Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

President Trump Picks A Neophyte DNI; Trump Pardons Controversial Figures; Past Views Haunt Mike Bloomberg; Bloomberg Faces Scrutiny For Stop-And-Frisk Policy As He Rises In National Polls; Roger Stone To Be Sentenced Tomorrow; Sanders Tops Democratic Field In New CNN Poll Of Polls; Lawyers For WikiLeaks' Assange Says He Was Offered A U.S. Pardon If He Would Deny Russian Hacking. Aired 10- 11p ET

Aired February 19, 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: Thank you very much for watching. It is time now for "CNN TONIGHT" with D. Lemon.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Welcome back.

You call it fealty, which you're -- you're right, I'm sure. I'll -- I just call it hypocrisy. It's a Party of -- of hypocrites now. And I know that sounds harsh. And people are going to say that I'm being partisan. But I'm not. It's the truth.

It's the Party -- you are exactly right when you say Donald Trump has not changed. What changed are the lawmakers, are the people who somehow came over to his side because they want power or because of fear. They're afraid of him.

The people who remain the same and are not afraid of this President are called -- they're called, what is it? Trump Derangement -- they have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

CUOMO: Never-Trumpers.

LEMON: Never-Trumpers. It's like, no, Donald Trump has not changed. You changed. So, what does that say about you that you changed and Donald Trump didn't when you hated him before?

CUOMO: Yes, that's the point I'm trying to get to, which is, you know, the idea of he's normalizing corruption.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: That assumes that he's trying to put one over on you.

LEMON: Right.

CUOMO: He isn't.

LEMON: He never put one over on you.

CUOMO: He sees these things --

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: -- as normal. Corruption is normal. He's always done it this way that's why he continues to. Blagojevich didn't do anything wrong, Don, because he didn't get caught doing anything wrong.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: What's the big deal?

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: That in his mind is legit. I promise you; he's not selling anybody any jive about what he really thinks what he thinks something else. This is his truth.

LEMON: Well, this is in aside just about Rob Blagojevich. And I was in Chicago when Rob Blagojevich was governor and when Barack Obama was coming to prominence. And I just come to CNN when he tried to sell that seat.

I have to say that Rob Blagojevich did something bad but there are plenty of people even on the Democratic side who believe that what happened to Rob Blagojevich was he should have gone to jail. But that his sentence was harsh.

Dick Durbin the senior senator and from Illinois thinks the same thing as well. I'm not here I can't say I'm an anchor. So, I can't say whether, you know, it's true or not. But there -- plenty of people on the Democratic side I don't know if they thought that his sentence should be commuted. But they thought that his sentence was harsh. So that's just as an aside.

CUOMO: Two things.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: Two things. One, he fought. OK?

LEMON: Right.

CUOMO: When you fight the penalties go up. They had to tried him twice. And people may not the like the rule. Dershowitz was arguing that a lot with Roger Stone. If you fight, they throw the book at you.

Number two. Let's say his sentence was too harsh. Here's the problem that still remains with this move. Do you know how many people are suffering under too harsh punishments right now? This is the guy they pick and a congressman tonight from the GOP argument --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: You will find no argument with me there.

CUOMO: This is the president's way of getting -- LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: -- improper sentencing on the agenda with high-profile pardons of white political class swamp guys from D.C. and elsewhere.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: That's how you bring awareness to what's going on with drug sentences all over the country and all other kinds of garden variety felonies and misdemeanors? Give me a break.

LEMON: You know that's B.S. That's all B.S. I'm just trying to make the point about whether the sentence is too harsh or not --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: There are a lot of harsh sentences. Why start with him?

LEMON: Yes. Well, you make - you have a good point. It's good to see you.

CUOMO: Good to see you.

LEMON: I've got to run. I got a lot to cover. Thank you, Chris.

This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

And if there's anybody who still not absolutely clear on how this administration operates, it's pretty simple. As I just said it's pretty simple with the other thing that people the president didn't change. Donald Trump didn't change. You changed. That's what Chris said. That's what I said. It's really simple.

If you cross him, this president, your days are numbered. Right? If you are on team Trump, if you're team Trump or if you could be useful to him in any way, the sky is the limit. OK?

So, then, there is Richard Grenell, he is the U.S. Ambassador to Germany. The president confirming tonight that he is naming Grenell acting director of national intelligence. Well, you think it might be a problem that Grenell has zero relevant experience like serving in the intel community or the Senate or senior levels at military.

You think that it might be a problem that some Republicans are so outraged the job that he's done -- the job that he's done as ambassador by his really undiplomatic demeanor, according to them.

A source says that there's no way that he could be confirmed to permanent DNI position. That's up for them to decide. The president has given that position now. So, let's see. That's the reason probably he's acting. Acting to see how he -- how this goes.

But you have to wonder just how hard the GOP would actually push back against a president that they just acquitted in the impeachment trial. Rick Grenell is a Trump loyalist. That is no surprise - who the president has said was his favorite ambassador. Trump likes his TV appearances and he like his tweets. Former senior

White House official says "in the wake of his impeachment victory he is looking for a political who will have his back." That's a quote.

And remember this is the director of national intelligence who is supposed to help prevent a catastrophic attack on this country. But we all know how this president feels about his own intelligence community. The outgoing acting DNI Joseph Maguire is still in the dog house for saying that the whistleblower acted in good faith and followed the law.

But now, the president has loyalist at the top of the intelligence community, the State Department and the DOJ. That's a big deal. Though he is telling Bill Barr what to do in spite of Barr is not for -- not very convincing threats to quit.

We're going to have more on all of that in just a moment. So, stay tune

[22:05:00]

But that brings me to reports tonight that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was offered a pardon if he said Russia was not involved in the DNC e-mail leak. That is according to the lawyer for Assange who told a court in London that a former GOP Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, who was known as Putin's favorite congressman, visited Assange back in 2017 at the Ecuadorian embassy in London on the instructions of the president to offer a pardon if Assange would play ball.

And the denials are rolling in tonight. Rohrabacher putting out a statement saying, "At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange. Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange."

Stephanie Grisham, the press secretary who's never held a press briefing by the way, saying in a statement, "The president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he is an ex-congressman. He's never spoken to him on this subject. Or almost any subject. It is a complete fabrication and a total lie. This is a probably a never, another never-ending hoax and total lie from the DNC." That's from Stephanie Grisham.

Yes, this is the old blame the Democrats strategy. Except the president met with Rohrabacher in the Oval Office in 2017 and he endorsed Rohrabacher for reelection in 2018.

That is the president seems to be on a campaign not just to fill his administration with loyalists but to reward high-profile friends of friends and people whose cases he has seen on television. The president tweeting today that Rob Blagojevich didn't sell Obama's Senate seat. OK. The audio says otherwise. You sure wanted to. Listen.

(BEGIN VOICE CLIP)

FMR. GOV. ROD BLAGOJEVICH (D), ILLINOIS: I've got this thing. And it's (muted) golden. And I'm not just giving it up for (muted) nothing. (END VOICE CLIP)

LEMON: OK. The president going on to try to hang Blagojevich's prosecution on his arch enemy and perceived arch enemy, his perceived arch enemy, I should say, James Comey. Even though here's the fact. The fact is Comey was in private practice at the time Blagojevich -- at that time. Blagojevich proving today that he knows how to stay on the president's good side with this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLAGOJEVICH: I'm a Trumpocrat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A Trumpocrat, that's right.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you going to vote for him?

BLAGOJEVICH: If I had the ability to vote I'm going to vote for him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: I'm sure he like that, meaning the president. The fact is that Rob Blagojevich was a poster boy for corruption.

Bernard Kerik was a corrupt former NYPD commissioner. Michael Milken was the face of insider trading. And all of them got clemency from this president. Like I said before, so much for his claims that he was a great corruption fighter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Ukraine has had a tremendous corruption problem.

He wants to end corruption in Ukraine.

He is very, very strongly looking into all sorts of corruption.

As you know Ukraine is known as a very corrupt country. One of the most in the world. Shockingly.

We're investigating corruption and I actually heard Gregg Jarrett and numerous people the other day say I have an obligation to do that.

We have to check corruption.

We will work together to root out corruption in Ukraine. I probably have a legal obligation, Mr. Attorney, to report corruption.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: And then there is the other side of the coin, the latest victim of this president's post impeachment victory purge of anybody who crossed him on Ukraine. Now it's the Pentagon's top policy official who warned against withholding military aid to Ukraine. The shake down that got the president impeached in the first place, well, resigning today. He said at the Pentagon's request.

The president tweeting always with that, the tweeting, right? His thanks to John Rood for his service to the country. But also sharing a story from Bloomberg News reporting that Rood, quote, "faced pressure to resign from some who lost confidence in his ability to carry out the Trump agenda."

Nothing says thank you for your service like pressuring someone to resign.

In the wake of this, there's a sentencing tomorrow of long-time dirty trickster and Trump crony Roger Stone who was found guilty of lying to Congress and threatening a potential witness.

Remember four prosecutors quit that case last week in protest over Barr's intervention, reducing the sentencing recommendation for the president's friend. Now it's all up to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. The president lashing out at her on Twitter.

There you go. There are the tweets.

But unlike his loyalists in high place he is powerless to control her. Now the question is, what will the judge do tomorrow?

[22:10:04]

It seems like all the president is looking for in a director of national intelligence at this time is someone who will have his back. But is putting an unqualified loyalist in the position put all of us at risk?

CNN's Jim Sciutto, the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, hey both weigh in, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: President Trump is telling a staunch loyalist as the acting director of national intelligence, announcing tonight that he is putting Richard Grenell, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany in the position. Grenell has no intelligence experience. One Trump adviser telling CNN, quote, "he's out of his league."

So, let's bring in now CNN Anchor and Chief National Correspondent, Jim Sciutto. Jim, you are sounding the warnings on this.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Listen.

LEMON: He's -- well, let's see. He's going to oversee 17 intelligence agencies.

[22:14:57]

SCIUTTO: Yes. We're a couple miles north of the site of the former World Trade Centers. This position was formed after 9/11 to prevent and coordinate -- prevent another 9/11. Coordinate among the intel agencies to share information so this doesn't happen again.

I'm going to read from the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Any individual nominated for appointment as DNI shall have extensive national security expertise. That's the qualifications. OK?

And let's look at the folks who have served in this post before. John Negroponte. He was former national security adviser. Mike McConnell. He was former director of national security of the NSA. Dennis Blair. He commanded all U.S. forces in the Pacific. David Gompert. He had been the principal deputy.

James Clapper is going to be on the segment shortly, he had served as director of two of those intelligence agencies. Mike Dempsey, 30 years in the CIA, Dan Coats and Joseph Maguire.

So that's the resume of the previous occupants of this post. You have someone as a Trump loyalist. The question is, do they -- does he have the knowledge experience to fill this role to protect the American homeland from threats to the homeland?

LEMON: Does he?

SCIUTTO: No. Based on, you know, the -- compare the resumes of the others. And it does not fit the law. The law was passed in 2004 which for people with experience to coordinate among the agencies and prevent attacks.

LEMON: So, OK. So, the question then is why? What is it -- why does he need -- it's not like the attorney general that would can have his back and protect him legally? How does this help him? We learned from a former White House official that he wanted someone that's political. But how does that help him?

SCIUTTO: Listen, the attacks Trump has made on the intel agents they're public. We don't -- they don't need to be revealed by, you know, private e-mails, et cetera. So, the president has attacked the intel agencies that he said that they're not loyal to him, that they are part of the deep state.

He's accused them of being, you know, he has compared them to Nazi Germany. You know, scum, et cetera. These are the president's words about his own intelligence agencies. There are not --you know, forget about the president. You know, as an American at home these are agencies that are, you know, that committed to and the people who work for them to rooting out threats to Americans at home and abroad.

So, the question is, is the president using these and appointing people to head these agencies to protect Americans or to protect himself?

LEMON: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Right?

LEMON: Yes. SCIUTTO: And compare the resumes of the folks who have occupied those posts before to Rick Grenell.

LEMON: And Joseph Maguire who was acting before, Rick Grenell is going to be acting again. He won't -- why won't he just put someone in there permanent?

SCIUTTO: Well, this is a Trump administration thing. Right? He has loads of acting folks who don't therefore, I mean, the Senate has a right and a role of approving presidential appointments to these positions. But the president's own chief of staff is an acting chief of staff.

He's not had -- so, senators elected by people at home watching tonight have not had a voice in deciding whether those folks are up to the role.

LEMON: All right. Stay with me, Jim, because I want to bring in now James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence. Director, I appreciate you joining us. When you saw this pick what went through your head?

JAMES CLAPPER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I think the first thing is that I feel badly for the intelligence community and the men and women in it. And notably my former staff, the office of the Director of National Intelligence because this constant turnover is not good for continuity and stability.

And of course, as Jim has just spoken about what the intelligence reform, intelligence prevention act says about what the qualifications are supposed to be for the incumbent of the position of director of national intelligence. And Ambassador Grenell doesn't comport with that either, and certainly, in either or whether the spirit of it.

So, it's a bad message. It appears to me that this was somewhat of a bargain of a convenience for the ambassador who from the reporting wanted out of Germany, wanted out of the position and want to come back to Washington. So, this is perhaps just a good interim assignment.

And while this does is in my view marginalize the position of director of national intelligence. And Jim very passionately and articulately described why that's not good and why the position is so important. And I think probably the law would allow this acting to serve another 210 days which won't quite get it up to the election in November.

[22:20:04]

And my view is what the president will prefer to do is avoid a confirmation hearing until after the election.

LEMON: This is what our reporting is, Director, that the president wants someone who is sufficiently loyal in that role. You say that this is going to have huge repercussions for the intel community in terms of speaking truth to power. Why do you say that? CLAPPER: Well, exactly that reason. If -- I think it's very unlikely

that this acting director is going to say anything that contravenes the world view of President Trump. That's not good over time when, you know, the actual intelligence, the substance of intelligence assessments are suppressed in favor of not irritating the president and not contravening his world view. And that is -- that's bad for the safety and security of the country.

LEMON: Yes. Jim, I want to ask about this. Because a source telling CNN that some Republicans are outraged with the job that Grenell has done as ambassador. Any chance that the president is going to get push back from GOP lawmakers?

SCIUTTO: Well, listen, maybe on longer term appointment. Right? But until that point as Director Clapper is saying, the president has the authority to appoint this person for 210 days and they will be directing 17 intelligence agencies in this country for that time period. The president has used this power for multiple positions.

I want to quote from a former senior intelligence official I spoke to tonight in reacting to this. They said the DNI is not an activist position. If it becomes one, the community can fracture as it was pre- 9/11.

The reason that point is important the DNI was appointed, created as a role because pre-9/11 the issue was that intel agencies were not communicating. Right? And sharing information to prevent an attack like 9/11. Right? That's an important role. It's not a small role in this environment.

We have many, you know, beyond terror threats Russia, China, et cetera, North Korea. You want someone in that role who can coordinate and has the respect of those agencies, and has experience analyzing that intelligence. If it's a political appointee without that experience, that makes us less safe. That's something that matters to everybody who is watching at home tonight.

LEMON: Director, what's your final word on this, please?

CLAPPER: Well, I think Jim has laid it out extremely well. This is not a position where you learn the ABCs of intelligence on the job. And there needs to be a full-time champion for integration and collaboration and coordination across the intelligence community which is not a natural act for the components of the intelligence community. I can attest for my six and a half years as DNI.

LEMON: Gentlemen, thank you. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Director.

Michael Bloomberg facing accusations of racism because of his support for stop and frisk. But tonight, the judge who ruled that policy was unconstitutional is speaking out. Saying that she doesn't think that he is racist. She is going to join me next.

[22:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: Bloomberg surging in national polls but he is also getting increase scrutiny on his record as mayor of New York City, especially on one of his signature policies which is stop and frisk.

So, joining me now is the former district court judge who in 2013 rules stop and frisk unconstitutional. And that's Judge Shira Scheindlin. Judge, thank you so much. I appreciate you joining us.

People in New York City can you just help us out. Because people in New York City know what stop and frisk is. But for those around the country who may not know what the policy is, can you please explain it and why it was so devastating to minorities in New York.

SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, FORMER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: Stop and frisk is actually permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court. A major decision called Terry versus Ohio. But you have to do it in a constitutional way.

And what happened here in New York that there was racial profiling. Instead of stopping people based on reasonable suspicion, that a crime is about to be committed or is being committed. They stop people because they were young, black males between, let's say, 18 and 25. And that's not a basis for a stop.

LEMON: And they were just stopping people randomly. Not because there was suspicion or there was a crime that --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHEINDLIN: That's exactly right, but it wasn't exactly random either because they were going into minority neighborhoods, they were targeting young black males. I wouldn't call that random.

LEMON: So, I want to be clear, because stop and frisk even though they say stop and frisk it lowered crime or whatever. It didn't lower crime. And correct me if I'm wrong. In fact, the number of stops plummeted from a peak of nearly 700,000 in 2011 to about 11,000 in 2018. The crime rate was essentially, has essentially stayed the same. Or has it dropped. What is it?

SCHEINDLIN: Both. I mean, that's the good news. When I issued my opinion in 2013 the fear according to the mayor was that city was going to blow up. Well, it didn't. The fact is, crime rates continue to drop or worse stayed steady, which showed to me retrospectively that that's not why crime dropped in the first place. There are a lot of reasons crime dropped and it wasn't because of targeting minority kids.

LEMON: Listen, he's getting hammered for this. He's been criticized a lot for this policy. He says -- and he has apologized only a few days though before he wanted to run for president. And his excuse, he is saying that he -- once he realized that it was a terrible policy and it was affecting minorities that he cut it 90 percent.

SCHEINDLIN: Well, that simply is not so. The reason that it began to drop dramatically was because of court opinions. Court rulings, in modestly, my rulings. But the fact is that's when it really began to drop. As the rulings came out you realize this thing was going to end. But when the final ruling came out, he vowed to appeal it and fight it because he said the city would blow up.

So, it's not -- it's not at all true that the reason it dropped 95 percent is because he realized that it wasn't a good thing. He's defended it as recently as 2015. You've seen the or you heard the tape that came out of his Aspen interview. So that's years later. And he was still defending it as the best crime fighting tactic.

[22:29:59]

LEMON: Let me read something. This is from an opinion piece that you have in the New York Times tonight. It was: I was the judge in stop and frisk, in the stop and frisk case. I don't think Bloomberg is racist. And you're right that you think that Bloomberg believed the program was helping to protect communities, you do say that, communities of color.

Writing quote, "the most I can say is that he had pure heart than an empty head. The stop-and-frisk program was very poorly executed. If he's the best person to head the Democratic ticket this fall then his fail stop-and-frisk policy should not prevent him from assuming the most important role. That most important role." Why do you think it's not -- it isn't disqualifying, stop-and-frisk for Michael Bloomberg?

SCHEINDLIN: Because first of all, I really do not think the man was racist. I actually think that he believed that he was protecting the victims. And the victims were disproportionately in minority communities.

So, I think as far I said, I think he had a good heart and empty head. I think, he meant well. He inherited this policy from the previous mayor. Who was Rudy Giuliani and his police commissioner Ray Kelly was completely committed to it.

And I think Commissioner Kelly convinced him that if you terrorize these kids they are quote, going to leave their guns at home. And he began to believe -- he became, you know, a true believer that he was going to reduce crime and protect victims. Who were disproportionately minority?

So, I don't think he's a racist and I put in that op-ed that you've mentioned, the good things the mayor did for minority communities. And there are a lot of them. If you really dealt into his record, he did good things for job opportunity, for education, for economic advancement.

So, I think -- I think the man isn't racist. I think he means well but he made one huge error. And I called it unforgivable. I think the error is unforgivable, but that doesn't mean he's disqualified. And I stick by what I said, that he's the best man to defeat the current president, I'm for it.

LEMON: Speaking of the current president, he also defended the policy during the 2016 election. And now, he's trying to back away from it, so he doesn't have any higher ground in this issue, but I want to --

SCHEINDLIN: Oh, I remember the first presidential debate, he said a very bad judge stopped this thing. And it's a wonderful thing.

LEMON: He was talking about you.

SCHEINDLIN: Oh, he was talking about me.

LEMON: So, listen, there's an emergency meeting of federal judges to discuss concern over Trump intervention in the Justice Department. It was postponed today and you say that they have never done anything like this. Explain that.

SCHEINDLIN: OK. The Federal Judges Association basically has fought for increase pay for federal judges and it has a nice reception at the White House every year, but as far as I remember they have never been concerned about a policy issue such as the concern they have now. Which is the independence of the judiciary. We have three branches of government here. The judiciary, is protected of its independence. And it doesn't want the executive branch or the legislative branch interfering.

And I think what they saw happen with Judge Jackson and we'll know the sentence tomorrow, she's going forward with it. But what they saw was an attack on her personally. Not the first one. He's done his attack many, but worse than maybe, is interfering with the Department of Justice's recommendation as to what the appropriate sentence would be. Which is done in every case. The line prosecutor submit a letter typically within the sentencing guidelines.

So, this idea that it was such an outrageously long recommendation. It wasn't. It was within the guideline range. And that's almost always what they do. And judges get these letters routinely and judges in the end do what they think is right. They're not over influenced by the letter. They get a letter from the defense, they get a letter from the probation department, they do what they think is right in the end.

So, it was all unnecessary to interfere like that. And it seems to me clear, that no matter what Attorney General Barr says, I believe he's influenced by what the president says he wants to see.

LEMON: It is indeed an honor.

SCHEINDLIN: Thank you.

LEMON: I have heard so much about you. It's an honor to meet you and to have you in the program.

SCHEINDLIN: Thank you.

LEMON: If there's any reason, we should have you back. I would love you to come back and talk about.

SCHEINDLIN: Thank you, it would be my pleasure to do so.

LEMON: Thank you, Judge. Bernie Sanders has a commanding lead according to CNN's new poll of

polls, but what happens when more candidates drop out of the race? Well, John Kasich is going to weigh in next. There he is. Ready to go.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:35:00]

LEMON: Now to the state of the race. Attacks and insults flying as we get ever closer to the all-important Nevada caucuses just days away on Saturday. Bernie Sanders is the front runner. He is a frontrunner position. As the other candidates take aim at him and at Michael Bloomberg. Let's discuss now. John Kasich is here. Hello, John Kasich. So you're out and about --

JOHN KASICH, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: hello, Don Lemon.

LEMON: -- these candidates are going after each other. They're lashing out, and Michael Bloomberg taking a lot of incoming. You talked to a lot of people. What are you hearing about Bloomberg?

KASICH: Well, I think what we're hearing is something that I thought for a long time and that is when you've got, you know, $58 billion and you can go on television and paint a picture of yourself, you're going to rise. You're going to go up in the polls. And they have a very sophisticated operation.

Some of the young people that I know, who are working in some of the offices in downtown, I mean, they're getting text from the Bloomberg campaign. They like him. The ones that, you know, are telling me that they like him a lot. And they're Republican. They kind of like him. So, you know, I think they are going to throw everything they can, but the kitchen sink at him. And as long as it, think of it as a prize fight.

You know, in the early debates, he just really needs to kind of survive. He needs to get through them. You know, he doesn't have to go out there and score a hit a three pointer. He just needs to be good and confident and calm and not lose his cool. Which I suspect he will be. And he's going to have a lot of fire power.

And Don, look how he's risen in the polls. And he has a lot of good messages. He got sophisticated people and so I think that he's going to keep getting hammered. But he's running a different kind of campaign. He's not running the traditional kind of campaign. And what's interesting is they say that's he is trying to buy it. Well, it's his money, Don. If he wants to spend it running for president, you know, that's up to him. I think, it's a silly charge. It's a stupid charge.

LEMON: I think, a lot of people will agree with you about that. Because if you have that much money, why not? I mean, he doesn't have to ask.

[22:40:06]

KASICH: Think about this, Don, --

LEMON: Let me say this. Let me say this --

KASICH: -- he can spend a couple billion, then what, he can spend a couple of billions and at the end of the campaign he'll have more money than what he started with. I think it's a reasonable return. I'm serious.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: OK. So maybe you're right. Look, I think there are legitimate concerns about money in politics and election that need to be addressed.

KASICH: Sure. Yes, of course.

LEMON: But, you know, when you get an e-mail -- this is what I heard from folks -- I haven't got any emails from the Bloomberg campaign. But I have heard people when you get an e-mail from the Bloomberg campaign, there's no can you give me some money in it. It's just talking about policies. The annoying thing about the other folks when you get an e-mail, it's always, can you give me some money. So, there you go.

KASICH: Yes. Well, I mean, the interesting thing is they say we don't want all this money influence in politics. He isn't taking money from anybody else. He's spending his own money and doing his own thing. That's the ultimate independence, Don, in politics when you can self- fund. I mean, I'm sure you can self-fund if you were running. You have that kind of money, but you know, it's difficult for most people.

LEMON: Yes, right. Hey, listen, we are going to talk about the guy who is at the actual front runner right now, that's Bernie Sanders. But we are to take a break and we'll be right back. Don't go anywhere, John.

KASICH: All right.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:45:00]

LEMON: OK, back with me. John Kasich the former Ohio governor. So, governor, there's a CNN polls that shows Bernie Sanders is the front runner, 28 percent, while the more moderate candidates battle for dominance. I mean, if moderate Democrats don't get behind one candidate soon, could Sanders -- his momentum just take him to the finish line and get him all the way to the nomination?

KASICH: Remember, Don, its proportional. I wish, you know, in 16, we had proportional, because Donald Trump probably wouldn't have got to the convention with enough to cash in and be the nominee. But in this case, it's proportional.

Now, Bernie's got ahead of his team up, but as you can see all of these Democrats, moderate Democrats, sort of an establishment Democrats, elected officials. They are -- they want to stop Bernie, because they believe that Bernie with his, you know, Medicare for all and taking insurance away and it seems like he don't like rich people. He don't like corporations.

This isn't going to work. This is not going to sell even with the blue traditional -- blue collar Democrats in my opinion. And so, they are going to try to throw their bodies in front of them and figure out who's the best person that can beat Trump and not cost them all their seats. And so, it's going to get down to which moderate survives.

You know, again, if you got $58, $60 billion, you were the governor -- or the mayor of New York. You're in pretty good shape. Look at how he's risen. And that doesn't mean we count out Joe Biden. It doesn't mean we count the other -- Buttigieg or count Amy out.

But it just -- you start looking at the resources and you start looking at who's got the money to compete on Super-Tuesday. And it starts to become pretty clear. It could be a two man race. But I don't want to count them out. That's not fair to them. And we got ways to go yet.

LEMON: OK. All right. You went through this ruthless 2016 Republican primary. You said you wish it was proportional, but you went to this primary. What lessons should Democrats take from that?

KASICH: Well, look, everybody tries to get everybody out of the race, Don. You know, they are trying to say we should get out because of whatever and I think the lesson that you have to have is, who is the person, when it gets down to is you got Trump. You covered a lot of his issues.

You know, what's happening with the Justice Department? What's happening in the State Department? What's happening with the Pentagon? What's happening with the head of intelligence? Why is he bringing all his friends and all those questions, OK?

Why does he do all these tweeting and all that? What it gets down to is in November, do you want more of that or do you want a Democrat? That's what it's going to get down to. And if you get a Democrat that I believe is still center right or I'm sorry, moderate center left, I think that's the best chance of being able to beat Trump. The question is will the Sanders people, if he doesn't get picked, are they going to go out and vote?

LEMON: Who's that Democrat? You said, Democrat, who is that?

KASICH: there All right e a lot of Sanders people who didn't vote.

LEMON: Who's that Democrat you think then?

KASICH: I think it has to be somebody who is more moderate. So, what I put in that category, is I put Biden, I put Amy, Buttigieg and I put Bloomberg. Those are the ones that the most moderate in my opinion have the best chance of not frightening the suburban Republicans. Who don't like Trump, who are looking for another choice?

You pick somebody that says I'm going to take your health insurance away and give you, you know, it's not going to work. So, it's got to be somebody who is more closer to the center. Because I think that's where the Americans are. But the Democrats have to be united and make up their mind they want to win and not just take their ball and go home if they didn't get picked.

LEMON: All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you, John. I appreciate it.

KASICH: That's west here. All right. Thanks Don.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:00]

LEMON: A lawyer for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange telling a London court, a former Congressman offered him a pardon on behalf of President Trump in exchange for denying Russian involvement in the DNC email leak. According to Assange's attorney, a former Congressman Dana Rohrabacher offered Assange a pardon if he would play ball by saying the Russians had nothing to do with the leak.

Both Rohrabacher and the White House are denying Assange's claims with the White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham saying this, and I quote, the president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he is an ex-Congressman, he's never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.

Let's discuss now. John Dean is here, he is a former Nixon White House council. Bradley Moss is here as well, a National Security Attorney and the Deputy Executive Director of James Madison Project. Gentlemen, thank you so much. John, I'm going to start with you.

BRADLEY MOSS, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY AND THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF JAMES MADISON PROJECT: Good evening.

LEMON: Assange's lawyer said he was offered that pardon to clear Russia of hacking the DNC. The White House denies it. What do you think?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Don, it's hard to imagine three more unreliable places to get information. The White House, Assange, and Congressman Rohrabacher. All three of them have terrible credibility records.

But there is some contemporary press that has Rohrabacher after he did visit with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy, made a public statement to the effect that he had some dynamite news, that there was talk that he could get a pardon based on this news. And implication being that he would talk to the president about it.

[22:55:05]

So that's where it started and this is just the latest round. I can't imagine his lawyer going into court and making the representation that was made if there isn't something that they have where they believe there's something there.

LEMON: Brad, I want to bring you in. because you're skeptical, but Assange's lawyer says that they have evidence. And we know that the president met with Representative Rohrabacher and that Rohrabacher subsequently met with Assange.

MOSS: Yes, I mean, look. We have very limited details of what we know has been confirm. All we know is that the president met briefly with Rohrabacher and then there was a separate meeting in the U.K. between Rohrabacher and Assange. We don't know anything of what was said in those meetings. We have no confirmation beyond these, you know, sources, you know, these anonymous sources. All we know is that there were discussions.

Now, this would fit a pattern for Donald Trump if this is what happened. We saw this with Michael Cohen. We saw this with the Mueller report. And we saw this with the Ukraine scandal in terms of how he uses these, you know, these auxiliaries, these subordinates, these helpers to do things and he has plausible deniability.

So I could believe he would do this, but take this with heaping massive truck full of grains of salt until we see something more besides Assange's lawyer's statement to believe this is actually what happened and it is as clear a way as it has been described.

LEMON: Yes. So, listen, John, the judge in the case ruled that the allegation will be allowed in court. So, we'll likely learn more in the coming days. If it does turn out to be true, right, is it another example of President Trump's using -- President Trump using his executive powers to undermine the Russia investigation? He's trying to, you know, reverse what Mueller did?

DEAN: I would think he would not want Assange to be extradited to the United States where he'd face multiple charges. I think there are 18- count indictment against him that's sitting under seal or barely revealed. And I just don't think Trump wants that to come over. And so, what he's doing with this, if it's true, he could undercut extradition, which is based in England, if there is some sort of politicalized charge involved the U.K. might cut him some slack and not send him to the United States.

LEMON: We know the Russia report, say the Mueller report said about interfering in the 2016 election. Is he trying to rewrite history on this, Bradley?

MOSS: Absolutely. They've already been talking about the idea of going in, if he wins reelection, and if the Republicans re-take the House, try to basically rewrite how everything went down, and expunge the impeachment, try to pretend like none of these have ever occurred. He doesn't like the stain on his legacy, he doesn't like the stain on his record. He would like to be able to rewrite some of these details.

You know, the supplemental -- what John was saying, if Assange got extradited and if he was ultimately prosecuted here, some of what he knows of what the president said he couldn't recall about contacts between the campaign, particularly Roger Stone and Donald Trump and between them and WikiLeaks, that could come out and Donald Trump doesn't want that because he's already kind of buried this once before. He doesn't want it coming back.

LEMON: John, I want to talk about Roger Stone, OK. So, long-time associate Roger Stone, Trump associate Roger Stone. He's going to be sentenced tomorrow by Judge Amy Berman Jackson. The sentencing comes after the Attorney Barr intervened in the case and recommended far less time than the justice officials -- that they wanted, that they've recommended. So, and then they later resigned. What are you expecting to see tomorrow?

DEAN: I'm expecting to see her in the area of about five years. I don't think she'll go to the top of the sentencing guideline. There's been a lot of publicity. If you look at what happened during Watergate, one of the longest sentences went to Gordon Liddy who was the bad actor at the center of it all, and he didn't even get five years, because Jimmy Carter commuted his sentence. So, I just think she'll be in the five-year, maybe six-year range, but that's just a guess.

LEMON: Listen, Bradley, she's free to impose whatever she wants. Do you think she's going to be affected by all this, you know, politics and everything swirling around this case?

MOSS: No, I think she's more or less -- she understands what's going on. She knows how the president operates. I do think she's going to dive a little bit into what's gone down at DOJ and try to get some answers as to what on earth has happened, try to get some understanding of it.

But, look, Amy Berman Jackson is not going to be intimidated by any of this, she's not going to be influenced. She'll make whatever she believes is the best decision. And I more or less agree with John. I think somewhere in the vicinity of 4 to 5 years is probably what Roger Stone will get?

LEMON: Hey, quickly, do you think there will be a pardon, John? After he's finally sentenced?

DEAN: Not before the election.

LEMON: Wow, all right. There is a prediction for you. Thank you, Bradley. Thank you, John. I appreciate that.

MOSS: Absolutely.

LEMON: And thank you, everyone for watching. We appreciate you watching as well. Now I want to get over to my colleagues, Chris Cuomo and Erin Burnett for election coverage.

CUOMO: All right, D. Lemon, thank you. Hello, everyone. I am Chris Cuomo.