Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Roger Stone Sentenced Up to Three Years in Jail; Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA) Was Interviewed About the Intelligence Briefing with Outgoing DNI Joseph Maguire; Rick Grenell's Resume Not Suited for DNI Position; President Trump is Considering GOP Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia for Director of National Intelligence; President Trump Says Roger Stone Has "Very Good Chance of Exoneration" But Will "Let the Process Play Out"; Democratic Field is Unsettled Just Days Away from Nevada Caucuses. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 20, 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: U.S. intelligence officials say Russia is taking steps to interfere in the 2020 election to help President Trump get re-elected. That's what multiple sources are telling CNN.

House lawmakers are briefed about it last week and that set off President Trump who believes that Democrats will use the information to undermine his run for reelection.

In just a few minutes we're going to hear from a member of the House intelligence committee who attended that briefing.

Trump's long-time ally Roger Stone sentenced today to more than three years in prison for lying to Congress and witness tampering. The president says he wants to see Stone exonerated but he won't pardon him, at least not right now.

But Trump's commuting sentences and granting pardons to friends and to friends of his friends. He's also purging people who he deems as disloyal. It's all about loyalty to Trump but is that at the expense of the good of the nation? We're going to talk about that in the hour ahead.

In the state of race Bernie Sanders who is surging in the polls says he and Barack Obama are friends and that they speak on the phone every now and then. What he thinks the popular former president will do if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination. That's coming up later on in this hour.

But I want to get straight to Russia's interference in the 2020 election. So, joining me now is Evan Perez, Kaitlan Collins, and Shawn Turner. Good evening to one and all.

Kaitlan, you first. The president is getting irate at the acting DNI Joseph Maguire over this briefing. So, tell us how all of this played out, will you?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And Joseph Maguire is no longer going to be the acting DNI, the president is, instead, putting a loyalist in that job.

But, Don, let me start with last week. There was this intelligence briefing on Capitol Hill with Shelby Pierson who is essentially the person in charge of coordinating all the intelligence on election securities. She went and briefed lawmakers in a classified setting. Lawmakers of both parties on essentially their latest Russian intelligence assessment, saying that they are going to attempt to interfere in the 2020 election. And they believe that they are trying to essentially favor President Trump.

Now, this, according to sources who were in the room, angered some of the Republicans -- or according to sources angered Republicans who were in the room and it got back to the president. He then blew up on the acting DNI, Joseph Maguire who was briefing the president the next day on this.

And essentially believed that he -- these Democrats who were in the room, including the House intelligence chairman Adam Schiff, were going to try to weaponize this information against him.

That was the president's thinking based on the sources we've been speaking with and that is what led him to blow up on the acting DNI director, and then of course now we know that the president is putting in Rick Grenell who is currently the ambassador to Germany.

So, it's not like it was really at a convenient time for the president to put Ric Grenell in this job even though we're hearing that they are saying it's just a coincidence that the president is moving him to this position at the time that this intelligence assessment came out.

LEMON: Evan, let's discuss this more. Because Maguire is on his way out, as Kaitlan says, the president has picked a loyalist, Kaitlan mentioned him as well, Richard Grenell to replace him. Grenell is incredibly experienced and now we're learning about -- about a Russia -- incredibly inexperienced.

So, listen. And now we're learning about a Russian threat for 2020. Is this -- is this a recipe for disaster at this point?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Look, it is. If the intelligence committee doesn't feel like they can tell the truth to the leaders of this country about a looming threat, right, with the election coming just in a few months and everybody knows that this is exactly what they were looking for, they need to be on guard for it.

This is what this country needs to try to make sure we prevent. And if the intelligence community feels come to believe that they cannot speak the truth to the president and to some of the leaders in Congress then that is really bad for us to be able to meet that threat head on.

I mean, this is exactly what the adversaries of this country look toward. They want to make sure that we're divided, they want to make sure that, you know, even if the intelligence community is aware of what they're up to, that nobody can do anything about it. And that recipe for disaster is exactly the term. LEMON: Shawn, I want to bring in. I want to -- is the president

trying to suppress information for his own benefit and at the risk of national security?

SHAWN TURNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, it certainly appears that way, Don. Look, you know, any time -- every single intelligence leader, including all of the former directors of national intelligence understand that it is their responsibility to be relentless in the way that they gather and provide information to the president about the threats that this country faces.

You know, we simply cannot have a scenario as Shimon pointed out, where an intelligence official feel as though they have to stop and consider whether or not the information they provide to the president will be taken personally.

[23:04:53]

Look, the safety and security that we enjoy in this country we enjoy for a reason. We enjoy it because the intelligence professionals who spend day and night focusing on collecting intelligence and analyzing the threats that, we face we enjoy the safety and security because they can provide the information to lawmakers and to the president and that information can be acted on.

So, this is, you know, this is a situation in which the president is taking this personally, and he is using this intelligence, he's kind of lashing out at the intelligence community. And I think that if Grenell, you know, if the new acting director does what it appears as though he will do, that he's an accolade for the president, this is going to be hard role ahead for the intelligence community for the next several months.

LEMON: Kaitlan, I want to put up what Adam Schiff tweeted out. Adam Schiff by the way is the chairman of the House intel committee. He says, "We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections. If reports are true and the president is interfering with that he is, again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling exactly as we warned he would do."

Is the president acting even more emboldened post impeachment?

COLLINS: Absolutely. I think you can talk to critics, supporters, anyone who knows this president and they can say he's making a lot of moves now that he was a bit cautious to make as the impeachment inquiry was going on and of course the trial was happening as well.

And so, you're seeing a tweet like that from Adam Schiff and a lot of this has to do with Adam Schiff primarily and the president's dislike for him.

Because, Don, I remember we reported back in October they were going to have this briefing at the White House and invite congressional leaders to come over on Syria or something like that. And they didn't because the president did not want Adam Schiff on White House grounds. That is how far his dislike for Adam Schiff goes.

Of course, he was the one who took the lead role in the impeachment inquiry over the fall, and so that is really the question here where the president feels like he can do things like this where he doesn't like the intelligence person was going and briefing lawmakers, which they're supposed to do regularly in a classified setting. Not just briefing Adam Schiff. They were briefing Republicans and Democrats.

And the president was so angry that Shelby Pierson, this official share this information that now Joseph Maguire, who was widely seen as someone who was going to get the DNI job, going to be nominated to get the permanent job, is now no longer going to get it.

LEMON: OK. Right there, Kaitlan. I got something for you. This is in from the president, tweeting "thank you to our great U.S. ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell for stepping in to serve as acting DNI. I will be nominating a terrific candidate for the job very soon. Stay tune."

Go, Kaitlan, what do you say to that?

COLINS: Yes. He's only supposed to be in the job temporarily. I mean, there are talk of him only being in that job for about 90 days. Of course, the question is really who is the president going to nominate for this job? Because this is a Senate-confirmed position. So, whoever the president does put up for this is going to have the Senate confirmed. It's very tough to get Senate confirmed especially in an election year.

And so that is really the question going forward, how does the president find someone that as someone he wants in that job, someone like a Rick Grenell, a loyalist, but also someone that the Republican senators and Democratic senators are going to accept someone who the intelligence community trusts.

Because remember Dan Coats is the last figure who had this job on a permanent basis and he and the president feuded constantly because he would share intelligence to the president and the president didn't like it. And so, they did not get along. So, it's going to be really hard for the president to find someone who can meet both of those standards.

LEMON: The president, Evan, has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that Russia interfered in 2016, even taking Putin's word over our own intel community.

PEREZ; No, absolutely. And, look, I mean, people close to the president, Jared Kushner was one of them, after the 2016 election, tried to plead with the president to sort of understand that, look, this happened, you can accept that the Russians tried to do this and that they maybe were in favor of you and that you were legitimately elected. The president just could not get those two things to be true at the same time in his own head. And some of it is because --

(CROSSTALK) LEMON: Maybe he knows something because it upsets him so much if, you know, if he was securing his own election, it wouldn't upset him. He would take the --

(CROSSTALK)

PEREZ: Yes, he's incredibly -- Don, you can see, you sometimes get under his skin. He's incredibly thin skinned about this and other things. And, look, tonight the president's son spoke about the Rick Grenell appointment, the temporary appointment and one of the things he mentioned is sort of the idea that Ric Grenell is going to be like the Bill Barr for the DNI.

And so that tells you a lot about what they're looking for and what they believe they're going to get from this temporary appointment.

LEMON: Yes. Shawn, the FBI director, Robert Mueller himself, have warned that Russia is interfering in 2020. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: The Russians are absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections through --

(CROSSTALK)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Is it fair to say that --

ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL, RUSSIA PROBE: They're doing it as we sit here and they expect to do it during the next campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Shawn, has the Trump administration done anything to prepare for this?

[23:09:59]

TURNER: Not enough, Don. I mean, look, you know, after the 2016 presidential election we went through sort of phases of grief with regard to what happened in 2016, initially the president simply would not accept it, did not acknowledge it and attempted to shift blame to others for interference in the 2016 presidential election.

We've kind of gone through these different phases to where we're at a point now while there's some tacit, you know, accepting of it there's still not the will and not the interest in doing anything to deal with it.

The real concern here, too, is that as Russia begins this process of interfering in the next presidential election, look, this is going to be a lot easier for them this time around. The last time they needed to create content that was designed to favor President Trump and to divide the people of, you know, the people of this country. Now they're simply going out there and they're finding content that's

already out there. They're looking at domestic disinformation and misinformation and resharing it. So, this is going to be much easier for them and the president really needs to step up.

And even if this is -- you know, it's proven that this is not true that they're moving out in favor of him he still needs to acknowledge that this is real and have the courage to do something about it.

LEMON: OK. Kaitlan, keep putting you on the spot here because we have more developing news. Kash Patel joining Grenell at ODNI, sources say, the former acolyte of Representative Devin Nunes who is directly involved in helping discredit the assessment that Russia interfered in 2016, has been named senior adviser to Rick Grenell at the Office of -- at the Office of Director Intelligence. Three sources said to CNN that it's expected to be a temporary role. What do you got, what do you think of this?

COLLINS: Yes. This is part of essentially this larger story of what it's going to look like with Rick Grenell running the -- being the director of national intelligence. And he is only going to be there temporarily, he confirmed that himself on twitter today.

But the question is, you know, he's doing this at a really crucial time, as we are in the months leading up to the 2020 election.

Now you heard what we just heard there from this former special counsel Robert Mueller talking about what kind of a time period this is and we've been hearing it from intelligence officials that they believed Russia was going to try to interfere.

So that is not new. What's new here tonight is that the president has learned this information. We know he acted angrily at Democratic lawmakers being told because he thought they are going to use it against him. And now he's putting people like Rick Grenell, Kash Patel, these people who have always been in the president's circle. They've always been loyalists of his but now he's putting them in really important positions.

And that is really the question is how is the rest of the intelligence community going to respond to them? Because DNI is a really big job. It's going to be really difficult for Rick Grenell to do that and still be ambassador to Germany.

And of course, he is going to be under an increasing amount of scrutiny.

But, Don, I do want to point out one thing that we'll be able to really see them as these worldwide threat assessment hearings where they have all of these officials come, the secretary of state, the DNI, testify before lawmakers on camera as you saw last year. And so, if they do have that -- they haven't scheduled them yet -- it is likely that it will be Rick Grenell sitting there for those hearings.

LEMON: Kaitlan, Evan, Shawn, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Things have gotten pretty heated inside the briefing on Russia's election interference. And next, I'm going to talk to a congressman who was in the room.

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: U.S. Intelligence says Russia's interfering in the upcoming 2020 election to help President Trump win a second term. Well, tonight that's what multiple sources are telling CNN. And some House lawmakers briefed about it last week and that set off the president who got irate with the outgoing acting intelligence chief.

Congressman Denny Heck is a member of the intel committee, he attended the briefing and he joins me now. Good evening, Congressman. Man, here we go again.

REP. DENNY HECK (D-WA): Good evening, Don.

LEMON: I understand that you can't reveal details of what went on at this briefing but what do you think about the news of the president's, his reaction to the intelligence that about Russia's interference in the 2020 election?

HECK: It's no surprise whatsoever. If you look back over a period of time, over the last three or four years, in fact since the 2016 election, Don, I've probably been asked hundreds of times do I think the Russians will be back and my stock answer was always back, what makes you think they ever left?

So, there's nothing that's surprising about this in terms of their pattern of behavior nor is there anything surprising about it in terms of the president's reaction to it. This is what we've been treated to before and we will continue to be treated to it in one form or another as long as he occupies the White House.

But let me say this, if I may, Don, about his potential appointee. At least on an acting basis to head DNI Ambassador Grenell. There are only two questions I think we need to ask ourselves when it comes to somebody that would occupy that important of a position.

Number one, are they qualified? And number two, are they willing to speak truth to power. The latter is critically important when you understand that we spend billions upon billions of dollars gathering intelligence -- and we don't need the intelligence community to pull its punches when they report to the president.

Number two, is he qualified? He's patently not qualified. He has zero experience working in the intelligence community. Zero. And, Don, the statute that set up the Office of National Intelligence specifically sets forth that the director shall have extensive background in this regard. And he has none.

LEMON: Yes. HECK: And you will recall that last year we briefly went through flirtation with appointing my colleague, Congressman John Ratcliffe is head of DNI and the only experience he had was seven months on the House intelligence committee and even Republicans thought that wasn't enough and it's now --

(CROSSTALK)

[23:19:55]

LEMON: But I understand even know there are some Republicans who aren't happy about -- they weren't even happy about how he -- about his ambassadorship the way he conducted himself, and they're not happy about this as well.

But, I mean, we -- I want to move on because I have a lot to talk to you about. This is what your chairman, Adam Schiff, tweeted out. He says, "we count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections. If the reports are true and the president is interfering with that, he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling exactly as we warned, he would do."

Do you believe, Congressman, that the president is trying to suppress intelligence to cover it up?

HECK: I think the president will do anything he can in furtherance of his own political objective. And the fact of the matter is, it's really not a matter of opinion. He tried to shake down Ukraine in order to get them to help in his 2020 election, and he has specifically called for other countries, notably China, to get engaged in this effort.

So, this is the same old meal being reserved, not even rewarmed. We've seen this act before and it's going to continue.

LEMON: Congressman, do you believe that this briefing is the reason for the acting DNI, the former acting DNI Joseph Maguire's removal?

HECK: So, obviously, I'm not going to say anything directly or indirectly that suggests the content of that classified briefing. To do so would violate my oath of office, Don.

But I will say this. I have wondered since last September whether or not Acting Director Maguire was on a short leash. And the reason, as you will recall is, that's the point at which he came before the intelligence committee in open public hearing and said about the whistleblower complaint that the whistleblower had done the right thing and had followed the law.

And we know as a matter of fact that the White House resented that, that the president resented that, and now in this last week, which I'm calling the president's revenge tour. Where he's attempting to get retribution against anybody over this matter that he can. It seems somewhat logical that he would extend that to Acting Director Maguire.

In fact, he's extending it to people that didn't even have anything to do with it.

LEMON: Yes.

HECK: For example, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman was pushed out of the national Security Council but so as his twin brother who worked there as a JAG --

LEMON: His brother.

HECK: -- and had nothing to do with it.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Right. He had nothing to do with impeachment.

HECK: So, the revenge tour --

LEMON: He didn't testify or anything, Yes.

HECK: That's correct.

LEMON: Yes.

HECK: The revenge tour continues.

LEMON: So, the president is cast out on Russian interference since the beginning of his administration, even sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence. The president doesn't even want to hear this information. We've asked this question before but I have to ask it again. Can we count on him to take action and put national security first?

HECK: No, self-evidently not. That's why he became only the third president in American history to be impeached. Because he put his personal political interests ahead of the nation's interests because he did -- he put his own interests ahead of his oath of office.

And I just have to say, Don, thank God for the dedicated public servants who along this way have been willing to put their oath of office above a party and that would include Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Ambassador Yovanovitch, in all manner of other people that stepped forward, raise their right hand and told the truth. Told the truth to power.

LEMON: Congressmen Heck, always appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

HECK: You're welcome, sir.

LEMON: So, President Trump saying this when ask if he will pardon Roger Stone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not going to do anything in terms of the great powers bestowed upon a President of the United States. I want the process to play out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: He's using those great powers to pardon a lot of other people though.

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So, we have some breaking news tonight on the DNI position. I want to discuss that now with former homeland security official, Juliette Kayyem, the former deputy assistant Attorney General, Harry Litman, and Republican strategist, Alice Stewart.

Good evening. We have a lot going on tonight. So, Juliette, I want to start with this.

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes.

LEMON: The president told reporters on board Air Force One, aboard Air Force One that he is considering Representative Doug Collins for the ODNI job. That's another staunch loyalist, who we got to know this one by the way during the impeachment hearings. What is your reaction?

KAYYEM: Well, slightly better than Grenell but not much so. But we do know that Grenell has actually said that he is not going to take the position, he's keeping his ambassadorship in Germany.

What we know about Doug Collins, he's a former pastor and a lawyer, he ascended to the top of judiciary with a sort of, you know, barking dog attitude and support of Trump. He has been out there, he has a recurring role on Fox where he just, you know, sort of berates Democrats.

And so not someone that you would feel confident would view or interpret intelligence in a way that would be fair or objective for the president. I'm not surprised by that. I think we're at the stage now where we know what's going on with the intelligence community, Donald Trump wants his puppets in and he's going to try to get them in.

I think Doug Collins is likely to get confirmed because he was, you know, the head of House judiciary, has some intelligence background. And it does -- on the politics side, which I'm not a pro at, but it does take him out of the running for the Senate run which is contested in where, in Georgia.

LEMON: Yes, he announced that he was going to run for Senate. Listen, I just remember Doug Collins.

[23:30:00]

He was speaking so fast during the impeachment hearings. I was like, wait, wait, what did this guy just say?

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Seriously, I mean, a lot of people will agree with that. Harry, Juliette just mentioned this, and I want you to elaborate on it more because does it appear that the president is trying to control the intelligence's apparatus really from the top down, from the president down?

HARRY LITMAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, not just the intelligence apparatus, the Department of Justice, the judiciary, the jury system, anyone who testifies. But as Juliette indicated, it's especially irresponsible to try to have that same autocratic approach when you're talking about the Intelligence Community.

These guys -- the coin of the realm is giving it to him straight and Collins is someone who has proven that he will give it to him the way Trump wants to hear it, which is, you know, could well be the exact opposite of the way the intelligence assessments actually point.

So, that's one of the last positions you want an arch-partisan in, but that's the way we're going. I mean, he seems to, since the impeachment, be taking a giant step toward a kind of a mad king Donald approach to government.

LEMON: What do you think, Alice Stewart?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Don, I think Juliette is correct and that the head of the DNI position should be fair, impartial, balanced, but also administrative is also a key component. I do think -- look, Rick Grenell is a friend of mine. I think he does a tremendous job as ambassador and he will fill the interim position in a very strong capacity.

But in terms of filling all the buckets that are necessary in this position, fair and balance and administrative, look, the president is looking for someone who more than anything else, more than any of these other aspects, will be loyal to him and will watch his back in these positions.

And whether or not that has been the way it has been in the past, that is the way it's going to be under the Trump administration and that is exactly what he is wanting, and Doug Collins will certainly fill that role exactly the way the president wants.

LEMON: Juliette, pardons and purges possible appointments --

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: And puppets.

LEMON: OK. Go on. So, is this what you call the Trump doctrine in the post-impeachment era?

KAYYEM: Yeah. Pardons, puppets and purges are what we're seeing, and we're going to see it until Election Day. There is really nothing stopping Donald Trump now. I just want to pick up on point where I think, you know, what's happening with the ODNI is just sort of typical. We tend to focus on who's going to replace the person purged. But let's just take a step back. Why did the purging occur? We now know why it occurred because the truth was stated, legally and appropriately, to the House Intelligence Committee and Donald Trump didn't like that truth.

And so while we tend to focus on who is next in the dominos, what that says to the bureaucracy that I have been a part of in two agencies, DOJ and DHS, is if you speak the truth, you're out. And so it's such a chilling aspect. You can't even measure it at this stage.

But Donald Trump's brilliance is he then puts a name out like Grenell where we're all sort of now focused on that shocking and totally inappropriate pick rather than what happened to Maguire.

That is the sort of -- that's the legacy of what's happening with these purges and pardons and the puppets that he is putting in. There is really nothing stopping him at this stage until November.

LEMON: We have been talking for quite a while and we didn't even mention the big news of the day which is Roger Stone, right, because we keep getting bombarded with new information about appointments. And guess what? We're going to take a break. Maybe after the break, there will be someone else who is appointed. Don't go anywhere.

(LAUGHTER)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Juliette is back. Harry is back. Alice Stewart is back, as well. Alice, during the break, we have three more -- no, I'm kidding. I'm just --

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: And you, guys, you were believing me, weren't you, because it is definitely possible.

KAYYEM: I'm checking my phone.

LEMON: So this is what Joe Biden said about Roger Stone case tonight in CNN's town hall. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Roger Stone, who was convicted of lying to federal prosecutors, and a judge said, whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm not going to listen to whatever the Justice Department has to say now, I'm sentencing this guy and I'm sentencing him to 40 months, 40 months.

Guarantee you he is going to be pardoned. Guarantee. Guarantee. What's that message about? Don't worry. Do anything illegal for me and you're OK, I will pardon you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, Alice, Trump has the right to pardon. But, I mean, what message is it sending if he pardons a political ally found guilty of lying to Congress on the president's own behalf?

STEWART: Well, it sends the message that he's doing exactly what he has the power to do. Let me be quite clear. I think Roger Store is a dirty trickster. He is a Trump loyalist. He is more than deserving of prison time.

But it's not a matter of if he will be pardoned, but when he will pardoned, because he has been loyal to President Trump. Don, you know me on your show for years. I'm not one to say whataboutism, but what about in the past, President Clinton pardoning Marc Rich, who had fled the country to avoid prosecution?

[23:40:02]

STEWART: What about Barack Obama who pardoned Chelsea Manning who had leaked classified information that endangered American lives? George H.W. Bush who pardoned people who were involved in the Ira-Contra? This has been done many times by many president and many --

LEMON: Alice --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: I get -- yes, that is what I want to say.

STEWART: -- and this president is doing it before he is up for reelection. And here is the thing --

LEMON: But usually, they have spent some time -- listen, at least the governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, had at least done some time. But to say that Roger Stone should be pardoned even before he is even sentenced and they tried to influence the judge and on and on, I mean, that is what I meant by what kind of -- what does that send. Yes, he has the power to do it, but it's also in the way you do it.

STEWART: I don't expect it to happen before he actually serves some time. The framers of the Constitution put this into effect. The only constraint for presidential overreach with regard to pardons is public opinion.

The president and the administration recognize that public opinion, an early pardon of Roger Stone, would be damaging. So I do expect Stone will serve some time. And then when the president is re-elected, he will be pardoned.

LEMON: OK. Let's put this up. I was trying to help you out there, Alice. I wasn't cutting you off. So, listen --

STEWART: I know.

LEMON: I want to take a look -- this is a list of people. And look at this list of people that -- the use of damaged property, fire damage, premeditated murder, racketeering, mail fraud, cocaine and marijuana possession, distributing marijuana, conversion of government property, interstate theft, conspiracy to violate the -- I mean, wow!

I mean, listen, this is all kinds of things that we have. The offenses: Obstruction of justice, perjury, fraud, contempt of court, false statements. What is this pattern? What does this say to you? Please, weigh in on this, Harry.

LITMAN: OK. Well, first, I have to weigh in on what Alice just said. The analogy is just not very good. First of all, there is a procedure for pardon just as there is, for example, when assistant U.S. attorneys do sentencing. You have criteria. You have input from all kinds of different constituencies. Exactly what happened for Clinton, Bush, and Barack Obama. Exactly what Trump just bulldozed and didn't care about.

Second, yes, there's the possibility of pardons having some political aspect, but this is much more rank and dangerous as Jackson said, because it served specifically to cover up Trump's own misdeeds, not just a pal thing here, it actually kept us from knowing the facts of things.

And third, you can use your pardon power illegally. If he does it, for instance, to obstruct justice, that is not withstanding the breath of power and the Constitution, that is an illegal use of the pardon power and it is not carte blanche. What he wants to do with it is simply rewrite history. That goes very much farther, I think, than the previous presidents that have been mentioned.

LEMON: OK. So, listen, to Harry's point, Juliette, I mean, he makes a very good point here.

KAYYEM: Yeah.

LEMON: When you look at the 11 people Trump pardoned and commuted this week, they all have ties to his inner circle. That's quite a bit different than the other presidents.

KAYYEM: Right.

LEMON: Meanwhile, Trump has been attacking prosecutors for not going after enemies like McCabe and Comey. So, the law applies to Trump critics but not himself or his friends?

KAYYEM: No, I mean, Donald Trump views the administration of justice as to service him. Once you just like stop asking the question why and just realized that is who he is, a megalomaniac, someone who doesn't sort of understand his role as president of the United States, then criticisms of the jurors, the criticisms of the judges, the legal reasoning, his own attorney general, and the pardons all make sense.

I was looking at the list of pardons the other day. All I can think of was a bar scene in "Star Wars." It is like sort of the just the riff- raff, these really sort of -- like horrible people who really are not deserving of any sort of sympathy on our end, they don't seem to have apologized in any meaningful manner, the poor grandmother who got caught with crack 20 years ago and has been serving a lifetime.

These are just, you know, the riff-raff, sot of hangers on of the Republican Party and the Trump family. And he pardoned them. And to Alice's point, sure, he's allowed to do that, absolutely. Whether that's something that we should commend is up to each of us.

Roger Stone is different because it goes to the obstruction of an investigation. We laid it to the Russian interference in 2016. And what Donald Trump did in the last two days shows that he is uninterested in stopping Russia again in 2020. That is where we are.

LEMON: Maybe he's making room for draining the swamp. He needs to make more room. I don't know.

KAYYEM: Yeah.

(LAUGHTER)

[23:45:00]

KAYYEM: You'll never watch "Star Wars" the same way again.

LEMON: Was that the one in "Deep Space Nine?" The bar in "Deep Space Nine" of the -- yeah.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Thank you, guys. I appreciate it.

STEWART: Thank you, Don.

KAYYEM: Bye.

LEMON: Bye. Bernie Sanders is talking to CNN about his relationship with former President Barack Obama. What is he saying? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So, I want to turn now to the state of the race, the crucial Nevada caucuses, now only two days away, and as the candidates ramp up their attacks on each other, it is unclear who is best suited to take on the president.

[23:50:05]

LEMON: Joining me now to discuss is Clinton White House -- deputy -- White House press secretary Joe Lockhart and Adam Jentleson, the former deputy chief of staff for Senator Harry Reid. Good evening. Did I get your titles correct, both of you?

ADAM JENTLESON, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR SENATOR HARRY REID: You got it. JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You demoted me a little bit. That's OK.

LEMON: All right, you weren't a deputy, he's a deputy.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: OK, sorry about that. Thank you, gentlemen. Joe, I'm going to start with you since I screwed up your title. President Barack Obama and Sen. Bernie Sanders haven't always seen eye-to-eye when it comes to policy.

LOCKHART: Right.

LEMON: But Bernie Sanders has been saying that they speak on a fairly regular basis now, meaning the former president. Let us listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm not going to tell you that he and I are best friends, but we're friends. I have talked to him on and off for the last many years. I have absolute confidence that he will play a vigorous, vigorous role. I think he has said this in the campaign. And we need him. No question about it. We need him. And if I win, I'm sure he'll be there at my side. If somebody else wins, he'll be there at their side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, Sanders and President Barack Obama, I mean, they represent very different factions of the Democratic Party, right? So, if Bernie Sanders, who is a self-described Democratic socialist, happens to win the nomination, the former president who is, what, a centrist, would you say?

LOCKHART: Yeah, I think so.

LEMON: Is he going to be on board and be enthusiastic about Sanders?

LOCKHART: I think he will because the threat of Trump is so vast to the country. But let's not pretend for a second. Central to Bernie Sanders' campaign is that the sort of incrementalism of Obama and Biden and some of the moderates is wrong and we need to have a revolution, that's not Obama. That is not something he's support.

I don't think President Obama has said we should get rid of Obamacare and replace it with "Medicare for All." So from his own personal issues point of view, I think while he'll never come out and endorse one candidate or another, Bernie would not be his candidate.

Remember, Bernie Sanders as the Atlantic recounted earlier this week, very strongly considered running against Obama in 2012 and had to be talked out of it by Harry Reid and Dick Durbin and some others, Pat Leahy. So, you know, there is not -- there is not a -- let's put it this way. Sanders, central to his campaign is that Obama in some ways failed. I think that's a message that works with Sanders, but not with the rest of the party.

LEMON: He wants to replace, right, his central and main accomplishment, right?

LOCKHART: Yeah.

LEMON: Obamacare. Adam, let's talk about that "Atlantic" reporting that Joe just discussed. Your old boss, this is in 2011, your old boss, Senator Harry Reid, intervened reportedly to stop Sanders from running a primary challenge against then President Barack Obama. Do you know anything about this?

JENTLESON: No. I mean, look, Senator Reid talks to all of the members about his caucus about a range of topics. I think, you know, if you ask Senator Reid and if you ask Senator Sanders about the core of their relationship, I think they would both say that Senator Reid made an extremely vigorous effort to bring Senator Sanders into the caucus.

I don't want to speak for him, but Senator Sanders, when he was in the House, maybe felt a little bit excluded like he wasn't brought into the Democratic family.

When he arrived in the Senate, he felt differently. He felt brought in. He felt included. Senator Reid has involved him in leadership. He's involved him in critical decisions about the direction of the caucus. So, you know, their relationship is extremely strong. I think they have a lot of conversations about a lot of different things.

LEMON: OK. Well, he's actually an independent. He just caucuses with the Democrats.

LOCKHART: Yeah, no, he --

JENTLESON: But that vote is there. It's the votes that count in the Senate. He votes with the Democrats.

LEMON: You've got an opinion piece, Adam, in The New York Times. It says, "Why don't we know which Democratic candidate can beat Trump?" And you end it with this.

You say, "All we really know is that the last two Democratic presidents to win were dynamic performers on the stump who inspired people with optimism and were able to assemble a broad coalition. As a potential member of that coalition, the single smartest act of political analysis one can perform may be to step back from the data, and ask yourself a simple question: How do the candidates make you feel?"

So, the question is: Which candidate do you think is capturing that passion?

JENTLESON: Well, you know, look, I think you look at the debate last night and you saw a lot of candidates who could do the things that I described in that piece. But I thought Elizabeth Warren had a particularly strong night. I thought, you know, part of the point I was trying to make was that you can look at the data a million different ways.

[23:55:00]

JENTLESON: But, you know, if we followed the data, if we sort of decided strictly along the lines of conventional expectations of electability, we probably wouldn't have nominated Barack Obama in 2008, and we might not have nominated Bill Clinton in 1992.

LEMON: All right. I want to go ahead. I have just a few seconds left. What do you think? Do you agree with his point?

LOCKHART: I do agree with his point. I think we've gotten away from the idea of who is going to bring the party together, who excites us, who can beat Trump, and all of that. And I think it's a very smart observation that Adam makes that we do have to step back and figure out who's got -- who is the "it" candidate.

LEMON: Got it. Joe Lockhart, Adam Jentleson, thank you very much. Enjoy Vegas. Don't spend it all in one place, sir.

JENTLESON: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: Thanks for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)