman, he is the author of Thank you for being late. I thank you for being on time for this interview and doing this. I appreciate you joining us. Listen, so, the rest of the Democratic field has been slogging it out, campaigning hard for over a year, why do you think Michael Bloomberg is the guy appears to be at this stage?

THOMAS FRIEDMAN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COLUMNIST, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think it for a couple reasons. One is again, let's go back to the 2018 moment where we had these incredible House races where Democrats running in basically pro Trump districts were able to win because they were able to appeal to moderate Republicans, independents and suburban women. Giving the Democrats the House. That told us there is a formula there. This is a center left, center right country still I think in the end.

And if we can appeal to that constituency and you can hold the core Democratic base, Trump is enormously beatable. Therefore, who can do that? And I think a lot of people are drawing the conclusion, you look at New Hampshire, maybe it's Buttigieg, maybe its Amy Klobuchar, and a lot of other people are saying, what about this guy Mike Bloomberg who has been out there? I want to listen to his message a little more. See where he's coming from. Maybe he's the guy who has not only the experience, can appeal to that centrist block, but also has the resources to take Trump down.

LEMON: You're making the case for, you said for moderate, you're making the case for Bloomberg. But as we have seen over the last couple days it has been pointed out, I mean, it's nothing new. It's just being brought to the surface where the masses can see about it, those of us who live in New York, he's got a lot of baggage especially when it comes to stop-and-frisk and some of the other things that are coming out about red lining right now. So, what do you say to that? How does he overcome that and can he?

FRIEDMAN: Well, I don't say anything. It's for him to answer. And all I can point out is he's apologized. Obviously late in the day. And obviously in a political context, but he has apologized. But what's striking to me, Don, is that his African-American support has not collapsed at all. I think a lot of African-Americans understand even if they're embittered by this, I certainly understood -- I would understand why they would be. If stop-and-frisk were about middle aged Jewish men, you know, I'd be pretty pissed myself.

But I think they're also understanding that at the core of it, Bloomberg was trying to solve a problem, the problem of gun violence, gun violence in particular in their neighborhoods. And I think people can weigh that and can weigh that against other things that he's done and aspires to do, particularly regarding building the wealth and opportunity for people from black and brown communities and other constituencies.

LEMON: So you think that African Americans at some point will understand that? Will they, I don't know, just for lack of a better term, get over it or --

FRIEDMAN: You have to tell me. I would like to turn the tables if I could. What do you sense is going on in the African-American community around this issue? Because clearly he's --

LEMON: Well, I can tell you, I think at the very -- listen, this is in simpler terms. It doesn't mean that aren't -- that he will be able to overcome that with all African-Americans because he won't. But at the core of the issue and the simplest explanation is that people see him as the one who can beat Trump. He's got the resources.

That's why I chimed in when you said resources. He has the resources, he doesn't need anybody's money. He doesn't have to go out to raise money. He knows this president, he's from the same city and he can hit him hard. And I think the main core issue is about beating Trump and they think that's him. So, that's as simple as that.

[22:45:05]

But let's move on. Because I want to talk about Bloomberg. He has a long history of using his massive fortune to advance his causes, his passion about, but then he often puts them at odds -- that puts him in odds with Democrats. This is according to the New York Times, since 2012 he's donated more than $17 million to Republicans. He's donated to close allies of Mitch McConnell's including Lindsey Graham and Thaad Cochran. And in 2016, he donated $11 million to help re-elect Republican Senator Pat Toomey who cast an important vote to acquit Trump in the impeachment trial. So, listen, a lot of Democrats are not going to like it. Would they be wrong?

FRIEDMAN: Yes. I think those are questions, again, he's going to have to answer. I'm not a spokesman for him or his campaign. I'm someone sitting out here trying to draw the same calculation that you are free to with African Americans. Who can beat Trump? Because for me, Don, this moment is not about Medicare for all. It's about -- it isn't about any specific issue. It's about one thing. It's about the core institutions and values and norms that have sustained this country since its founding. I think they are up for grabs right now.

We have a president -- I've said this so many times but I have to repeat it. We have a president without shame. That is so powerful. He is backed with a party without spine. That is so disgusting. They're amplified by network utterly without integrity. That trifecta is an incredible machine.

LEMON: Listen, I got to -- I have to run, but can you answer this just quickly for me? Because you're convinced that Bloomberg is the right nominee obviously from what you're saying and what you wrote.

FRIEDMAN: Yes.

LEMON: And you said, Bernie Sanders is wrong. Why would it be a mistake to nominate Bernie Sanders and shouldn't the voters decide that?

FRIEDMAN: Well, I'm just an opinion columnist. So, I get one vote through my column. And the voters will have to decide. I think we're going to have some kind of brokered convention. That's what I think we're heading for. I think this election in general, Don, is going to be the most unusual bizarre frightening destabilizing election of our lifetime.

LEMON: All right.

FRIEDMAN: But at the end of the day, this is the center right, center left country. I believe that. And it's going to take a Democrat who can appeal to the center left and center right to win this one that has the resources smarts and rattlesnake toughness to take on Donald Trump.

LEMON: Thomas Freidman, thank you. The book is, Thank you for being late. I appreciate it.

FRIEDMAN: Thanks, Don. Great to be with you.

LEMON: Rush Limbaugh launching homophobic comments at Pete Buttigieg fresh off his Medal of Freedom award at the state of the union.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:00]

LEMON: Well, somebody was bound to stay it at some point. And it's no surprise it is coming from Rush Limbaugh. Putting his homophobic ugliness on display, saying Americans won't elect Pete Buttigieg because he's gay and loves to kiss his husband. Here's part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: How is this 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband on stage, next to Mr. Man, Donald Trump? What's going to happen there? There may be some Democrats who think that's exactly what we need to do, Rush, get a gay guy, kissing his husband on stage, and ram it down Trump's throat and beat him in this general election. Really? Having fun envisioning that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Let's discuss now. CNN political commentator, Ana Navarro is here. Hi.

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hi.

LEMON: So, the whole Mr. Man, like he said. OK, that's weird. But he's implying that Buttigieg wouldn't look masculine next to a tough guy, what he thinks of as Mr. Man. Bone spurs, does that say anything to you, ring a bell?

NAVARRO: I mean, I don't know exactly what makes Donald Trump look masculine. If you want to talk about stereotypes, like Rush is talking about, I mean, what's so masculine about a guy who gets scared by a birdie on his desk or a guy who made up bone spurs. So as to be able to avoid the draft or, you know, a guy who likes to grab women by the pussy, is that masculine enough, or a guy who likes to pal around with Jeff Epstein, is that masculine enough? So, you know, give me a damn break. I don't know what the -- you know, that certainly does not qualify as the definition of masculinity for me.

Look, I think, this is an important issue and I think it's one where every time we see racism and we see homophobia, we need to denounce it, because there are LGBTQ children getting bullied, being harassed, committing suicide at a very high rates today all over America. And that's why people need to continue to get outrage. The reason we're talking about is because he just got a medal of freedom. Last week.

LEMON: Right.

NAVARRO: And so it makes it that much more difficult to swallow and not react to. And frankly, you know, I was thinking about this today and I thought, you know, we're going to be squeamish about -- so people like rush want to be squeamish about two gay men, married, in a loving, committed, supportive relationship, who are frankly the definition of #relationship goals hugging and kissing each other on the stage.

LEMON: Are you going with the infidelity like --

NAVARRO: But you know what, if you're bothered by same sex displays of affection, why don't you go look at the Melania Trump pictures, you know, why don't you go look at that? You want to go look at, you know, if a man kissing a man bothers you, how about woman with woman? Naked. Not doing it for love, but doing it for money. So, what I'm calling out is not the pictures that she did as a model.

LEMON: But she's a model.

NAVARRO: Yes, but she -- you can't clutch your pearls, at two men doing it for love when you don't clutch your pearls about a woman doing it naked for money, that's my point, the hypocrisy.

[22:55:00]

The sheer hypocrisy of it. You cannot be squeamish about a committed, loving couple showing affection to each other when you are supporting a man who cheated on his pregnant wife.

LEMON: I do have to say, listen, when it comes to the first lady, she was a model and it was a while ago.

NAVARRO: Yes. And I have absolutely no issue with it. What I'm saying is, people can't have an issue with a display of affection by a committed, gay couple if they don't have an issue when somebody like Melania Trump did it for money. Do you not see the absolute hypocrisy of that?

LEMON: Interesting. OK, yeah, well, thank you, thank you, I'm out of time. That's why I have to go. NAVARRO: Don't thump your bible at me and don't try to throw whistle

-- you know, dog whistles about gays if you are selecting what you're going to be outraged at. That's my point. I don't care if she poses with, you know, hats on her head. I don't care what she does. Wonderful, it was her profession.

LEMON: Anna Navarro, speaking her mind as usual. Thank you I appreciate it.

The Attorney General says the president's tweets make it impossible to do his job, but is there more behind the criticism?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)