Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Department Of Justice Releases Videos Of Capitol Insurrection; Critical Week For Biden Agenda; Obama Cites January 6 Riot To Push Sweeping Voting Bill Rights; Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling Against NCAA; NFL Carl Nassib's Gay Announcement; Emory University School Of Medicine Formally Apologizes After Rejecting An Applicant For His Race More Than 60 Years Ago. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 21, 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): So, here's the breaking news that we have, the Justice Department releasing videos in the case against a Capitol rioter accused of leading the Proud Boys during the insurrection. The videos show him among the rioters and other Proud Boys pushing into the Capitol with makeshift weapons. And I have to warn you. We haven't bleeped the language to give you the full context of it. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Tighten up, tighten up.

UNKNOWN: Come on boys.

UNKNOWN: Let's not be fucking yelled at, all right?

UNKNOWN: A milkshake.

(LAUGHTER)

UNKNOWN: Idiot.

UNKNOWN: Proud Boys.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Oh, jeez. President Barack Obama warning democracy is on the line ahead of a major voting rights bill that is expected to fail in the Senate and the Biden administration facing a critical week on Capitol Hill as Democrats try to make gains on top agenda items before the July 4th break.

So I want to go right to CNN's senior legal analyst Mr. Elie Honig. Elie, thank you so much for joining us on this breaking news. Let's play one of these videos, OK, released by the Justice Department being used in the federal court case against Capitol riot defendant Charles Donahue. He is accused of leading the Proud Boys in the insurrection, and it

appears to show Donahue, with his face covered, with a red and white bandana, looking on as others, in the crowd, takedown four police officers, blocking a stairwell into the Capitol, and again, a warning, it includes graphic language. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: We fight back!

(CROWD SHOUTING)

(Inaudible)

UNKNOWN: F-- you. F-- you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, Elie, I'm glad you're here to talk about this. Because I have some questions about it, and I'm sure the viewers at home. We saw, you know, the freeze frames, the arrows, you know, them pointing out people, and activities with circles. What are they trying to show with this video? They are trying to show possibly a relationship between various people by circling them? What are they doing?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (on camera): Yeah, I think, first of all, Don, they are highlighting who the defendants are, who are charged in this case. They're also trying to just establish straightforward truth here. I mean, look, there are strong evidence, there's smoking gun evidence, and then there is this.

I mean, they are as guilty as we can see on that video. That is a straightforward as it gets. And it is so important that the Justice Department collects this evidence, and puts it out. Because there needs to be a record of this. And those people sure as heck do not look like tourists to me. They are all going to get convicted, I predicted. Most of them are going to go to prison. It's just a question on whether they flip on one another first.

LEMON: So, Elie, prosecutors think that this was a key moment in the pro Trump crowd violently breaking police down, beating them down, moving them -- to move further into the building. Do prosecutors have a strong case here? This video, how strong is this?

HONIG: Yeah. Look, this is a best-case scenario for a prosecutor. This is the kind of evidence we used to say, just push play. Just slide the -- in old days, VCR into the tape machine, and hit play for the jury, and there you go. And this is a key moment. Because look, you know, arguably, I guess, you could stand outside the Capitol, yell, and protest. But when you storm the Capitol, when you overpower, when you -- throwing objects, throwing punches at cops, you are way, way over the line.

[23:05:01]

And again, let's remember here, when it comes to telling the story, and establishing the truth of January 6th, Congress is not doing its job. They are not going to vote for this bipartisan commission. The White House has said they are not going to have a presidential commission. So, it's not really DOJ's jobs to do this. But, they are going to be the only institution left standing, to give us a record of truth, of what happened that day.

LEMON: Elie, you know, you say that these indictments, also, stress that there was a real element of organization, a free planning here. It wasn't simply lone wolves. Can you speak more to that, please?

HONIG: Yeah. Yes, so, this is important, because if you look at the indictments, they charge that these members, in this case, are the Proud Boys, in another case of members of the Oath Keepers that they acted together. That they in some cases planned in advance, that they coordinated with one another, the first video that we saw tonight showed them planning in advance, the one guy says, quiet, you know, don't say that on video.

And that's important because that proves that this wasn't just some spontaneous thing, this wasn't some harmless thing. This was, legally speaking, a conspiracy. This was a coordinated effort to storm the Capitol and stop the counting of ballots that was going on inside that day.

LEMON: Elie Honig, it's always a pleasure, thank you, I appreciate your expertise. Hanks for joining us. I really appreciate it.

HONIG: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: So, I want to turn now to our senior -- CNN's senior political analysts, John Avlon and Kirsten Powers, good evening to both of you. Man, here we go. More video, and more to come. Listen, we had Amanda Carpenter on last week and she said, and she was right, Amanda said we are going to be seeing these videos for years to come, more and more of them are going to be coming out and it seems that's exactly what's happening.

So, again, good evening to both of you. John, I'm going to start with you. As the country opens up, we're coming back to a totally different economy, supply chains are disrupted, there are worker shortages, crime is spiking across the map, 10 mass shootings in the U.S. just this weekend. And then, you know, you've got the breaking news with what's happening with people trying to gaslight us about an insurrection. How does Joe Biden navigate all of this sort of post- pandemic, post-Trump reality that's happening?

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (on camera): It's a real storm, and it emanates from a fundamental lack of trust or a decrease in trust. That's one of the commonalities that connects all of this. The Trump years decreased trust by putting effectively truth on trial on almost every day. The pandemic decreased trust. People coming out excited to get out, but you see this decrease in trust in civic institutions, among fellow citizens, resulting in violence, some absurd behavior.

So, the best Joe Biden can do is to try to set an example that starts to restore trust. And there are heavy headwinds he's facing against that, given the Republican Party's decided to double down on the big lie and make it official policy. But trust did not erode overnight. It's not going to be rebuilt overnight. But in some ways that's the highest responsibility of his presidency, is to try to restore some trust between fellow citizens and fellow citizens in our government again.

LEMON: Kirsten, worker shortages are becoming a major problem especially for people in low-paying jobs. In fact, 649,000 retail workers quit just in April. President Biden brought up, you know, a $15 million -- $15 excuse me. A $15 --$15 million that would be great, right.

(LAUGHTER)

For a man who wave a $15 minimum wage again today -- do you think that's the answer?

KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST (on camera): I don't know, because the reasons that people are doing this are complicated. Some people are getting better jobs. Some people have decided, you know, after going through what they went through with COVID, a lot of people have reevaluated their lives and they're making a lot of changes and a lot of people are quitting their jobs.

And I think a lot of people are having the attitude that life is too short and now I want to do the things that I really want to do or I don't want to work for this terrible boss anymore, I don't want to work for these low wages anymore. And if they can find -- you know, it's given them the impetus to find something better. So --

LEMON: Hey, can I ask you something, Kirsten? Do you think people -- I think that you're right on, in your assessment with that. Because when you go through something like that and you come out on the other side and you're still alive, are people realizing that it's not just about -- that they can get along with less resources, they can be more connected with their family, I know that's part of it, not all of it, John, I see your face, there are a few people.

Because John, listen, you and I live near each other, every single store, every single shop, every single restaurant, everywhere there is help -- this help wanted signs everywhere and people say they can't find workers. But do you think, as you said, people are reevaluating, Kirsten. Don't you think that some people would say, hey, listen, I've learned to get along with less and so maybe I'm just, you know, as you said, I'm going to do the things that I want to do and I'm going to just sort of refocus my life and do things differently?

[23:09:55]

POWERS: Yeah, I think, look, I think that this country generally has had a problem in terms of people valuing the right things. So, I'll put myself in that category as well. We're just very materialistic, very consumerist, driven, hyper capitalist as a country. And we were forced to slow down. And sort of stop for a lot of people. And I do think a lot of people had a chance to kind of sit back and

say, wow, there's actually a different way to do things. You know, we had to adjust, everybody had to learn how to work from home. Look, I'm talking to you on a phone right now, right? We all learned how to do things differently and saw sort of possibilities of doing things differently.

So I do think that that's part of it and I think that -- I think it's good for Biden, you know, to want to you know, improve wages so people can have a living wage doing the work that they need to do, there's no question about that. But a lot of people are moving. People are moving to be back home, closer to their families, where they're originally from. There are a lot of different things at play here that are kind of out of the control of Joe Biden.

LEMON: Yeah, Kirsten, and don't get us wrong, we're not saying that's the only reason. We're saying that is part.

POWERS: Right.

LEMON: People are reevaluating, people want better paying jobs, they want better jobs. They want to be able to take care of their families, they want to work. But you're right, some people have reprioritized. And I see it in my personal life, people are, you know, reprioritizing and maybe one parent is at home when both parents were working and they downsize a bit. But go on, John.

AVLON: Look that is part of it, right.

LEMON: Part of it.

AVLON: And folks who made fundamentally changes in their pace of their life, that's great, God bless. But we also know that you talk to a lot of small business owners and what they've said is that the relief the government made at critical moments was so generous that some of their workers decided they didn't want to go back to work right away.

And so that is a legitimate cause of a policy debate, whether it's been created a worker shortage in effect through dis-incentivizing work because the minimum wage was low in the past. So, raising the minimum wage to have more (inaudible).

LEMON: OK. That's what I was going to say, because people have realized what an actual living wage is. So, is it the onus on the business to actually pay a living wage in order to get people back? Because I think that's a red herring, that whole argument about, you know, you've incentivized people by paying. Pay them a living wage and then they'll go back to work, they want to go back to work. Everybody wants to go back to work.

POWERS: Yeah, I mean, I also think we should just say, for a lot of people who decided to take the money from the government and not go back to work, they kind of didn't have a choice, because they had children.

LEMON: Right. AVLON: Absolutely. No, it was the right thing to do.

POWERS: No, no, no, I'm not saying -- Jon, I know you're not casting aspersions against (inaudible), but just the people who -- there are people out there who believe that people are just sitting around, you know, sitting by the pool drinking Mai Tais, when in fact they were actually, you know, educating children, suddenly, and they needed to be at home.

LEMON: Yeah. So look, I think we're in a major moment of correction as it relates to jobs, and this is in the entirety of the country. And so we have to see how it all shakes out. Thank you, many elements, to be considered, thank you both, I appreciate it.

I want to turn now to former President Barack Obama using the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol to push for voting rights legislation. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our own history should remind us that democracy isn't a given. If we truly want a government of, by, and for the people, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans and independents want that, then we're going to have to be vigilant in fighting back against attempts by the few to silence the many. And that's why what's happening in the Senate this week is so important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So let's discuss now with the former President Barack Obama senior adviser David Axelrod, he is also a CNN senior political commentator. David, thank you, I can't wait to hear what you have to say about the former president with a chilling warning about the fate of our democracy here, a day before the Senate votes to advance a voting rights bill. Why is he speaking out, and who do you think he's trying to reach here?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR (on camera): Well, look, tomorrow's a big day, because they're going to try to on-board this voting rights bill, the large voting rights bill that was advanced from the House, now it's Senate bill 1. And, you know, the question is will they get 50 votes to advance the bill. And, you know, the big eyes will be on Senator Joe Manchin. He's advanced a compromise bill that is -- that President Obama spoke well of in his remarks. He says it's not everything we want but it's a meaningful bill.

[23:15:04]

But that's not the one that's going to come up first. And the question is will Manchin begin the process by advancing this voting rights bill so there can be a debate. And, you know, we'll know the answer tomorrow. So my guess is that the president had two audiences. One is Manchin. And the other is progressives, or are progressives, who are perhaps

unhappy with the Manchin compromise and what Obama was saying was, that would be a big advance if we could pass that. So I think he had two audiences with his remarks today.

The one thing, Don, that he said that I think is really important, and not to be lost, and you and I have talked about this before, he singled out those provisions in some of the state laws that have been passed that would essentially give legislatures the opportunity to throw out voting results, to overrule what local officials have done or had done in counting the votes.

And this of course is what President Trump wanted last fall. He wanted the legislatures to essentially nullify the votes that were counted by local officials. This is a heat-seeking missile that goes right to the heart of our democracy. And it shouldn't be lost in this debate. You know, there are things that are really egregious that are being passed by the legislatures. But this one is fundamental to democracy and really, really dangerous.

LEMON: Amen. But here's more from the former president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Right now, at least, Republicans in the Senate are lining up to try to use the filibuster to stop the for the people act from even being debated. Think about this. In the aftermath of an insurrection, with our democracy on the line, and many of these same Republican Senators going along with the notion that somehow there were irregularities and problems with legitimacy in our most recent election, they're suddenly afraid to even talk about these issues and figure out solutions on the floor of the Senate. They don't even want to talk about voting. And that's not acceptable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: What are Republicans afraid of, of even debating? Why?

AXELROD: Because I think they are afraid of losing elections. And y, their constituencies are shrinking and they're using this system to try and restrict voting so as to improve their chances. I don't think it's even a mystery, Don. This is a way of gaming the system in their favor.

LEMON: That's it. All right. David, thank you so much. I appreciate you joining us.

AXELROD: OK, it was good to see you.

LEMON: Thank you.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00] LEMON: So the Supreme Court issuing a landmark decision against the

NCAA that could completely change the multibillion dollar college sports industry. The court unanimously ruling student athletes can receive education-related payments. Interesting. The court appearing to leave the door open to future challenges that could lead to the fall of even more spending limits placed on student athletes.

So, joining me now, CNN contributor, Bob Costas. Bob, good evening. Here we are. This is a real turning point. I think that you'll agree (inaudible) what you have to say. The NCAA has been accused of profiting off of athletes as it rakes in you know, more and more money. But this is the blow that changes and reshapes college sports forever, possibly? What do you think?

BOB COSTAS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, NBC SPORTS BROADCASTER (on camera): Seems like it's headed in that direction and it has been headed toward this tipping point for a while. That old model is no longer sustainable. The idea of what they are now calling NIL, Name, Image, and Likeness, you should be able to cash in on that whether the guy is a big star or it's a middling player. But they have some measure fame in a little college town and they want to do a commercial, or something like that, they shouldn't be prohibited from that.

And although full tuition, board, and what not room and board is certainly valuable, there are other expenses that are attached to being a college student that perhaps a stipend would help to take care of. But the devil can sometimes be in the details. And this is a hypercompetitive atmosphere. What you don't want to have happen, and the court has not ruled on this, but there is likely to be future litigation, what if we just want to say, hey, we're not even going to make any pretense that this is mostly about academics.

We have a kid here we want to recruit. He's got a chance to play in the NBA or the NFL, he's got a chance to win the Heisman trophy or take us to the final four and some big booster wants to pay him a million bucks. Well, at some point, not that I have anything against these kids making money, but at some point you're going to have a competitive imbalance that's even greater than what we may see at present.

LEMON: Wow.

COSTAS: Because there's no way -- if you say, look, OK, everybody's going to get this stipend, that's fine, you got a 60 or 70-man roster in football or you got 15 or 16 players in women's basketball and men's basketball. Are you going to give them all the same? Or are you going to do it like the pros where the biggest stars get the largest amount of money, and how is that going to work?

LEMON: I want to ask you something, especially now, because we are and -- thanks for that, by the way, Bob. Since we're in pride month, I would to talk about Las Vegas Raiders, defensive line Carl Nassib, now the first active NFL player to announce that he is gay. He announced it on Instagram. Take a listen. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARL NASSIB, NFL LAS VEGAS RAIDERS: What's up, people, I'm Carl

Nassib, I'm at my house here in Westchester, Pennsylvania. I just want to take a quick moment to say I'm gay. I'm been want to do this for a while now, but I finally felt comfortable enough to get it off my chest.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So the Commissioner, Roger Goodell, has put out a statement showing his support. How big a moment is this for the NFL?

COSTAS: I think it's significant. I think Goodell's statement was entirely appropriate and supportive and included the line that said we hope that soon enough, something like this will no longer be newsworthy.

[23:25:08]

LEMON: Michael said the same thing as well.

COSTAS: Yeah. And he seem like, I don't know him but he seems to be a very together young man whose priority is, I'm basically a private person but I feel like I should acknowledge this and then go out and play as best I can. Remember a few years ago, Michael Sam, who is an all-American player at the University of Missouri but didn't quite measure up in the NFL, but he openly announced during the draft that he was gay, but he never was able to play in the NFL.

And there were players through the years, Jerry Smith who was a receiver with Washington in the NFL, there have been a handful that came out, NBA, and Major League Baseball players, came out after they were active. But now this young man is willing to put up with whatever backlash may come his way on the field and we know what a macho environment it can be. So in a certain sense this is a courageous act that he's undertaking.

LEMON: Yeah, look, I think we're long past that, I hope I'm right.

COSTAS: I hope so too. I hope so too.

LEMON: But we'll see. But he's certainly brave to do it. Bob, I know this is important to you. And you want to talk about, can we talk about the Olympics please? The games will move forward in Japan despite vaccination rates and against the advice of the country's top medical adviser. It was already moved from 2020. Should they be delayed again?

COSTAS: Well, I said this last week with Chris Cuomo, I said it on Bill Maher a few weeks before. Ideally they should be postponed because in theory, by 2022, the world will have a better handle on this, and Japan, which has lagged in vaccination rates, will have a better handle, it could be safer. And not only that, the poll that will be cast over this Olympics may have receded, should have receded considerably.

So, that would be a better set of circumstances. That's what ideally should happen. But I wasn't saying that's what will happen, not just because the IOC is determined to go ahead, but if they don't, there are considerable obstacles. Every Olympic city repurposes the Olympic Village, in the various stadiums and arenas.

So they've already pushed those contracts back by a year. Push them back by another year and you'll have all kinds of litigation. For example, Japan's Olympic villages to be turned into housing and commercial properties and whatnot, and there are already contracts out for concerts and athletic events at some of the other arenas.

Plus next year you go up against the world cup which in many parts of the world is more popular than the Olympics. And the U.S. track and field championships are in Oregon next summer at about the same time that a postponed Olympics would take place. So you've got a lot of dominos that would fall and a lot of contracts that would be up for grabs so to speak. So, ideally, yeah, delay it another year. But there are a lot of conflicts that that would create.

LEMON: We covered a lot of ground here, we talked about the NCAA, we talked about a player coming out, and we talked about the Olympics. We got it covered. Thank you, Bob.

COSTAS: You got it.

LEMON: I appreciate it. And happy belated father's day to you, thank you so much.

COSTAS: Thank you so much, Don.

LEMON: Republicans and Democrats can't seem to agree on much of anything these days but there is one issue that's getting bipartisan attention. Why the navy isn't letting Cameron Kinley delay his service commitment to play in the NFL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): Senator Marco Rubio is calling on President Biden to help Cameron Kinley after the Navy denied his request to delay his service commitment to try to play in the NFL. Kinley is in Navy's 2021 class president and football captain and just signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. I spoke to him just last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAMERON KINLEY, FOOTBALL PLAYER FOR TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, U.S. NAVY'S 2021 CLASS PRESIDENT AND FOOTBALL CAPTAIN: It's definitely been tough the past couple of weeks dealing with the decision and being so close to accomplishing one of your childhood dreams and having it taken away from you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): So Kinley doesn't understand why the Navy isn't allowing him to play even though they made that exception for others. Republican Congressman Austin Scott pressed the acting army secretary about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. AUSTIN SCOTT (R-GA): The accommodation was made for Malcolm Perry. The accommodation has been made for four additional people. Why is -- it seems to me that his is the only accommodation that has not been made. Why is he different? Why should he be given less of an accommodation than others have been?

THOMAS HARKER, U.S. NAVY ACTING SECRETARY: I can't speak for what the Army and Air Force secretaries decided. I did not have a conversation with them about this. But, you know, looking at the, umm, two most famous naval academy graduates that played --

SCOTT: Roger Staubach.

HARKER: -- they both served first.

SCOTT: Roger Staubach served first?

HARKER: Ys, sir.

SCOTT: That was a long time ago.

HARKER: Yes, sir. The legislation allows us to make exception when it is a significant benefit to the service and for us. David Robinson, Roger Staubach, they both served first and they were recognized as graduates who served in the military. That added value to us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): So Congressman Scott joins me now along with his colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Democratic Congressman John Garamendi of California. I'm so glad to have both of you gentlemen on. This is a very important story. So again, thank you so much. Representative Scott, you first.

Cameron Kinley told me that he is very frustrated because there isn't an appeal -- an appeal process. So, what is the path forward to allow him to fulfil his NFL dream while still serving his country? Is that possible?

SCOTT: Absolutely. First of all, he should be granted the appeal. We will have a secretary of the Navy. I expect Mr. Del Toro -- I expect will be approved shortly. But he should be granted the appeal. He should never have had to go to an appeal.

And I expect that the Armed Services Committee will actually have to speak on this issue, not him specifically, but on the issue of the academy, some of the granting waivers and others not granting waivers.

[23:35:02] SCOTT: It simply won't work for the Army to do it, the Air Force to do it, and the Navy not to do it. As you noted, these exceptions have been made in the past. The exception should be made for Mr. Kinley. He should be allowed to pursue the NFL career and then let's let the Armed Services Committee speak to how we are going to handle this in the future.

He has asked for nothing more than the others have asked for and he should be given nothing less than the others have gotten.

LEMON: OK. Before I get to the Representative Garamendi, a quick followup here, Representative Scott. Cameron said -- when he spoke to me, he said he spoke to the vice president at his graduation to see if she could help. As I mentioned earlier, Marco Rubio is asking President Biden to intervene. Do you expect the White House to get involved? What can they do? Do you think this will be worked up with the Armed Services Committee?

SCOTT: I -- it needs to be worked out either through the secretary of Defense or the secretary of the Navy, who has the ability to reverse these decision, or the white house, if it is going to work for Mr. Kinley.

The National Defense Authorization Act won't be passed until towards the end of the year, November or December. That is too late for him. So, we need to move sooner rather than later on this issue.

Senator Rubio forwarded a letter to the president of the United States. I'm going to have continued conversations with others that I know in the administration and see if we can get some movement on this in the right direction.

LEMON (on camera): All right. Now, to you, Representative Garamendi. This is -- I want you to listen to what Cameron Kinley said on this show and then we will discuss. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KINLEY: Time is of the essence right now with Training camp starting July 24th. If I don't have any new decision by then, then there is no way for me to go back down in Tampa Bay.

During my time down there in Tampa, I wasn't getting any questions about football and who do we play in the Navy, but it was all about the military and naval academy and my experiences. So, I was already having that opportunity to serve as an ambassador for the Navy and to recruit. I would just like to be able to continue to do that in the future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): So, Representative Garamendi, he makes a great point about advocating for the Navy, but, you now, July 24th is just a few weeks away. Are you optimistic that Cameron will be able to get a waiver by then?

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA): I think he will, and he certainly should. Other waivers have been allowed in the past, in fact this year. And so there must be consistency. What we have is mass inconsistency here. So, yes, he should be allowed to go forward.

I think it will happen. You've got about, you know, three weeks, four weeks out there to get this thing done. The current acting secretary needs to revisit this and he can do so. All he needs to do is to change his mind and to send it forward.

Cameron also said something very important here and that is he can actually serve while playing for the NFL. It puts him in a great position to be a recruiter, to talk about the Navy, to talk about the recruitment that needs to be made and, frankly, we need to have more men and women of color, and he can certainly do that from the position as an NFL player.

LEMON: So as a member of the Armed Services Committee, is there anything that can be done to make this process -- that the waiver process is fair for all graduates at the service academies?

GARAMENDI: Well, first of all, the immediate situation, we're doing it right now. This is national news. There is going to be a lot of pressure on the acting secretary as there should be.

But I do believe that we do need a consistent policy across all of the academies. Right now, that doesn't exist. It seems to be the win of the secretary at that time. That is not good. We can deal with that in law with the NDAA.

LEMON: Listen. I can't tell you how grateful I am for both of you, gentlemen, appearing bipartisanship --

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: -- at its finest right now. So we will see what happens. Please come back when there is some movement on this and update us. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

SCOTT: Thank you, Don.

GARAMENDI: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: It is an apology 62 years overdue, over something that never should have happened in the first place. But, Emory University Medical School is now setting the record straight after rejecting Marion Hood's application in 1959 because he is Black. Dr. Marion Hood joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Emory University School of Medicine is issuing a formal apology to Dr. Marion Hood for rejecting his 1959 application simply because he's black. That wasn't enough to stop him from going on to Loyola University, having a long, distinguished career in medicine.

And Dr. Marion Hood joins me now. Doctor, thank you so much. This is a fascinating story. I'm honored that you're here. It is great to have you. The short rejection letter that you received in 1959 -- let me read it. It reads in part, I am sorry, I must write you that we are not authorized to consider for admission to a member of the Negro race. Wow! What did you think when you received that letter 62 years ago?

MARION HOOD, REJECTED FROM EMORY UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL IN 1959 FOR BEING BLACK: It was -- it was not a surprise. I did not expect to get into Emory University. I was doing this for like a protest, sort of like the kneeling of a football player. It was to let them know that I thought what they were doing was wrong.

And it all started with a professor of Emory, received an honorary degree from Clark College, which is now Crockett University (ph), in 1959.

[23:45:00]

HOOD: That was the year I graduated. And I sat and watched that and wondered why a professor from Emory could get a degree from my college when I could not even go over to his college.

LEMON: Hmm.

HOOD: And so I wrote a letter to a classmate of mine, asking him to help me get into Emory Medical School. If you noticed, the letter said, we received your letter and we have to let you that we are not permitted to admit members of the Negro race. It was a letter I wrote to him as a classmate in the year of 1959 from Clark College, and requested him to help me get into medical school.

LEMON: Yeah, it says acknowledgment is made of your letter of July 30th, enclosing your application for admission to our school of medicine. At the end, it says, I'm sorry, the thing that I read. Then it says, P.S., I am returning here with your $5 application fee. So at least they gave you your money back.

Let's talk about the school that you went on to attend and graduate. You attended Loyola University. You became a respected gynecologist and obstetrician. You delivered more than -- you said at least 7,000 babies, probably more.

Now, you are retired and you meet socially with friends and you tell these stories about your lives and you share -- you share this rejection letter from Emory. Tell me what happened next?

HOOD: The gentleman asked me for a copy of that to show that to their children and their grandchildren. One of them had it in his briefcase. He went to Starbucks on Cascade in Atlanta and he dropped his briefcase. By the way, he used to be in charge of finance at Emory University. He had had a stroke and he could not pick up the papers. So, young men picked up the papers for him. When he was picking up the paper, he read the letter and took a picture of it. And from that picture, he put it on the internet.

LEMON: Hmm.

HOOD: That was about three years ago. And every February, that letter circulates.

LEMON: Mm-hmm.

HOOD: But the intent was not that I would go and get into Emory. It was really like a protest of the times in Georgia at that time.

LEMON: As you said, it was like -- for you, it was like Kaepernick taking a knee. You wanted to take a stand and you wanted people to see the hypocrisy there. So, every year, as you said, your letter gets shared online. And then the pressure built on Emory to do something to make amends.

This year, you receive a letter of apology. Here is what it says. It says we are deeply sorry this happened and regretted that it took Emory more than 60 years to offer you our sincere apologies. Your long and distinguished career shows you were the ideal candidate for our medical school. An apology does not undo our actions. It is an acknowledgment of the pain that was caused by our school, and an opportunity for us to share our regret deeply with you.

It goes on to talk about steps here taking to increase diversity at the school. What did you think about that letter, doctor?

HOOD: We decided, at that time, we would tell the story on Juneteenth. That was in February that we -- that we had the discussion. So, up until to Juneteenth, there was planning going on, and Emory decided that they would do something to make amend.

I was offered several things and one was an honorary degree from Emory University Medical School, where this all got started by someone getting an honorary degree. So, I decided I didn't want them to give me an honorary degree. And then they went on to say, they would issue a letter of apology, which you just read --

LEMON: Mm-hmm.

HOOD: -- which was a good gesture.

LEMON: Yeah.

HOOD: And I thought the most important thing was they were going to tell the story. So, we had a lot of conversations about what had transpired, since that rejection letter, how I got to the point of going to college, coming from where I came from, growing up in Georgia.

LEMON: Let me ask you this.

HOOD: I'm sorry.

LEMON: Let me ask you this. I think it goes to what you were saying, because you experienced racism while you were in medical school at Loyola, and then when you were seeing patients. What do you think about where we are now when it comes to race relations in this country, the history of racism in this country?

(LAUGHTER)

HOOD: Well, I always said what goes around, comes around. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

[23:50:00]

HOOD: I think that we take three steps forward and two backwards, but we are moving in a direction that is better for us. I don't think that -- I don't think that race relationships are much different than when I was growing up. When I was growing up, we were in fear of white people.

This day, we are in fear of white people and others. So they are -- they are feeling some of the anxiety and the fear that Black students or Black people grew up with and live with every day.

LEMON: Well, Dr. Hood, we are so grateful that you could join us. Thank you for being an example. I'm so glad that you had a successful career and that you help to bring all of these amazing children into the world. What a legacy. Thank you so much.

HOOD: Thank you.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So you may have noticed that Chris was off tonight. I'm talking about Chris Cuomo. You might know him somehow. So we didn't have our usual handoff. If you feel like you missed out, be sure to check out our new podcast. It is called "The Handoff." Chris and I are taking you behind the scenes with an unfiltered look at our friendship and what we are talking about.

In case you didn't know, a new season of my podcast, "Silence is Not an Option," is out now. I am very busy. Lots of podcasts. Well, at least two of them.

Thanks for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)