Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

President Biden On Big Overseas Trip As His Agenda Stalls At Home; Democrats Grapple With Way Forward; Biden To Meet With G7 And NATO Before High-Stakes Putin Summit; Trump Department Of Justice Puts CNN Attorney Under Gag Order In Battle For Pentagon Reporter's Records; Vice President Kamala Harris Takes Heat For Answers On Border; Feds Release Report On Park Police Clearing Out Protest By White House; The FBI Facing Racial Reckoning. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 09, 2021 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST (on camera): The president in Cornwall, England tonight. The first leg of his first trip abroad as president. He will attend the G7 meeting with allies followed by the NATO's summit and then a one-on-one sit down with the Russia's President Vladimir Putin. What does he need to accomplish? The trip coming as his domestic agenda, especially a bipartisan deal on infrastructure is in danger of falling apart.

Former Democratic Senator Russ Feingold is here tonight with advice for Democrats on how to get around the GOP filibuster and get Biden's agenda moving. And White House officials perplexed at the Vice President's ill prepared answers about visiting the southern border during her trip to Mexico and Guatemala.

Here at home, President Biden's agenda is stalled. My next guest knows a lot about how to get big bills passed in Washington. Former Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold joins me right now. Senator, thank you so much. Good to see you again.

FMR. SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI) (on camera): Good to see you, Don. Thanks a lot.

LEMON: So, let's talk about this. When you look at what is going on at home with the president's domestic agenda, with hopes being hung on bipartisanship, please give us a reality check.

FEINGOLD: Well, you know, it is one thing if it is simply a president's domestic agenda. That's something where you would expect an opposition party to use the tools they have to stop certain things from happening. And maybe the use of filibuster. But this is far worse than that.

This is weaponizing the filibuster to prevent things that really aren't just about the president's agenda. They are about things like having a commission to investigate what happened on January 6th in the U.S. Capitol, an insurrection. It is things like protecting voting rights which is being frustrated.

When you used to have strong, strong bipartisan majorities, reauthorizing a strong voting rights act. So essentially this tool is being abused to undermine our democracy. It is not simply some kind of a gentlemanly agreement to let everyone debate fully. So it is also frustrating the president's agenda in terms of infrastructure and some of the other issues but it is frankly far worse than that.

LEMON: Yes. Senator, you know, it is clear that Senate Democrats aren't going nuclear to pass the president's agenda. But you say there are still things that can be done. Like what?

FEINGOLD: Well, you know, they may not want to go nuclear to get rid of the entire filibuster. That may not be in the offing. But things can be done like making exceptions for particular bills. You know, a lot of people think the filibuster applies to everything. It doesn't. It probably applies to the minority of things that come before the Senate.

All the nominations. Ambassador nominations, judicial nominations, they are no longer subject to the 60-vote rule. And the federal budget isn't subject to the 60-vote rule. Certain trade provisions are just majority votes. So, the question is whether some of these Democratic Senators and maybe some of the Republicans would go along with exceptions for something as vital as voting rights.

Unknowing that this is a terrible thing to do in a country that already has an overwhelming racial bias legacy to allow a filibuster that has been used to support Jim Crow and oppose civil rights legislation over the years.

[23:05:08]

To allow that to harm people's voting rights going forward is unacceptable. So perhaps some of these Senators would agree to change things like the rule that 60 Senators have to be there to break the filibuster. Maybe you switch the rule and say, no, 41 Senators have to be there to keep the filibuster going. Why should somebody like Joe Manchin oppose that? It is only fair. And that would be a way in which you could make a big difference to the filibuster without having to completely eliminate it.

LEMON: You know in recent times, Republican Ted Cruz famously filibuster Obamacare for more than 21 hours. Let's remind people. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): That Sam I am, that Sam I am. I do not like that Sam I am. Do you like green eggs and ham? I do not like them, Sam I am. I do not like green eggs and ham.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER) LEMON: So if the talking filibuster comes back and Republicans are

forced to filibuster, will it actually help Democrats pass the legislation? That's the key question.

FEINGOLD: Well, I think it might. Because it inflicts a little bit of pain, maybe Senator Cruz liked doing that. The truth is it was funnier when I read the cheese recipes on the floor of the Senate to (inaudible) changes in the dairy industry. But the fact is, that's not what the problem here. The problem is you don't even have to debate at all usually.

You don't have people like Senator Cruz talking for a long time and then they move on and pass Obamacare. What you have is people that are actually doing nothing. Sitting on their hands and allowing the states to gut the voting rights of the American people.

And so yes. Making them talk, making 41 people actually show up. You know, I had Congressman Clyburn on the show with me on the other day and he referred to us the spa filibuster. That all the people that are filibustering could be at the spa and it is the people that is trying to stop the filibuster that have to show up with the 60 votes. So, that would be a very valuable change.

LEMON: Could Democrats move to change the 60-vote threshold of the filibuster? Maybe 55?

FEINGOLD: Yes. They could. I mean, I think that that was an idea that former Senator Harkin had, is that you gradually move it down week after week until you finally get to the point where it is a majority vote. I mean, the idea there, if the filibuster is really supposed to be about providing the opportunity to debate and consider something, rather than always killing legislation, then why wouldn't people consider that possibility?

But I'm hoping that Democrats can at least agree, and maybe a Republican or two, on using their opportunity to change the rules on a majority vote to at least create an exception for vital legislation such as for the people's act, the John Lewis voting rights act, and yes, the crucial idea of a commission to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6th.

Let's see if we can at least get some exceptions to the current rule. Otherwise, I don't see how the filibuster can be sustained. The Senate is already completely undemocratic. That was the founder's intention. That every state should get two votes, no matter how small the state. When you add on to that the super majority, the bias of the institution is so severe and is being so abused right now that it makes a mockery of the idea of the idea of the Senate of being a Democratic body.

LEMON: Amen. Senator Russ Feingold, thank you. It's been a minute, it's good to see you again. We'll see you soon.

FEINGOLD: Hope to see you. Bye-bye.

LEMON: I want to bring in now Ben Rhodes, former White House deputy national security adviser under President Barack Obama. He is the author of After the fall, being American in the world we've made. Good to see you, Ben. Thanks for joining.

BEN RHODES, MSNBC POLITICAL CONTIBUTOR, FMR. DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA (on camera): Good to see you, Don.

LEMON: So, President Biden really driving home the importance of democracy during his first overseas trip. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I believe we're at an inflection point in world history. The moment where it falls to us to prove that democracies will not just endure, but they will excel as we rise to seize the enormous opportunities of a new age. We have to discredit those who believe that the age of democracy is over as some of our fellow nations believe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Democracy is under threat all over the world. You talked about this in your book. How hard is it going to be for Biden to strengthen democracy abroad when it is also under threat right here in America?

RHODES: Well, Don, that's the central principle of my book. You know, I went around the world to demonstrate that there is one trend happening everywhere and that includes United States. You know, I talk on Hong Kong protesters, you saw their Democratic movement snuffed out.

[23:10:03]

I talked to Alexei Navalny, who is now in prison, of course in Russia and his network was just deemed, you know, such an extremist group by Putin. I talked to Democratic activist in places like Hungary who face a rollback of rights in their country. But what I kept coming back to, Don, is the reality that the most important thing America needs to do, as much as I welcomed Joe Biden talking about this in his international trip is get our democracy in order here at home.

Because what people will tell you abroad is the most important thing America can do is set an example. That a multiracial, multiethnic democracy can succeed in this new world of inequality, disinformation and nationalism. And so, again, while I think this is a welcome step to kind of reinvigorate Democratic alliances, what we're talking about is not disconnected from your last segment, if we can't get this right at home, we cannot be credible in delivering this message abroad.

LEMON: Amen. So the four years under Trump was really a roller coaster for American foreign policies. Our alliances were frayed. Our adversaries were emboldened. What do you think America's role in the world needs to be right now, Ben?

RHODES: I think, Don, we have to get back to the basics here. You know, because one of the things that struck me in talking to people around the world in the Trump years is, it wasn't just the fact that Donald Trump was president that made them concerned. That was clearly part of it. It is the fact that we elected Donald Trump president. The United States of America could do that.

The United States has one story that we tell. It is a great story about equality and democracy. But we also have the reality that we've not always lived up to that story. And Donald Trump put that on very stark display. I think there is an opportunity though, Don where, because we've been a country that has suffered through the Trump years.

Because we've been a country that has demonstrated that even though we have this exceptional story about democracy, we can have the corrupt autocrat with the son-in-law down the hall. We can have the people overrunning our parliament. Because of that, if we can fight through it, that example will rip around the world. And that's what Democratic activist people struggling against authoritarianism need from us above all. It's for us to once again set that example to the world.

LEMON: Look. There have been so many challenges over the last five years or so, right? Four years. You know, Biden's challenge isn't just smoothing out Trump's chaotic foreign policy. The world has been struggling with COVID for more than a year now.

Many countries are also dealing with problems within their own borders. How does Biden rally our allies together on these big issues like the climate crisis when the world has become more insular?

RHODES: Well, you know, part of that is leading by example. And there is just --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Go back to the answer you said before, right?

RHODES: -- the enormous amount, yeah. An enormous amount of vaccine to distribute around the world, on climate. This is why an infrastructure bill, but it is also a climate infrastructure bill in this country is so important. Because when you do those things, and we learned this in the Obama years. When you step up and you lead through your actions, it is much easier to go to other countries and say we need you to be a part of this as well.

I think on the democracy point there, Don, it is not just on Joe Biden, just in the same way, you know, that Barack Obama couldn't solve all our problems. In part because, you know, you make mistakes as president but in part because we need to claim this democracy. We need citizens at the grassroots level. We need organizations like what Stacy Abrams has done.

We need people around this country to stand up and say we see where this is going and that's not where we want to head. America is supposed to stand for something different. America is supposed to stand for the capacity of democracy to do big things in the world and to co-exist peacefully and solve our problems together at home.

LEMON: Alright. You said, just as Barack Obama couldn't do it and you have Trump in the middle there and now you have Joe Biden. So, the question is, why should our allies feel confident working with us, if they know that they, you know, one single American election can completely change how we approach foreign policy?

RHODES: Well, you know, I remember the relief that came along with Barack Obama's first trip to Europe where he was greeted with rapturous crowds and very welcoming leaders I do think that the Obama years where much more welcome around the world than obviously the Trump years.

But, you know, I think that this is like points to the challenge of the fact that part of what those allies were looking at when Joe Biden comes. And they'll be so glad he's there. He's not going to disrupt the summit. He's going to try to get business done. You know, he's not going to shove the Prime Minister of Montenegro. He's going to try to strengthen alliances. He's going to cow tow to Putin. He's probably going to stand up to Putin.

That is all going to be welcome to them. But they also saw Joe Manchin's announcement. They also see Republicans passing restricting voting laws. And they're thinking in the back of their heads, Don, hey, we spent like years negotiating the Paris Agreement with Obama, the Iran deal with Obama, and then Trump came along and he tore that up.

[23:15:00]

What's to prevent that happening again in 3.5 years? And so the reality here is that Joe Biden can do a lot on this trip and he can do a lot as president. But this is not something that's going to be to be solve in one trip or even one term. We have to build back that credibility that was spent down so significantly under Trump. This is the beginning of it, this trip. But this is on all of us and we have to stick with it.

LEMON: Ben Rhodes, it's a pleasure. Thank you, sir. The book again is After the fall, being American in the world we'd made.

While President Biden is overseas promoting American values and freedom, are they safe here at home? Shocking details about how far the Trump Justice Department went in trying to get hold of email and phone records from CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr.

A secret court battle was playing out for months and we're only learning about it now because of a gag order. It was lifted on CNN's lead attorney David Vigilante. He was prohibited from discussing or even acknowledging the case. He couldn't even speak with Barbara Starr.

Multiple attempts to negotiate with Bill Barr's, DOJ, well, they went nowhere. The case didn't reach a resolution to the Biden administration came in. Joining me now, David Vigilante, CNN's executive Vice President and General Counsel. He wrote about this on CNN.com. David, hello to you. It is fascinating. I was reading it and my jaw was dropping. You did not know what the government wanted, when the DOJ first came

forward with this gag order. You were blocked at every opportunity, and trying to understand what was going on. So you still have no idea what this was all about?

DAVID VIGILANTE, CNN EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL (on camera): No, I really don't. We can guess. You know, you can try to work your way backwards by looking at what was covered in Barbara's emails and on what we cover at CNN at that time. But the truth is they were under no obligation to tell us and they were completely unwilling to share any information.

And that was a shame because it could have helped us narrow the search and make it much easy to protect what we felt like was protectable and work with them but there was no interest in cooperating on their part.

LEMON: And again, as I want to reiterate. This was a month's long legal fight. You were under this gag order, you were forbidden from even talking with our reporter, Barbara Starr. How unprecedented it was, this entire process.

VIGILANTE: So for us, it was completely unprecedented. These orders themselves are not that unusual. Typically you're going after phone records from a phone company, you are not going straight to a news organization and binding them to not be able to talk. So, I've been here 21 years. I've had a job where I would have been in the front lines of these, for 20 of those years and it's never happened.

LEMON: What kind of punishment could you have faced if you had violated that gag order?

VIGILANTE: I could have been held in contempt of court or even been charged with a felony obstruction of justice. So, it's a pretty heavy sort of damage to put over somebody's head.

LEMON: OK. So I said that, you know, this didn't resolve until, it is still not completely resolved as you mentioned at a top. But you didn't get this far, at least until the Biden administration. How exactly did it come to this point at least?

VIGILANTE: Well, we got a good ruling from the judge that we appealed to in the district court. They took one last shot by filing a notice of appeal on the last day they could which was January 15th. But we were able to negotiate something I think with the coming, oncoming administration where they had to be more cooperative with us if they wanted to proceed any further. And they agreed that they could no longer use that order to seek information from CNN or from Barbara.

LEMON: What is the danger here, David?

VIGILANTE: Well, the danger is, you know, you don't know what else is out there. It is possible, I suppose, that they have other orders that are issued against journalist right now to their phone carriers or to their email carriers where we're not involved. For example, I didn't know until the day we got Barbara's notice letter on May 13 that they had been looking for other of her accounts. And I felt both blindsided and offended, because the whole time they

were dealing with us, they felt no obligation or neglected to tell us they were seeking other accounts where Barbara clearly was probably doing work for CNN and communicating on behalf of her job.

LEMON: Yes. As you said there are others who are probably out there, didn't just happen to CNN. It has also affected the Washington Post. The New York Times. I mean, it's a scary thing to see given the first amendment. You know, our jobs are protected under the first amendment. It's one of the things America stands for is freedom of press. Where do we go from here?

VIGILANTE: Well, you know, hopefully we'll get together. We're going to get together with the Attorney General and staff on Monday in Washington. It will be myself. Our bureau chief (inaudible), along with my counter parts at the Post and the Times.

And the hope there is to not just to try and figure out what happened here in complain, but to see if there aren't some more pragmatic solutions to prevent this from happening again.

So we're not just dependent on the good graces of what ever happened at that old office at that time. That's not really the way our government is supposed to work. It is supposed to have predictability and you are supposed to be able to anticipate what the law will be. That's the whole basic concept of due process that were built around it and none of that is present here.

[23:20:03]

LEMON: David, it is scary. I'm glad that at least it got to this point. Keep us updated on where this goes. Thank you so much.

VIGILANTE: Thanks, Don. Good seeing you.

LEMON: You too.

Vice President Kamala Harris taking heat for her answer to the question of, when she'll visit the border. But is she being held to a different standard?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Do you have any plans to visit the border?

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: At some point.

We are going to the border. We've been to the border. So, this whole thing about the border. We've been to the border. We've been to the border.

UNKNOWN: You haven't been to the border.

HARRIS: And I haven't been to Europe. I mean, I don't understand the point that you're making.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The Vice President Kamala Harris is her first foreign trip as vice president. Her two-day visit to Mexico and Guatemala is not exactly being hailed as a great success inside the Biden administration. That's what the reporting is. Some White House officials feeling that she came off looking unprepared for inevitable questions about when she might visit the southern border.

[23:25:10]

So, let's discuss now with CNN national political reporter Maeve Reston, and political commentator Ashley Allison, the former National Coalition Director for the Biden-Harris 2020. Good evening to both of you. I know this is going to be a fascinating conversation.

So, let's get into it. Maeve, I want to start with you on the reporting on this. The vice president is getting criticized from the right and from the left following her first trip abroad. She had this moment with Lester Holt on NBC that didn't go so well. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LESTER HOLT, NBC: Do you have any plans to visit the border?

HARRIS: At some point. You know, we are going to the border. We've been to the border. So, this whole thing about the border. We've been to the border. We've been to the border.

HOLT: You haven't been to the border.

HARRIS: And I haven't been to Europe. I don't -- I don't understand the point that you're making.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, Dana Bash is reporting that some administration officials were perplexed by the vice president's border answers. What is behind this reaction?

MAEVE RESTON, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER (on camera): Well, I think we've seen this time and again from Kamala Harris, Don. Throughout the campaign in 2020. When she doesn't like a question that she gets, she often deflects in a way that can seem defensive.

And the point that Lester Holt was making was obvious to anyone else who was watching this interview which is that the issues at the border are inextricably linked with the portfolio that she's been given, which is to slow, to stem the flow of migration from Central America.

And so it was a really perplexing answer that came off as flippant. And I think that's what people within the White House are reacting to because there were any number of ways that she could have answered this question that came off differently. I mean, she has visited the border as Attorney General of California. She visited the border when she was a U.S. Senator.

And so, she's reacting in a defensive way because the right has been trying to make her into the administration's border czar and that's not the portfolio she was given and it's not a role that she wants. But we really saw that come through in her answer.

LEMON: OK. So, listen. Hindsight is 2020. We can sit here and say would have, could have, should have. You know, I would answer it this way. I felt that it was a lay-up. That she had to be prepared for that question by her team. And how could she not have had an answer for it, Maeve, is that the central -- is that what people are --

RESTON: Yeah. I mean, how could you -- that's one of the most obvious questions that you are going to get. And so to not have a good answer for it is what is drawn all of this criticism, Don.

LEMON: So, Ashley, I want to bring you in here. As I said, you know, sort of we're sitting here saying, you know, here's what she should have said or what have you, she could have answered it a certain way and she didn't. Vice President Harris is an historic figure. The first woman in her role. Is some of the criticism she's receiving related to that? Is she perhaps being judged by a different standard? Do you think that's fair to ask?

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR (on camera): Well, as I was listening to the clip, the first thing she actually said when asked the question. She said we're going to the border. So, she did answer the question. Was it a perfect answer because she continued to talk and there seemed to be some defensiveness? No. It wasn't a perfect answer.

But let's be honest. This was not the first politician in Washington, D.C. That didn't answer a question perfectly this week let alone like in their entire career. But what Vice President Harris plan is, is she has been to the border. She has been an advocate for immigration rights her whole career as a Senator and Attorney General.

So this target on her that she hasn't been to the border I think is unfair. And especially coming from the right. Oh, now they care about the border? Now they care about children that they separated for the last four years? Right. We believe that.

LEMON: Ashley, let me jump in here.

So I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with it. Her effectiveness, her negotiating and what she has done and can do, that's separate than her performance. And yes, you just answered the question in the way the vice president should have answered the question. And so it is not incumbent upon Maeve Reston or even people in the administration or for Democrats or for anyone to answer the question for the vice president.

She is the vice president of the United States. This is the second biggest job in the world. Shouldn't she have had a better answer and you shouldn't be answering the question for her? I think that's fair to criticize her for. Because if she thought that Republicans are setting her up for you know the some straw argument about that.

[23:30:00]

LEMON: She could have pointed that out in the answer and say it's not important whether I went to the border. I'm dealing with the business of the border and the place that it should be dealt with. And that is in Washington, D.C. in the White House, where I can be more effective rather than going to the border for a photo-op.

Boom! Next question. It's done. Over. Do you understand what I'm saying? So, listen --

ALLISON: I totally get it.

LEMON: OK. Go on. Go on.

ALLISON: It wasn't a perfect answer, but I think the trip was bigger than just that answer is what I'm saying.

LEMON: Yeah. But --

RESTON: Right. The answer --

LEMON: -- I think the criticism is -- I think the criticism of her performance is a fair criticism. I think that if you're going to play on the big stage, then you got to play on the big stage and you have to take the incoming as we do here and as anyone who in that position does. So, go on, Maeve and Ashley. Go on.

RESTON: I mean what it -- what it opened her to -- I mean, the right is looking for any way in which they can criticize her on the border issue. It's a great topic for them going into the mid-term elections. They want to talk about it. And so what it did was that it overshadowed all the substantive things that she talks about on this trip in her press conference, for example.

LEMON: And she may yet accomplish those substantive things, right?

RESTON: Yeah, exactly.

LEMON: Right.

RESTON: I mean this is the beginning of a very complex task that she is taking on. And so -- but to your point, Don, I mean, this is a woman who President Biden has put forward as potentially his heir apparent. He's talked about it being a, you know, potentially being a transitional figure. And he has her in the room as the last person every time he makes a major decision.

I mean, she is now on the world stage and the spotlight is going to continue to shine very brightly on her.

LEMON: OK.

RESTON: And so she has got to have a team around her and be prepared for those kinds of questions.

LEMON: I think that's fair. Ashley, I'll give you the last word.

ALLISON: I will say again, was it a perfect answer? No. But to say that her career or her trip or her substance should be criticized by one answer is often what happens to Black women. We have a standard of perfection.

I agree, Kamala Harris is up for the job to be vice president and she deserves criticism, but answering one question wrong should not actually be a whole new cycle. She said she's going to the border. We should take her for her word. She actually went to Guatemala because her purpose is to handle the root cause.

But I think the fact that we're actually making our point for her is that Black women are often held to a different standard and are scrutinized at a level, called defensive, called flippant, called all these things because we get one thing wrong. That is what I'm saying. I think that her answer was not perfect, but I don't think it should be in a news cycle for an entire week.

LEMON: Listen. I don't disagree with what you're saying and I accept that, but also remember, I mean, listen, what happened with Hillary Clinton who is a white woman, you know, they talked about her voice and that she was defensive and she was robotic and whatever. It is often something. I don't want to mansplain but you guys can correct me if I'm wrong.

ALLISON: (INAUDIBLE).

LEMON: It's often something that happens to women, especially women who are in power. Am I wrong?

RESTON: And she's held to a higher standard. And she's --

ALLISON: (INAUDIBLE).

LEMON: Yeah.

RESTON: Yeah. And she's held to a higher standard and she has acknowledged that many times.

LEMON: Yeah.

RESTON: She needs to continue to point it out.

LEMON: Yeah. Thank you both. I appreciate the conversation.

RESTON: Thank you.

ALLISON: Thank you.

LEMON: Protesters gassed, forcefully cleared out right outside the White House just before the former president walks out to do a photo- op. But -- excuse me -- a new inspector general report on the incident is out and we are going to take a look at it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: A new report tonight about last year's violent clash between police and protesters in Lafayette Square near the White House. Who can forget the video police gassing and pushing away protesters who were demanding racial justice?

A short time later, the then president crosses the intersection for a photo-op, holding a bible in front of St. John's Church. But now, an inspector general's report says the park police didn't clear protesters for Trump, but to allow a contractor to install a White House fence.

So I want to bring in now CNN's Whitney Wild. Whitney, good evening to you. Thanks for joining. What does the report say about why these protesters were removed and why so harshly?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: So, as you point out, there are sort of two questions in that question. So the first is why they were moved out. What the report says is that for a few days leading up to June 1st, it became clear that as the days were progressing, that protesters would become more -- what they describe as perhaps more violent.

So there were examples of protesters assaulting police. One officer, for example, sustained an injury from brick thrown at the officer. So, there was a lot of concern among law enforcement that as night fell, things were going to get violent.

By June 1st, they realized -- look, they really need to get this fence up around the White House because this is becoming a real problem. So it was June 1st that a contractor said, all right, we can do the fence, but we are going to need to be able to do it during daylight hours and we're going to have to have police presence while we put it up.

So the idea was to get the contractor there with all the materials and then assemble a lot of law enforcement there to make sure that the contractor could set up the fence safely.

Now, earlier in the day, there was actually a meeting and the attorney general was in that meeting where they were talking about how they were going to affect this. So the plan was to move these protesters out of the way so that the fence could go up.

The attorney general was at that meeting but he never mentioned that the president would later plan to go over to St. John's Church. Park police say they didn't know that until, like, way later in the day.

[23:39:59]

WILD: I mean, sometime between 3:00 and 5:00. The meeting with the attorney general was around 2:00. So that was the plan going into this. Park police used the measures they did because they were worried about violence. So their operational plan was to have all of these law enforcement agencies, Arlington County police, Secret Service, D.C. National Guard, Bureau of Prisons added in kind of late in the day.

They're actually not sure how that deployment all came to pass, but Bureau of Prisons showed up, like I said, late in the day. And the operational plan was to say three times over what is basically like a megaphone to the crowd, disperse, disperse, disperse.

LEMON: Yeah.

WILD: The problem is that megaphone wasn't really appropriate for the crowd size. It was so loud. It was so raucous that people didn't hear it. I mean, reporters didn't hear it. You know, a lot of the crowd didn't hear it. So, to the crowd, all of a sudden, it looked like police were coming in harshly without giving them any warning or perhaps for some rioters, coming in right at that same time.

LEMON: Yeah.

WILD: So, the operational plan -- and I think this was important, too. U.S. park police had never planned to use tear gas. That was not part of their op plan. That was actually used later by the Metropolitan Police Department at a different location close by, but not actually from the U.S. park police.

LEMON: OK. All right, Whitney, look --

WILD: Sorry. I know a lot about it.

LEMON: No, no, no. I like that you're giving us information. I'm just saying there are too many coincidences and the attorney general was in the meeting and didn't tell them.

WILD: I know.

LEMON: Yeah. OK, come on. Look, this is the attorney general -- I just want to show this -- walking around at 6:00 p.m., looking around. Yeah. Look, there's a lot that has to be unpacked when it comes to this. I've got to run, though. I appreciate all the details and I appreciate your reporting, but I think this isn't the end of this story, I believe. Thank you so much, Whitney. I appreciate it.

Only 4.7 percent of FBI special agents are Black. We're going to take a look at the bureau's diversity problem and what they have to do about it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): The FBI is in the midst of its own racial reckoning even as the bureau takes the lead in the multiple civil rights investigations of police-involved shooting deaths. CNN's justice correspondent Jessica Schneider has an exclusive interview with the man the FBI has just named its first ever chief diversity officer and he is owning up to the bureau's mistakes and promising change.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Breonna Taylor in Louisville --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): They're my roar (ph).

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): -- Jacob Blake in Wisconsin, and Andrew Brown, Jr. in North Carolina, all three African-Americans who were shot by police. Breonna Taylor and Andrew Brown, Jr. were killed. Jacob Blake, paralyzed. All of the incidents are now being investigated by the FBI, a law enforcement agency that is nearly three quarters white.

(On camera): Are you concerned at all by the numbers? The fact that 74 percent of the FBI's work force is white?

SCOTT MCMILLION, FBI CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER: I'll say that the numbers, we can definitely do better at and we need to do better and we need to recruit the best high caliber talent that is out there that is diverse. There is no doubt about that.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Scott McMillion started his career 23 years ago at the FBI as the only Black special agent in the field office encompassing Nebraska and Iowa. Now, he is stepping into a newly created role at the bureau to tackle its decades-old diversity problem.

(On camera): What is the mission for you as chief diversity officer?

MCMILLION: The mission is pretty clear. It is to make sure that diversity, equity, and inclusion is interwoven into everything the FBI does.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): The FBI has fielded (ph) criticism about its composition for decades. The top of its leadership team is consistently comprised of mostly white men, including today. But Director Christopher Wray recently appointed four new minority or female executive assistant directors to oversee divisions at FBI's Washington headquarters. Now, McMillion is crafting new strategies.

UNKNOWN: Different is what the FBI wants.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): To recruit a more diverse workforce.

MCMILLION: I think we have a good marketing strategy that we're launching out. Particularly, we're reaching out to those underserved communities where they haven't necessarily considered the FBI as a place for career or even a job.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Black communities in particular have historically viewed the FBI with suspicion. A fraught relationship punctuated by the FBI's counterintelligence surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders in the 1950s and '60s.

MCMILLION: We own the mistakes and even the things in the past that have happened and so we don't steer clear of that or shy of that. We recognize that. The bottom line is we are going to do better.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): But a group of retired Black special agents, who have created a diversity advocacy group called the Mirror Project, points out the percentage of African-Americans at the FBI has been dwindling from 12 percent in March 2016 to 10.7 percent in 2021. Just 4.7 percent of the FBI's more than 13,000 special agents are Black.

ERIC JACKSON, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE: It was difficult because I felt alone many times.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Eric Jackson retired from the FBI in 2019 after leaving the Dallas field office. He was the only Black special agent in training in his FBI academy class in 1997. And he is concerned the numbers haven't gotten much better in the 20 plus years since.

JACKSON: The Black agent numbers have never gotten above six percent.

[23:50:00]

JACKSON: And that should concern everyone, especially when our population is anywhere from 12 to 14 percent.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Jackson and fellow Mirror Project member Michael Mason applaud the FBI's creation of chief diversity officer, but they are concerned that McMillion doesn't answer directly to FBI Director Wray and they want Director Wray to be more vocal about the bureau's commitment to diversity.

MICHAEL MASON, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE: I think that there are senior who are committed to diversifying the FBI. But I think what's going to have to happen, is they're going to have to go beyond that. So, for example, Director Wray is going to have to make a statement, attesting to his commitment to diversifying the FBI.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): McMillion reports to the associate deputy director, insisting that is his direct line to Director Wray. And he defended Wray's commitment to diversity at the bureau.

MCMILLION: Director Wray takes every opportunity that he can to support and even mention diversity, equity, and inclusion, particularly to inside workforce as well as every time that he goes out externally and he has the opportunity to do so.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Jessica Schneider, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

LEMON (on camera): Thank you, Jessica. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So, I want to make sure you know about the new season of my podcast, "Silence is Not an Option." It comes out tomorrow. We are digging deep into the realities of being Black and brown in America.

In this episode, I am talking to CNN's Abby Phillip about the teenager who refused to give up her seat on a bus, nine months before Rosa Parks did. If you don't know about Claudette Colvin, you need to get to know who she is. Find it anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Thank you so much. Thanks for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)