Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Sen. Bernie Sanders Calling Out Russia Over Election Meddling; Acting DNI Grenell with His First Look at Classified Information; New York Times, Grenell Requested Intel Behind The Finding That Russia Is Interfering In 2020 Election; Michael Bloomberg Offers To Release Three Women From Nondisclosure Agreements; State Of The Race, Campaign Cash; What To Watch For On This Week's Episode Of The Circus. 10-11p ET

Aired February 21, 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 for watching. CNN Tonight with D. Lemon starts right now.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Be on the lookout. You haven't seen nothing yet. It's only going to get worse. It's only going to get worse.

CUOMO: Maybe, maybe not.

LEMON: Really, Chris? Come on.

CUOMO: Yes, really.

LEMON: He's emboldened. He's emboldened, brother.

CUOMO: He is emboldened. He has been set free. When you know that your party won't do anything to check you. He doesn't even have to think twice. Look what he did with this intelligence briefing to Congress. He didn't even wait long enough to hear about the part -- about Bernie Sanders.

And I think there is a legitimate question. If Bernie knew a month ago, was he allowed to talk? And if he was allowed to talk about it, I wonder why we didn't hear anything about it.

LEMON: Well, he said it was -- it was intelligence he didn't want to say anything. But I don't -- listen, I don't know why didn't he say anything.

CUOMO: I don't know. But would have been it's good to know.

LEMON: It would have been good to know a month ago, right?

CUOMO: That's exactly right.

LEMON: That's --

CUOMO: But in his loyalty test, I mean, this is like out of Voldemort's book, you know? LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: Like if they're going around, you know, are you with us or not. It's not supposed to be about that.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: It's not supposed to.

LEMON: What is the thing when they came after this person, I didn't say anything and then they came after that person. And they came after that person. And finally, it was, nobody left.

CUOMO: You know who's going to be there when they come for you, D. Lemon.

LEMON: Not you.

CUOMO: You know. Here comes the vanilla gorilla. Now been up right by your side.

LEMON: You know what, I'm not going to deny that. Vanilla gorilla is right. Because you like a -- the color purple. (Inaudible) is ugly.

CUOMO: My beauty is on the inside.

LEMON: Bye. Boy, bye.

This is CNN Tonight. I'm Don Lemon. Thank you so much for joining us.

So, here we are on the eve of the all-important Nevada caucuses. Just hours away from what could be a make or break vote for the Democrats vying to run against the president.

And we are learning tonight that Russia is not just interfering in our election to help this president. We just talked about this. Chris and I just talked about this. They're also interfering to help Bernie Sanders and to create chaos in the race.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Here's the message. To Russia, stay out of American elections. And what they are doing, by the way, the ugly thing that they are doing, and I've seen some of their, you know, their tweets and stuff, is they try to divide us up. That's what they did in 2016. That is the ugliest thing they're doing, is they are trying to cause chaos, they are trying to cause hatred in America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, Bernie Sanders says that his campaign was briefed about a month ago on Russia's efforts to help him. And he implies that the news of the briefing was leaked to hurt his campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SANDERS: Thanks very much.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And this came out a month ago, how do you think it came out now?

SANDERS: Well, I'll let you guess about one day before the Iowa -- the Nevada caucus. Why do you think it came out? It was the Washington Post? Good friends.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, I'm going to ask about the campaign about that a little bit later on in the show so make sure you stay tuned for that.

But as much as this president doesn't want to admit it, doesn't want you even thinking about Russia, it sure looks like things are working out just the way Vladimir Putin wants them to.

So, let's not forget that Robert Mueller included Russian e-mails like this one from February 2016. Quote, "main idea, use any opportunity to criticize Hillary Clinton and the rest except Sanders and Trump. We support them."

And it was just yesterday that we learned about that intel briefing to Congress warning that Russia is interfering in our election right now with the goal of helping Trump.

A source telling CNN what the president was really frustrated about was his fear that Adam Schiff could use that intel against him politically.

Now White House official says that the president has been briefed on Russia's attempt to help Senator Sanders. Well, we don't know exactly when that briefing took place. But listen to this. This is from the president today talking about Russia's efforts on his own behalf.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was told a week ago, you know, they're trying to start a rumor. It's disinformation. That's the only thing they're good at. They're not good at anything else. They get nothing done. Do-nothing Democrats. That Putin wants to make sure I get elected. Listen to this. So, doesn't he want to see who the Democrats going to be? Wouldn't he rather have, let's say, Bernie?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: The president sure does mention Sanders a lot, doesn't he? You've to wonder whether Putin is the only one who wants to see Sanders as a Democratic nominee. Running against Trump.

[22:05:04]

TRUMP: I see these phonies, the do-nothing Democrats. They said today that Putin wants to be sure that Trump gets elected. Here we go. Here we go again. Did you see it? Aren't people bored? (END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Nope. Not bored. Definitely not bored. Disturbed. Concerned. Worried about the safety of our country. All of those, but not bored. Interestingly, former acting -- there's that word again. Acting. Again, former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker warning that Russia is trying to interfere in 2020.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW WHITAKER, FORMER U.S. ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm never going to deny that Russia tried to interfere in 2016. They tried to interfere in 2018 and they're trying to interfere in 2020.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: That is interesting. It's interesting that the former acting A.G., the man who replaced Jeff Sessions who was hounded out of the office by Trump for recusing himself from the Russia inquiry agrees with officials who told this president exactly what he doesn't want to hear.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN COATS, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Foreign actors will view the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interest.

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: We certainly are seeing and have never stopped seeing really since 2016, efforts to engage in malign foreign influence.

FIONA HILL, FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE & RUSSIA, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Right now, Russia's security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election.

We are running out of time to stop them.

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: Official after official stepping up and saying the same thing. The Russians are interfering in our election. Again. And the face of all this, with Russia continuing to attack the foundation of our democracy, our free and fair elections. What is this president doing? He's cleaning House. Purging anyone who tells him what he doesn't want to hear.

Sources telling CNN that the president's new personal chief his former body man, John McEntee is telling agency officials that he's on the lookout for any staffers who aren't sufficiently loyal to Trump. And what could be an ominous note he said he is focusing on the State Department and Department of Defense. One White House official saying, quote, "not a good idea on his part." Going to get himself and a lot of people in trouble. Maybe.

But I think we can be sure that the purge of the president's enemies list will please at least one person. The audience of one. One in the White House.

Today, ousted acting spy chief Joseph Maguire formally resigned after an irate president blamed him for allowing information about Russia's election interference to be included in that briefing to Congress.

And let's not forget that he was also in the dog house for saying the whistleblower acted in good faith and followed the law. Admiral William McRaven who has known Maguire for more than 40 years writing an op-ed in the Washington Post saying this.

"In this administration good men and women don't last long. Joe is dismissed for doing his job. Overseeing the dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their jobs. As Americans we should be frightened. Deeply afraid for the future of the nation when good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security, then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of eagle -- of evil."

Maguire's second in command Andrew Hallman also stepping down. And putting out a statement that you could read as a message. And I quote. "I have complete confidence in the I.C. workforce and enduring qualities of the community, stability, integrity, and relentless dedication to serving the nation."

Qualities you could say are in short supply right now. All that coming as Maguire's totally unqualified replacement Trump loyalist Richard Grenell is doing his real job protecting the president.

The New York Times is reporting that Grenell has requested the intel behind the classified briefing last week. And as acting DNI, he has access to all the secrets no matter how unqualified he is.

[22:09:53]

So, with all of that, with Vladimir Putin attacking the heart of our democracy. Sowing chaos in our free and fair election with the Nevada caucuses just hours away. The president of the United States is out on a vengeance tour. Purging enemies list.

The question is, what will happen in November? Is all of this working out just the way Vladimir Putin wants it to? Is the chaos the point?

Max Boot, Susan Hennessey, Michael D'Antonio, we'll talk about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: We are learning a lot more tonight about Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2020 election. Bernie Sanders confirming his campaign was briefed about the Kremlin's efforts to meddle on his behalf. President Trump claiming the interference is all a hoax after an intelligence official briefed Congress that Russia is trying to get him re-elected.

Here to discuss, Max Boot, Susan Hennessey, and Michael D'Antonio. Good evening one and all.

[22:15:03]

So, Max, I'm going to start with you. Russia is now trying to help Bernie Sanders while the president is claiming that this is all misinformation campaign launched by the Democrats. Russia is succeeding.

MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: They are.

LEMON: And Trump is, got his, he's buried his head into the ground like an ostrich.

BOOT: I mean, what's happened in the last few days, Don, is just very frightening. Because by firing Joe Maguire, the director of national intelligence, Trump is basically sending a message loud and clear. That he does not want anybody in the government, certainly nobody in the intelligence community trying to stop Russia from attacking our election again as they attacked in 2016.

Telling the truth about what Russians are up to that is a firing offense. You know, it was very striking to me when this news came out about Bernie Sanders and the Russians perhaps helping him, which I would surmise they might be doing because they think that Bernie Sanders would be a candidate that Donald Trump can defeat in the fall.

But at least Bernie Sanders to his credit said, Putin has no business interfering in American politics and as president, I will ensure that he does not do that. Have you ever heard Donald Trump say anything remotely someone to that? Of course not. Because Donald Trump is abdicating his responsibility as president. He is actually tacitly once again encouraging Russian interference. This is a very frightening moment, Don.

LEMON: Yes. Susan, you heard what Max said. Do you think the Russians -- do you think the Russian think that having Sanders as the nominee will benefit President Trump?

SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't think we can say what exactly the Russians are thinking right now in part because the reporting is based on sort of various leaks coming out of potentially congressional committees that makes it really difficult to know what exactly the motivations and question might be and what the intelligence finding actually is.

That said, I think Max is absolutely right that the contrast between how Bernie Sanders responded and how President Trump has responded and is responding now is really remarkable. Think about what candidate Trump did whenever he heard Russia might be

attempting to help in the election. Right? He made sort of coy statements like, Russia, if you're listening. He welcomed that assistance. He made it known publicly that he was open for business.

Instead, the Sanders campaign came out and said this not acceptable. We are not going to tolerate this. And if I'm elected president the Russians are going to pay the price.

It's not that hard to get this right. It's not based on some sort of specific ideological position. It's not that difficult to just tell Russians do not interfere or meddle in our election or our Democratic processes or you will pay the price.

LEMON: Yes.

HENNESSEY: And so that raises the question why is it so difficult for the president of the United States to bring himself to say that.

LEMON: Yes. Listen, a big part of this also, Michael, let's be honest, is the president's paranoia when it comes to talking about Russian interference in our elections. I mean, we're seeing that personality trait here too, right?

MICHAEL D'ANTONIO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, we are actually we're seeing a very complex game of paranoia because the Russians have declared that Americans must be paranoid because, my goodness, they're not doing anything to us.

And then the president is saying that Democrats are making this up, it's a hoax. You know, the net result of all of it is chaos. And I'm reminded of the Republican activist who want to conduct an operation chaos in South Carolina to somehow confuse Democrats as they go to their primary.

I don't think that chaos is a wise public policy standard for us to be considering or a wise political standard. But I suspect that the president sees advantage in it for him. He's always been a person who's felt that he could thrive when things are chaotic and other people lose track of their goals and he stays laser focused on what is now his intention to get reelected by whatever means necessary.

LEMON: Yes. Max, sources tell CNN that Republicans in that briefing about Russian interference are arguing that Russia couldn't be helping the president because no one has been tougher on Moscow than the president.

You have a column out and that says that that told -- explains why is totally bogus. But it's just shocking to me that Republicans could actually sit there and say that. Or they even really have that mindset this isn't happening.

BOOT: Right. And you kind of wonder do they actually believe this or they're just repeating the party line? I mean, whichever way it's ridiculous. Because I mean, look at fact pattern here. Donald Trump is trying to

prevent the intelligence community from fighting a Russian attack on the United States. And these congressmen are still claiming he's tough on Russia.

Donald Trump who's the guy who keeps repeating the Russian disinformation campaign blaming Ukraine rather than Russia for the attack on the U.S. in 2016. Donald Trump the guy who turned over northern Syria to the Russians and their Syrian allies who is helping the Russians all over the place, who never says one negative word about Vladimir Putin.

[22:20:04]

I mean, this is one of the things I pointed out in my column. Let's not forget Vladimir Putin is actually shorter than Mike Bloomberg. Can you imagine Donald Trump saying mini Vlad? He doesn't do that kind of thing. He always treats Vladimir Putin with incredible respect even as he denigrates everybody else.

This is clearly a president who has a soft spot in his heart for Putin. And they are returning that affection by trying to help re- elect Donald Trump.

LEMON: Why did he say in Helsinki, I don't see why it would be. Right?

BOOT: Of course, he repeats the Russian propaganda line and he trashes the U.S. intelligence community. I mean, what do you think Putin thinks when he sees Donald Trump attacking our FBI agents, our diplomats, our intelligence officers, firing the one who are ones, promoting lackies, and calling the dedicated professionals, traitors and human scum. I mean, that is Vladimir Putin dream come true.

LEMON: Susan, let's talk about retired Admiral William McRaven. And I've read some of it. I talked about it in my opening statement. Weighing in tonight with a damming op-ed in the Washington Post. Saying, "as Americans we should be frightened, deeply afraid for the future of the nation when good men and women can't speak the truth when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when president ego and self-preservation are more important than national security. Then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil."

McRaven knows firsthand the threats of our nation that the threats that we face here. This is scathing.

HENNESSEY: Yes. And I think it's really significant that somebody like Admiral McRaven somebody who has really been hesitant to talk about politics at all to weigh in the Trump era. Although he has barely in the past. For somebody like that to be writing a column like this, to be really ringing -- raising the alarm and sounding the alarm of the danger of this moment.

Because think about what we're seeing right now. Reportedly the president has decided to dismiss the acting director of national intelligence because he dared to allow a congressional briefing related to election and integrity in election interference be given to the United States Congress.

A co-equal branch of government with significant oversight responsibilities, with legislative responsibilities about an issue that goes to the core of national security. The integrity and legitimacy of the electoral process. The foundation of our Democratic system.

And that's, you know, whatever that information is inconvenient to the president of the United States. Politically inconvenient and inconvenient for his own very, very fragile ego. He retaliates against people.

And so, the long-term consequences of that is that less and less information is going to make its way up to chain within the intelligence community, within the executive branch, less information is going to make its way to Congress.

And so, the people who are tasked with protecting this country with responding, with defending us are not going to be able to do their job. And the only way to describe the situation we're in is a dangerous one. This is a dangerous moment. And I really do think it's revealing that Admiral McRaven felt like he needs to speak out at this moment.

LEMON: Yes. Michael, at the top of the show I said to Chris, it's only going to get worse. And he said maybe not. I don't know. I think it's only going to get worse. What do you think?

D'ANTONIO: Well, I think it's going to get worse. We've got a president who measures people in terms of their loyalty not in terms of their expertise. And for the president that's a very scary prospect.

You know, you can run the Trump organization saying everyone has to be loyal to me and that's the first and only priority. But when you're the president of the United States and national security is at stake. You want people to be able to speak truth to power.

And what he's saying now is that the truth doesn't matter. The power is what I care about. And if you're competent and experienced and brave, I'm going to squeeze you out and replace you with someone far less qualified but whose loyalty is assured.

LEMON: Loyalty only goes one way. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Intelligence officials say Russia is trying to interfere in this year's election. But does the president's new pick for acting DNI stand with the people he is now overseeing?

[22:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: Trump loyalist and the new acting DNI Richard Grenell is already marking -- making his mark - excuse me. The New York Times is reporting he is wasting no time requesting the underlying intelligence that led to the assessment that Russia is trying to help Trump.

He has access to everything. So, what will he do with the information? Joining me now is Robert Litt. He is a former general counsel for the director of national intelligence. Bob, I appreciate you joining us. Thank you so much.

ROBERT LITT, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Thanks for having me.

LEMON: Give me your reaction to Grenell demanding proof of Russian interference.

LITT: Well, in the abstract I don't think it's problematic. Which to say that this is the major thing on plate of the intelligence community right now. And it's not at all inappropriate for a new guy coming in to try to understand what the facts.

The problem is, is he going to be looking at this from an objective point of view of is he going to be looking at this in an effort to undercut the intelligence community to pass information back to the White House for the purpose of attacking the intelligence community's conclusion.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Shall we give the benefit of the doubt?

LITT: We'll see what happens. I'm always prepared to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

LEMON: We now have an acting director of national intelligence whose main qualification for the job appears to be his loyalty to the president. Do you agree with that, and if so, how does it impact national security?

LITT: So, the statute that created the position of director of national intelligence says that the director of national intelligence is supposed to be someone with extensive national security expertise.

And there's no way that you can say that Grenell has that. This is a complicated job. It -- we're focused on the issue of providing intelligence to the president. But it involves overseeing the execution of a budget of tens of billions of dollars.

[22:30:02]

It involves setting priorities for intelligence collection and analysis. It involves setting policies for things like information sharing or security clearances. It involves helping understand what kind of overhead satellites we should be using. This is not a job that you can learn on the job. And it's certainly not a job that can be done on a part-time basis while you're also serving as ambassador in Germany.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: So, one of Grenell's first hires was Kash Patel, a former National Security Council official. Former Devin Nunes staffer. Patel played a key role in helping Republicans try to discredit the Russia investigation. Does that move tell you anything about Grenell's priorities?

LITT: I mean, look. I don't know Kash Patel him. I think it's a little troubling to have somebody who maybe effectively the number two in the officer of the Director of National Intelligence who spent the last year and more literally tracing around the world trying to undercut the intelligence community. I think, it's going to be very difficult for him to gain the trust of the people who are in the intelligence community with that background.

LEMON: Joseph Maguire is actually the one who received the whistleblower complaint on the Ukraine call by did not originally share it with lawmakers. How do you think a loyalist like Grenell would handle a complaint like that?

LITT: It's hard to tell. I mean, I think, Maguire handled it appropriately. Remember that the complaint initially went to the inspector general. And so Grenell's ability to suppress the inspector general is somewhat limited. Because inspector general had a degree of independence. So, it's not clear that he would have been able to suppress it any more effectively than the White House was able to do in this case. Which is to say ultimately not at all.

LEMON: Well, the question is though, can you do what Devin Nunes ultimately did with the, you know, with the some of the information that regarded the Mueller investigation go back to the White House and then warn them what was happening. So that they get a heads up.

LITT: Well, actually the White House did get a heads up in this case anyway, because they called over to the White House because they were concerned about whether this raises -- raised issue of privilege or other concerns. So, the White House actually knew about this complaint before it became public.

LEMON: What are you hearing from people inside the intelligence community tonight? Are they concerned about this probe?

LITT: I think there's a lot of apprehension. I mean, again, I think, most of them are willing to give Grenell the benefit of the doubt. But he's going to have to earn their trust if he wants to have it. He comes in as we said earlier with no obvious qualifications for the job. Other than the fact that he's personally loyal to the president.

The intelligence community prides itself on being non-partisan. On offering unbiased factual analysis to the president. And I'm sure there's a real concern out there that are they going to be pushed to tilt information, to withhold information, to slant the analysis that they're providing so that the president hears what he wants to hear. And I think Grenell is going to have a difficult task to convince the intelligence community that that's not what he's there for. LEMON: And as you said, maybe he will. You said, you're willing to

give them the benefit of the doubt. But we shall see. But it's going to be difficult as you said.

LITT: We shall be.

LEMON: Yes. Thank you, Robert Litt. Bob, thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

LITT: Thanks for having me, Don.

LEMON: Michael Bloomberg says he'll release three women from their NDA's, but that isn't stopping him from getting slammed on all sides. Should he have seen all this coming?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:35:00]

LEMON: Michael Bloomberg trying to get past the issue that blew up in his face at Wednesday Democratic debate now offering to release three women from Nondisclosure agreements, agreements they signed after making allegations against him of sexist and misogynistic behavior. At the debate he refused to break the agreement. Now he's doing a 180. And I want to talk about it now with CNN political correspondent M.J. Lee. M.J., I appreciate you joining us to discuss this. This is a major reversal.

M.J. LEE, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER: It is a major reversal, Don. As you said when he was asked about this at debate. He said, he didn't want to release these people from the NDA's. He said that these were sort of consensual contracts. Just to reminder people about these NDA's, the Bloomberg campaign is basically saying that they've identified three cases of NDA's that involve things that Michael Bloomberg is accused of saying.

And CNN reported just today that according to a senior adviser, one of those three NDA's involves a woman, involved in a lawsuit that was launched in the 1990s that CNN and other media outlets have reported on. This woman accused Michael Bloomberg of having said some crass and crude things in the workplace. The identity of the two others in the remaining NDA's we don't know who they are.

And we have just been pressing the Bloomberg campaign to sort of get a sense of why this reversal and one campaign aide told me earlier today that up until this point, Michael Bloomberg had been thinking about all of this as a CEO. And now he's trying to think about it more as a person. So there you go.

LEMON: Shouldn't they have -- I mean, considering that this had been discussed before, this wasn't new for them. Shouldn't his campaign that handled this entire situation better, M.J.?

LEE: That's right. You know, these allegations have been out there for a while. Obviously dating back decades through his time as a businessman. And he was a public figure. New York City mayor for three terms. And I think this was probably one of the top issues that the campaign expected either the moderators or some of his rivals to ask him about. And I think it really escalated because Senator Elizabeth Warren was very set ongoing after him on this issue of the NDA's. Let's actually take a listen to that exchange.

[22:40:14]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He has got some number of women. Dozens, who knows. To sign Nondisclosure agreements, first for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace. So, Mr. Mayor, are you willing to release all of those women from those Nondisclosures agreements so we can hear their side of the story?

(APPLAUSE)

(CHEERS)

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have a very few Nondisclosure agreements.

WARREN: How many is there?

BLOOMBERG: Let me finish.

WARREN: How many is there?

BLOOMBERG: None of them accuse me of doing anything other than maybe they didn't like a joke I told. And let me just point out -- the agreements between two parties that wanted to keep it quiet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE: So, just some of the language that Bloomberg was using there was very tone deaf. And clearly the response is that he had on the debate stage really were not adequate. And you know, remember last night too, Elizabeth Warren escalated this further at the CNN town hall by walking on stage with a contract, remember her career includes her work as having in a contracts lawyer and she essentially said look, I did the work for you Michael Bloomberg. Here's the paper that you can sign to release everybody from these NDA's. So, kith it became very clear over the last 36 hours or so for the Bloomberg campaign that these issues were only going to escalate. He was going to continue getting these questions and clearly they realize that they needed to do something different.

LEMON: And how's -- has Warren responded, what's her reaction?

LEE: Yes, you know, when the Michael Bloomberg news broke, we were actually outside of a taco diner in Las Vegas, staking her out. And so as soon as she came out we asked her about this news. Here's what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: It's just not good enough. Michael Bloomberg needs to do a

blanket release. So that all women who have been muzzled by Nondisclosure agreements can step up and tell their side of the story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE: I think this is just one of many examples, Don, of Michael Bloomberg sort of realizing what can happen when you are a relative newcomer to a presidential campaign. The fact that he has recently been surging, has been getting a lot more attention. Especially as we head into Super-Tuesday. This is a candidate and a campaign clearly realizing that they are about to get a lot more heat for a lot of different issues from his past, Don.

LEMON: M.J., thank you. I appreciate it.

Now I want to bring in CNN political commentator, Hilary Rosen, who is a Democratic strategist. Hi, Hilary, thank you so much.

HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Don.

LEMON: Good to see you.

ROSEN: Thank you.

LEMON: What's your reaction to Bloomberg agreeing to release these women from their NDA's?

ROSEN: Well, you know, I think it's a mixed bag. I have a lot of experience at these issues around the times of legal defense. I'll tell you that, it very few companies agree to eliminate the use of NDA's, this Nondisclosure agreements for sexual harassment, discrimination and assault over the course of time. And so the fact that the Bloomberg Company is not going to use them anymore is a big step. And something we'd like to see other companies take a hold of.

But, you know, there's no question that they're complicated. We have no idea how many there are at the Bloomberg Company right now. And what we have heard from Mike Bloomberg is, they're only three that affect him. It wasn't physical assault or sexual assault. It was more language. And he is releasing those women and they blend up to talk. And I assume we are going to end up hearing from them over the course of the next few days.

But I think, you know, the bigger picture is that when you are running for president your standard are different. You know, Donald Trump didn't agree to live by a different standard from a businessman to a politician. And I think Democrats want to be better. We want to do this differently. And so, if you're a businessman running for, you know, the Democratic nomination you're going to have to step it up in terms of these policies.

LEMON: So, Hilary, I want to ask you, because if you're in corporate America and big business. These are standard operating procedure. Many companies have NDA's and they sign NDA's when people leave and executives leave. Should that be demanded of all companies? Is that -- are Democrats setting a precedent here that is sort of a purity test for all companies?

ROSEN: Well, almost all companies do have these agreements. And the way that it works is essentially, you leave a company or you get fired from a company and they'll offer you money. And in exchange for extra money to go. They'll usually say, well, sign this thing and don't tell anybody about what happened.

[22:45:13]

The difference is that when the thing that happened was sexual harassment, gender discrimination or you know, God forbid, assault. What you're not really doing is addressing the cultural changes that need to be done in an organization. So that's why NDA's around these issues are so important. So for instance. No one expects the Bloomberg campaign or you know, McDonalds for that matter to say that if you're an employee and you leave you have an NDA. You're not allowed to give people the passwords to the company computers.

LEMON: Right.

ROSEN: So, there's legitimate reasons to have NDA's in corporate America. But in this case if what you're trying to do is promote culture change, if you're trying to create, you know, safety for women and men in a work environment. You can't hide the abuses. And that's the piece why it's so important.

LEMON: All right. Hilary, thank you. I appreciate your time.

ROSEN: OK.

LEMON: Thank you so much.

ROSEN: Take care.

LEMON: Some Democratic candidates are spending hundreds of millions of dollars, others are looking at a big cash crunch. How the money could affect the Democratic race. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:00]

LEMON: Now to the state of the race, any Democrat who is not Bernie Sanders or a billionaire is likely to be feeling a cash crunch. New filings submitted to the FEC showed that Senator Bernie Sanders way out in front, $16.8 million on hand, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg have 7.1 and 6.6 million respectively while the rest of the pack are all under 3 million. Tom Steyer, and Michael Bloomberg are excluded because they are self-funding their campaigns and they have tons of money. They're billionaires.

Let's discuss now with Jim Messina, former Obama campaign manager and Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist and executive producer of Showtime's The Circus. Gentlemen, good evening. Must be nice to be billionaires. We all can't be one. I'm not hating, so I said it must be nice. Jim, I'm going to start with you. Tough numbers for anyone who isn't Bernie Sanders, or Michael Bloomberg. How difficult is it going to be for some of these campaigns to keep competing into Super Tuesday?

JIM MESSINA, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANAGER: It's going to be a real challenge. Look, money is the oxygen of American politics for better or for worse. And a lot of people made some big bets and spent all their money in Iowa and New Hampshire, trying to move. In mayor Buttigieg's case it worked. And he had his big surge moment. Some of these other folks, like Elizabeth Warren, et cetera, spent a lot of money, didn't get the result they needed.

So, you know, you're going to Super Tuesday in less than two weeks, and the Democrats' decision to move California and Texas up in the calendar means you have two incredibly expensive states along with all the other states and you're starting to run out of money. It's going to very quickly shrink this field and I think you're going to see a couple candidates have to get out soon after Super Tuesday, because they're just going to run out of money.

LEMON: All right. Let's talk strategy here, Mark. Sanders clearly the frontrunner. If he performs well in Nevada and South Carolina, and if he's flush with cash for Super Tuesday, could he amass enough delegates to be unstoppable?

MARK MCKINNON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, unstoppable is the issue really because that's why there was that great question at the end of the debate the other night which is would the other candidates support the notion of just somebody having a plurality, in other words, the most votes, but not a majority of votes going into the convention.

All the rest of them said no, we want to let the process play out. And so that means that, I mean Bernie's case is going to be, listen, we've got the majority, we got all the wind at our back, it's inevitable. But the other candidates have a say in this because they've got delegates and at the end of the day they could decide, you know, that they don't -- that they think a Sanders candidacy is problematic in the general election and combine all their forces and create a majority among the moderate candidates who don't have a majority.

So, it's yet to play out. But Bernie is very likely to come out of here with a win and then Super Tuesday with a lot of delegates. And what's going to happen is it's just going to build and there will be a lot of momentum and a lot of physics that will be hard for the others to resist.

LEMON: OK, So having said that, Jim. Bloomberg got into this race in part to stop Sanders, but is his presence actually helping Sanders because he's splitting the moderate vote?

MESSINA: Well, what's true is you have a bunch of candidates, Bloomberg, Biden, Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, who are all splitting the same vote.

LEMON: Right. MESSINA: And you know, my team looked at all the current polls and

looked and said, OK, after Super Tuesday, if all the polls stay the same, who will come out of Super Tuesday with a big delegate lead and right now because you have so many candidates splitting, you know, Bernie Sanders could come out with a 300 to 350 delegate lead coming out of Super Tuesday. And there it's really hard to stop him.

LEMON: Right.

MESSINA: And so, you know, I think Mark's right, we got to see what happens in Nevada tomorrow. We will see what happens in South Carolina. But pretty soon there needs to be some consolidation or what's going to happen is exactly what happened to the Republicans in 2016, it's just going to be hard to slow Sanders down, as it was Trump, as the calendar goes on.

LEMON: OK. So, Mark, listen, for this week's episode of the Circus, you spoke to Senator Elizabeth Warren the day after the debate about her attacks on Bloomberg. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: We have to come together and beat Donald Trump. And the best way we do that is we pick a strong candidate who can speak to all parts of our party. And who can get out there and fight and beat him. Last night was at least partly about that's not Mike Bloomberg and we just need to eliminate that.

[22:55:07]

MCKINNON: Is Mike Bloomberg a manifestation of a lot of things you're fighting against, was he a proxy for Donald Trump in a way?

WARREN: Yes. In many ways. Because, look, he is an entitled billionaire who looks at the whole financial world as how you suck value up to those at the top.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, Mark, she wants to go after Bloomberg, fine, but is she going after the wrong person? Should she be going after the real frontrunner, no?

MCKINNON: Well, arguably, yeah, you could say that -- and people are saying, Bernie is the guy that's standing in her way and that's the guy that she should go after. But to me, what struck me is she had such conviction in her arguments the other night that Michael Bloomberg does represents everything that she's about in her politics, right? So, you know, it occurs to me that had Michael Bloomberg actually got in the race a lot earlier, she would have had that foil and she might have done much better much earlier, because we saw -- we finally saw the Elizabeth Warren fighter that everybody knows is out there. She just didn't have a foil a player against. Now she has Mike Bloomberg.

LEMON: Thank you Mark. Thank you Jim, I appreciate it. See you guys soon, have a great weekend.

Russia's interfering in the election but the president says nothing to see here. Are his denials putting the country at risk?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)