Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Pentagon Warns Of Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine; Rudy Giuliani To Testify; Experts Skeptical Of Putin's Actions; Hate Messages Posted By Ahmaud Arbery's Killers; Teenager Broke Down In Court; Ukrainians Anticipate Russia's Attack. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired February 14, 2022 - 22:00   ET

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

[22:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST (on camera): Thanks for watching. I'll be back tomorrow night. DON LEMON TONIGHT with Don Lemon starts right now.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: OK, so how much did you eat yesterday, last night?

COATES: Why would you call me out for this? I may have had the nachos and the hot dogs and the ribs and everything else. What do you mean? I mean, that's a hypothetical -- are you asking for a friend?

LEMON: Because I'm surprised, I'm not flying today as many wings as I ate last night. It was so, so, so bad.

COATES: Wait, hold on. What kind of wings? Dry rub? Barbecue? Was it sweet one?

LEMON: OK.

COATES: Was it spicy? I'll do the Forrest Gump thing right now.

COATES: I had regular chicken wings. I'm not going to say where I got them from. I'll tell you where I got them. So, I had, I love pop eyes wings. I got pop eyes wings, and then blondies is a place here, Blondies sports bar, and they have buffalo wings. So, I got buffalo wings but I get them extra, extra crispy, all drums, sauce on the side.

COATES: I don't know that, how is that a buffalo wing, sauce on the side? What do you mean?

LEMON: Because you dim them in the sauce. You dip them in the sauce. I like to control the amount of buffalo sauce, of hot sauce.

COATES: Are you -- wait, are you one of those salad people who like dressing on the side where I have like a salad in a spacey like?

LEMON: And then I dip it. Yes, I like to control mine.

COATES: I love that you have moderation. LEMON: But I'll tell you what.

COATES: That's wonderful.

LEMON: I woke up, though, with, everybody is looking, I'm just going to tell everybody, with a sty. You see it. So, it's not like I didn't stay up that late. I didn't drink that much. It's probably the sodium but got a sty and it's wicked. I don't think I've ever had a sty, but there you go.

COATES: Well, maybe you should have put the buffalo sauce on the wing and then it would have --

LEMON: And maybe then dipped it in my eye. All right I got --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: I didn't even -- I didn't even see it you're as handsome as ever.

LEMON: Thank you.

COATES: I didn't even see it.

LEMON: Thank you. Coming from you, that means a lot because just look at you. You're Laura Coates.

COATES: OK, now I got to put on boots for the rest of the discussion. All right, Don Lemon.

LEMON: Bye, Laura.

COATES: Bye.

LEMON: See you later. Have a good night.

This is DON LEMON TONIGHT.

And we've got a whole because the whole world is watching. President Joe Biden faces what may be the biggest test of his administration. A source telling CNN a Russian attack on Ukraine sometime this week more likely than it is not.

The Pentagon is warning that Russia could invade Ukraine, quote, "with little to no warning." The U.S. embassy in Kyiv closed, remaining diplomats relocated near the western border with Poland. That as sources say there are at least 130,000 Russian troops surrounding the eastern part of the country.

Tonight, a Kremlin spokesperson telling CNN Vladimir Putin is, quote, "willing to negotiate." CNN's Nic Roberts explains to us.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Don, very interesting that we should get this additional clarification from President Putin spokesman late in the evening saying Putin is willing to negotiate. Now, earlier on in the day he had this sort of choreographed sequence

on state TV with the foreign minister down a really big, long table, the foreign minister giving him an account of all small steps of diplomacy that had been going on and Putin asked the question, is there a chance for diplomacy to continue? And the foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said yes, there is. There will be some counterarguments, but we can -- we can do this. We can pursue this and we should increase our efforts there.

That wasn't very sort of, if you will, subtly handled on state TV and it really wasn't clear, you know, what level of commitment there was coming from President Putin towards diplomacy, and I think that's why we heard this clarification late in the day from his spokesman.

LEMON: All right. Nic Robertson, thank you very much.

There's also big news from the committee investigating what happened on January 6th and in the days and weeks before and after those blood- thirsty Trump supporting rioters stormed our nation's capitol.

A source telling CNN that Rudy Giuliani may be willing to testify after all, and under oath. But only about the bogus big lie of election fraud. The source said Giuliani doesn't intend to waive executive or attorney/client privilege, so you've got to wonder what has changed since just last month when Rudy Giuliani was subpoenaed and his attorney said he didn't intend to provide information.

Why is a guy who spread wild, wild accusations about Hugo Chavez, about George Soros, about antifa, and wait for it, of course, Black Lives Matter, why is he reconsidering testifying?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: You couldn't possibly believe that the company counting our vote with control over our vote is owned by two Venezuelans who were allies of Chavez, are present allies of Maduro, with a company whose chairman is a close associate and business partner of George Soros, the biggest donor to the Democrat Party.

[22:05:09]

The biggest donor to antifa and Black Lives Matter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): He got in the whole shebang. What is going on? What is happening when people start to -- why are these people doing this? Why do they do that? Why do some of you watching believe this crazy conspiracy theory B.S.? It's frightening. You couldn't possibly believe that because it's not true what he said. But Rudy Giuliani sure would have a story to tell if he testifies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GIULIANI: If we're wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we're right, a lot of them will go to jail.

(APPLAUSE)

GIULIANI: So, let's have trial by combat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): All of the above, is there one for that? If you're wrong, you'll be made fools of and you'll go to jail. Maybe. There's no agreement yet for Giuliani to cooperate, by the way, and we got developments to tell you about on two trials that we have followed very closely on this show, two cases that say a whole lot about the state of justice in this country.

The prosecution resting tonight in the federal civil rights trial of three ex-police officers in Minneapolis in the killing of George Floyd. Multiple witnesses testifying the ex-officers made no attempt to get Derek Chauvin off George Floyd's neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds.

The teenager who recorded George Floyd's death on her phone and without that evidence, we might never have known what happened to him. Darnella Frazier broke down crying when she was being sworn into, testified today saying, I can't do it. She took the stand after a short break and testified George Floyd repeatedly said he couldn't breathe.

The federal civil rights trial of three ex officers resumes tomorrow morning.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, prosecutors in the federal hate crime trial -- hate crimes trial of three men convicted of murdering Ahmaud Arbery say that he would not have been killed if he were white. His mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, saying this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WANDA COOPER JONES, AHMAUD ARBERY'S MOTHER: I think it's going to be a long, long, hard trial, a whole lot of hard evidence is going to come into play, so I got to be prepared for that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): It is a big show and we've got a lot more to come on all of this, so make sure you stay tuned. Our Clarissa Ward is going to join us in a little bit.

I want to bring in General Wesley Clark, the former NATO supreme allied commander. General, thank you so much, we appreciate you joining.

WESLEY CLARK, FMR. SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, NATO: Good to be with you.

LEMON: Let's talk about Russia has an estimated 130,000 troops along Ukraine's border and Pentagon's spokesperson, John Kirby says that Putin has added at least a half dozen landing ships in the Black Sea with the purpose of putting troops on shore. They are talking diplomacy but advancing into attack positions.

CLARK: Right. This is a moment of maximum pressure against Ukraine. So, he's got the military machine moving, he's moving it to its attack position. The world is on edge. People in Ukraine are starting to take this seriously. It could be very damaging from what he wants as to the collapse of the government in Ukraine or maybe President Zelensky says OK, OK, we give up on NATO and please accept us as your friends, Russia.

I don't think that's going to happen. President Zelensky stood very firm and Mr. Putin is running out of time. That was the reason why, I believe, Foreign Minister Lavrov did a public conference with Putin was to sort of extend the clock to increase the diplomatic pressure as the forces approach readiness.

LEMON: Part of Russia's plan according to one U.S. official is that they would begin with air and missile attacks on key military infrastructure and then further invade Ukraine with plans to encircle Kyiv within one or two days of military action. I mean, this sounds like if, if it happens, it's going to happen very fast.

CLARK: Well, I think that would be the logic, the military logic behind this, get it over with. The longer it delays, as you drag an operation like this out, the more the resistance might rise and the more NATO and NATO nations might do something. So obviously, if you can create -- present a fait accompli to NATO, a night of devastating missile and a morning of air strikes and jamming and nothing works and there's a seizure of the Ukrainian government and somebody pops up and says, no, I'm the real president, President Zelensky has abdicated, and I'm here.

[22:09:57]

And meanwhile, the Russian forces are coming in from all directions. It's enough confusion that in that they think perhaps that would be the most desirable case. They'll come at it from, I think, from all directions. That's what we have to assume in any case, that it would be quick, as large as possible, and over as rapidly as possible.

LEMON: General, let me put up, I want to put up a map for you. It's showing U.S. and NATO troops along NATO's eastern border, the U.S. troops are marked in red. Fifty-seven hundred U.S. troops in Poland, 450 in Lithuania, 900 in Romania plus NATO troops.

Talk more about the role U.S. troops will play in this region. We're not going to say Americans -- or see Americans fighting Russians. The U.S. is not getting directly involved here, right?

CLARK: Absolutely not going to happen. If you look at all those forces, those forces are trip wire forces, essentially, except in Romania where there are some air defense missiles that are directed against potential Iranian attack. But the rest of it is simply a presence. Now, the additional forces that have been deployed to Romania and

Poland would be there to assist in handling any refugees that might come out. But mostly this is about the United States reassuring our east European allies, members of NATO, that if they are attacked, then the United States would be with them.

But this is not of course an attack into Ukraine in support of Ukrainians or even defend. They're not organized. There's not sufficient of them. Don, let me give you an example. During the Cold War when we were defending a 400-mile stretch from the North Sea to the alps, we had in Europe, we had about 500,000 Americans. We had the equivalent of almost five divisions of force.

What's going against Ukraine on the Russian side is larger than that right now, and those five divisions, we don't have them in Europe. We don't have a single division in Europe right now. We have one brigade of about 100 tanks there, that's it. And so, there's no way we would ever be able to in this scenario do anything, but Vladimir Putin knows it.

LEMON: Yes.

CLARK: And that's why all the NATO threat is just an excuse, a pre- text to do something to Ukraine for more.

LEMON: Just a quick question because I want to move on and discuss some other stuff. The shorthand is people everyone says, we're going to war. That shorthand is wrong, right?

CLARK: Absolutely wrong.

LEMON: OK.

CLARK: We're not going to war, but Russia may be going to war. And if they do, Don, this is an act of -- this is an illegal act. This is not 1930 where Adolf Hitler can just do things. We have a United Nations. We have international law. It's a criminal act to invade another country. Vladimir Putin becomes a war criminal.

LEMON: Yes.

CLARK: That means no business with him.

LEMON: I want to, let me, I want to show this video. There's also images of ammunition arriving in Kyiv after being donated by the United States. So, you see that there. And then we know Russia has amassed troops in Belarus, or I should say a few miles, a few miles away as the area now known as the Chernobyl exclusion zone, which is the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster. Chernobyl is abandoned.

But now Ukraine security forces are there. That area is a direct way for Russia to get to Kyiv. What are your thoughts on the dangers here, general?

CLARK: I think it's a very dangerous avenue of approach that Kyiv has to be prepared to defend against, if possible. In the eastern part around the old reactor itself, it's marshy, it's damp, and it hasn't frozen solid. So, there are roads that go through there, but you're talking about vehicles moving single file.

To the west it's more open and it's more maneuverable. But it's definitely a dangerous avenue of approach. If you look at the map, on the far, far east and the southeast, that's where the current Donbas forces are. That's not the most optimum forces for the Russians to attack from, although they might do that. The most optimum place is this Chernobyl exclusion zone.

LEMON: General Clark, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

CLARK: Thank you.

LEMON: The Kremlin says Vladimir Putin is willing to negotiate. But could there be a diplomatic solution with troops amassed on the border? I'm going to talk to the former ambassador to Ukraine, next.

[22:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): The Biden administration closing the U.S. embassy in Kyiv and as relocating remaining staff to western Ukraine as both the Pentagon and the U.S. department -- U.S. State Department, I should say, warn Russia could invade Ukraine at any moment. But the Kremlin saying today Russian President Vladimir Putin is still willing to negotiate with western nations.

I want to bring in William Taylor, the former ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador, I really love having you on and General Wesley Clark to get both your takes on this, so thank you so much for joining us.

The Kremlin saying earlier today that Putin is still open to negotiations, but roughly 130,000 troops on the border. He's coming to talks with a gun pointed at Ukraine. Which do you think will prevail?

WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: So, Don, this is up to President Putin, as you say. He says he's willing to negotiate. He's got all this force on three, they have three and a half borders of can't be Ukraine. Negotiations can't be, can't be serious, can't really get anywhere, can't be productive with all that force on the border.

[22:19:53]

So, the idea of making plans to negotiate is good. In order to have serious discussions, though, he's got to send the troops back to the barracks, he's got to move those troops away from the border so that there can be serious negotiation.

Now, there could be serious negotiation. There are areas that Russia has expressed concern about, that NATO has expressed concerns about. There are areas where both NATO and Russia could be better off after these negotiations, so there could be this diplomatic off-ramp if President Putin wants to take it.

It would be a bad mistake as General Clark just said, for him, for President Putin to make a decision to invade Ukraine. It would be very bad for him, for Russia, and for European security.

LEMON: Talk more about that. Why do you say that?

TAYLOR: Think about the cost, Don. The cost that Putin would bear if he were to go over the precipice, I think he's inching up to the precipice. And if he goes over, first of all, General Clark can tell you this much better than I, but when you invade a neighbor, when you invade someone, when you initiate military activities, you can't tell, things are unpredictable in war.

So, he doesn't know what's going to happen. What he can be sure of is he'll lose some Russian soldiers, probably thousands of Russian soldiers will die. Ukrainian military is much tougher than it was in 2014. Ukrainian military will make it very painful and very bloody for Russia to move toward Kyiv as you and General Clark just talked about.

But they will be able to do that, and as they're doing that, even in the first couple of days, there will be the sanctions that we've been talking about for months that will be imposed on Russia's economy.

Now, Don, these are serious sanctions, the likes of which Putin has not seen. We know he's bothered by it. We know that he's concerned about these sanctions. He said as much, he said explicitly that to President Biden in a phone call in December. He said if you put those sanctions on me, you know, you'll disrupt our relations for generations. Well, yes, if he invades, he will disrupt it for generations.

But there's one other thing, Don, an answer to your question about why, why it would be so painful for him, and so risky for him, and that is the Russian people are not particularly angry at the Ukrainians. The Russian people by and large have a good attitude towards the Ukrainians, and they're going to wonder why President Putin is sending their sons and daughters and fathers and brothers into combat and are getting killed and going back to be buried in Russian towns.

That is not -- that could have -- that could disrupt President Putin's regime, it could be destabilize to his regime. So, he's got a lot to think about, and I think he will -- he will look for the off-ramp.

LEMON: Look, Ambassador, excuse me, let me jump in because you keep saying -- and everyone saying he's got a diplomatic off-ramp, he's got a diplomatic off-ramp. We've been saying that for weeks now. It's not months. And so far, you know, you know, his GPS seems to be saying keep straight ahead, do not exit. It doesn't look like he's looking for an off-ramp. How long can you say that, I guess until there is conflict, until something happens? Like when does he -- when does he miss the turn and is unable to do it?

TAYLOR: Don, he misses the turn when he goes across the border. When he sends tanks and troops across the border, when he fires across the border, sends missiles across the border, that's -- that's the precipice. That's what he falls off.

Up until then -- and we don't think -- I don't think, most people don't think that he has actually made the decision yet. He's still, I think, evaluating those costs and benefits. The benefits are that somehow -- benefits is what he wants, what he's trying to get from this is control of Ukraine.

President Putin has indicated in things he's written, said, and done, that he wants to regain control. He wants to get Ukraine back under Russian authority, dominance, and he will do it in any way he can. And if he makes that, if he does that, if he decides to invade in order to get Ukraine, he can get in. He can get to Kyiv, as you and General Clark just talked about. He can't get out.

Don, we remember when they went into, when Russians went into Afghanistan. We have our own problems with Afghanistan, but the Russians went into Afghanistan very quickly, very easily, and they had to leave with their tails between their legs and it led to the end of the Soviet Union.

LEMON: Ambassador, thank you. We'll have you back, of course. We'll see if this escalates or if he does take that diplomatic off-ramp as everyone is suggesting he does. Thank you very much.

TAYLOR: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: Rudy might actually testify, might. Sources telling CNN that Rudy Giuliani could talk to the committee investigating January 6th. Under oath.

[22:25:06]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): So, this is new tonight. The January 6th committee still expects Rudy Giuliani will cooperate, will cooperate with its subpoena. That as a source telling CNN that he may be willing to engage with the committee on certain topics.

[22:30:02]

Joining me now, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams. Elliott, good evening to you, sir.

So, sources telling CNN that Giuliani may be willing to testify to the committee about claims of election fraud after the 2020 presidential election. Listen to what he was saying then and then we'll talk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GIULIANI: Philadelphia is a professional place for voter fraud because you have a decrepit Democrat machine that you have had in power for 60 years, and it's the reason why you have voter fraud.

And there's no doubt about it. This was not an individual idea of 10 or 12 Democrat bosses. This is a plan. You would have to be a fool not to realize that. They do the same thing in exactly the same way in 10 big Democrat-controlled in most cases crooked city.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): Aw. My question is, you know, everyone is, like, Rudy is going to testify. Rudy Giuliani is going to testify. He said all of that -- I mean, is he just going to say the same thing to the committee? What should the -- what kind of nonsense --

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

LEMON: -- should the committee expect to hear?

WILLIAMS: You know, Don, when people talk about testimony, they see it as this sort of all or nothing thing where either someone is going to come and testify from the big hearing or get hauled off in handcuffs. And you know, there's a world of ways that Rudy Giuliani can engage with the committee from interviews in private or depositions, transcribed interviews, or so on.

So, there's a lot that they can get out of him, even if it's not specifically -- I mean, now look, they can press him on these statements made at the four seasons hotel, I believe.

LEMON: No, no, four seasons landscaping.

WILLIAMS: Pardon me, pardon me.

LEMON: Yes. Four seasons it tells very nice place. It look (Inaudible).

WILLIAMS: OK. Excellent.

LEMON: But the four seasons landscaping, I'm not so sure, I don't know.

WILLIAMS: I stand corrected. So, they can press him on that, but there's a world of other information they can get to him, namely about the president's whereabouts, conversations the president had and so on.

So, you know, frankly, it is in his interest and the committee's interest to negotiate and work out some terms for his testimony?

LEMON: So, he does not intend, I understand, to waive executive or attorney/client privilege.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

LEMON: What actual claims of privilege can Giuliani make based on his role as Trump's lawyer/ voter fraud vigilante?

WILLIAMS: Yes. Now we got to be careful about how we talk about the privilege because ultimately it rests either with the president or the holder of the privilege, which is the client. Right? It's not really up to the attorney to be the one who waives it. Now, he can speak about anything outside of the scope of his

representation of the president as his attorney. Now look, Rudy Giuliani gave any number of public statements, including the two that you put there, Don, where he can speak to those -- to those things.

Anytime he gave media interviews, anytime he went down and spoke with Georgia election officials, all of that is fair game because those were not conversations with the president. They were not legal advice or executive advice he was giving to the president.

LEMON: OK, there's a separate Trump legal issue, the former president's longtime accounting firm Mazars --

WILLIAMS: Yes.

LEMON: -- informed the Trump organization last week that it should no longer rely on nearly 10 years' worth of financial statements and that they would no longer be their accountants. OK.

So, it was only just last month that the New York attorney general's office alleged that it has found significant evidence indicating that the Trump organization used fraudulent or misleading asset valuations. What do you think of this development?

WILLIAMS: Yes. The interesting thing about those financial statements is that, that information is at the heart of both civil and criminal investigations into the Trump organization in terms of how they were alleged to have elevated the values of properties for getting loans. But deflated the values of properties for paying taxes, right?

And so, it all speaks to the same allegations, which is that they were just not being candid about what the values of the property were. Now the problem, Don, here, is that at the end of the day the valuations of properties are inherently subjective.

Like I might believe that my house is worth $10 million and I can say that to my accountant, but at the end of the day it's just an opinion, right? And it's hard to charge someone criminally sometimes on the basis of what they say in statements like this.

LEMON: But even if you're trying to use it for leverage --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Well, that's -- but that's, you know, that's what the heart of the investigation. Is it just puffery and is it just beefing up the values of properties? Or is it systematically and fraudulently trying to bilk banks and lenders out of their money? And that's what the attorney general is looking into.

It's taken a long time and, you know, it's at a certain point either we need to find out that nothing is happening. The public needs to find out that nothing is happening here or that they're coming forward with charges.

LEMON: All right. Let me get this in because they did respond. WILLIAMS: Sure.

[22:34:57]

LEMON: Trump Org. statement says that what Mazars says does not contain any, quote, "material discrepancies" and that the accounting firm disclosure renders the Manhattan D.A. and the New York A.G.'s investigations moot. Is that really the case?

WILLIAMS: No, it's not the case. It's not the case. That's what they're looking into. So, the idea that somehow the statement moots all these months of investigation is not accurate.

LEMON: Where did all of these crazy legal theories come from in the Trump era?

WILLIAMS: How much time do we have, Don? You know, it is striking how sort of across different areas of conduct, whether it's election fraud or fomenting insurrection, frankly, or valuing properties. Sort of, there's a consistent thread of dishonesty, but there is also a consistent thread of, well, maybe, that makes it sometimes hard to criminally charge and evading liability.

LEMON: And grift. Let's not forget the grift. Thank you, sir.

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: I appreciate it.

Opening statements in the federal hate crimes trial of the Georgia men who killed Ahmaud Arbery today. And in Minnesota, the teen who the shot video showing George Floyd's death testifies in that trial. We're going to tell you what went down in both courthouses right after this.

[22:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): The prosecution resting today in the federal trial of three ex-Minneapolis police officers charged with violating George Floyd's civil rights. The defense set to begin their case tomorrow.

That, as in Georgia opening statements begin in the federal hate crimes trial of three men convicted of murdering Ahmaud Arbery. Arbery's mother Wanda Cooper-Jones speaking today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONES: I think that we're going to get another victory out of this. I think it's going to be a long, long, hard trial, a whole lot of hard evidence is going to come into play, so I got to prepare for that each and every day. But I'm grateful that we're here, that we made it this far, and I think that we'll get a good victory as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): These moms in these cases are always so strong. The utmost respect for them.

Joining me now is CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson. Joey, good evening to you. Good to see you.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Always, Don. Good --

LEMON: So, let's start with the, let's start with Arbery, the Arbery trial. Gregory McMichael, his son, Travis, the neighbor William Roddie Bryan all on trial again after having just been found guilty of murder in the state trial. The prosecution actually pulling out social media posts from the McMichaels with really crude language, so be forewarned about this.

Travis McMichael referred to black people as criminals, monkeys, and subhuman savages. He also said in a text message zero n-words work with me, they ruin everything, that's why I love what I do, not an n- word in sight. Do you think evidence like this is going to convince a jury?

JACKSON: Yes, I think that's very compelling, Don. So, it's important to make a very critical distinction. And that's what the defense is going to do, I don't think with much success. The defense is going to acknowledge as they did in opening statements the horrific and colorful language that was used by their clients.

At the same time the defense is going to try to distance their clients from that. How? They're going to try to suggest, the defense, that is, that simply because they may have harbored those views, they were in no way connected to this specific incident on this specific date at this specific time.

It's a very hard argument to make. The prosecution, of course, introducing that to the jury, Don, because in this case, unlike the state case, racism is at the core. You have to demonstrate show, and establish if you're the prosecutor that the actions of the defendants were motivated by racial hatred. That is, they were the underlying basis and reason to demonstrate why they chased Ahmaud Arbery and why they engaged in the act of killing him.

And so that's why you heard the colorful language during openings. I think you'll hear more they're doing testimony. The defense again trying to distance, the prosecutor saying believe what you heard, believe what you see, that's why they did this. Yes, it will be compelling to that jury.

LEMON: You know, it's interesting because, listen, they have to put on a defense. To me, I'm a layperson. It sounds ridiculous to me, but the defense is arguing that these posts and messages are old, not from the time of the murder. How does, I mean, how does a jury take that into consideration? Isn't that show part of who you are?

JACKSON: I think the prosecution will turn that to be that not only who you are, it's the fabric of what you are. The bottom line is that you established that these were older posts, well, you thought that then, you continued obviously for the prosecutor to say you thought that now, why? Because if they said during opening of prosecution if this was a white

person jogging in the neighborhood, he would have been home in time for dinner, notwithstanding the fact that he was jogging through the area and may have been a person who was milling about at that construction site.

So, I think again, it's a very difficult argument for the defense to distance their clients from the statements they've made not only at the scene, but with respect to social media posts, with regard to things that they've told other people, and, of course, the colorful language that you used at the outset demonstrating what they believe people of color to be.

And I think if the prosecution is able to establish that that was the basis for them showing and running, you know, running down Ahmaud Arbery, I think they get their conviction. Difficult argument to make if you're the defense.

LEMON: That social media people realize will do you in every time. I mean, that's because it's like, there's a -- it leaves a trail. Joey, I want to turn to the federal civil rights trial of the three former Minneapolis police officers in George Floyd's death. Darnella Frazier, the teenager who videotaped the murder of George Floyd testifying today after initially breaking down in the courtroom. She said that she didn't see George Floyd -- George Floyd resist at all. Her video is everything in this case. How big of an impact will her testimony have?

[22:45:03]

JACKSON: I think it's huge. Here you have a teenager who, as you mentioned, broke down because it's difficult to watch, difficult to see. And I'm sure more difficult to record, particularly as people in the crowd, they realized, right, bystanders and laypeople without training realized that Mr. Floyd needed medical attention and assistance. Why didn't you?

You're trained to do this, right, with regard to providing medical assistance, which they are of course charged with failing to do. You are in charge of the person who's in your custody, how did you allow this to happen? How did you not see the warning signs? And more importantly, Don, how and why did you not intervene?

So, I think her testimony is compelling. In addition to all the training officers who testified that they are trained to know what to do, they simply didn't do it. The manuals, the policies, directives, and procedures speak to preserving life, why did you not preserve life here? That's what the defense has to explain as they begin their case tomorrow.

LEMON: OK, So let's talk more about the defense because they're, as you said, they're set to pick up tomorrow morning. Two of the officers on trial intend to testify in their own defense, Alex -- J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao. Tou Thao. The third isn't sure yet. Do you think that it's a right move to testify? JACKSON: I think all three will testify and I think at this point --

I think there's little choice. Why? In opening statements, Lane, that's the officer who was holding the legs of George Floyd and that was the one who actually said, hey, should we turn him over and really did intervene. The attorney is arguing he helped him into the ambulance, he provided aid in the ambulance.

The defense opened, right, gave an opening statement on Lane saying, hey, I'm going to testify. If Lane testifies and the other two don't, that looks pretty bad and he's already committed to. And I think the other ones are going to have to explain why didn't you do more? The crowd was yelling to help. You didn't hear the crowd? You didn't see the condition that George Floyd was in? You're not trained, you're not experienced?

But of course, what they will do, I think, is throw Chauvin under the bus. He's the senior officer. It was really him who was engaged in this activity. We were just there. I just don't think that cuts. You have an obligation, you're a law enforcement officer, you're wearing a badge, protect and preserve the sanctuary of life, don't just allow it to happen. And for that, I think they have a lot of explaining to do, Don, should they testify.

LEMON: Mr. Joey Jackson, thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

JACKSON: Always. Thanks, Don.

If you didn't see this, then what were you doing instead? Legends taking the stage at the Super Bowl, making it -- take this -- their stage.

[22:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): I mean, why you all coming to me? Don't you want to hear that? Take this. Free speech on full display at Sunday's Super Bowl halftime show featuring topics that have typically been a third rail for the NFL after reports that the league was not so happy with some of Dr. Dre's lyrics for the show, the rapper did not censor himself when rapping and he still is not loving the police. You just heard it.

So, Dr. Dre joined by hip hop greats Snoop Dogg, Mary J. Blige, 50 cent, Kendrick Lamar, and Eminem. By the way, the only whitehead liner and the only one to take a knee.

The move seemingly in solidarity with Colin Kaepernick, the former quarterback from the San Francisco 49ers who was heavily criticized for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racial injustice. The league tells ESPN that it was aware that Eminem would kneel during the show, saying that they watched multiple rehearsals.

Kaepernick is currently not playing for any NFL team. And an update on what we have covered for as an example of counsel

culture here, and that is Whoopi Goldberg. Return to The View after saying the Holocaust is not about race. Whoopi was suspended by ABC two weeks despite an on-air apology and a meaningful conversation with Jonathan Greenblatt from the Anti-Defamation League.

She says The View will keep having tough conversations because that's what they have been hired to do.

Up next, growing concerns in Washington that Russia could invade Ukraine with little to no warning. We're live in Ukraine after this.

[22:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): Tonight, a source telling CNN a Russian attack on Ukraine sometime this week is more likely than not.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: I won't get into a specific date. I don't think that would be smart. I would just tell you that it is entirely possible that he could move with little to no warning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): Out ranged at the Winter Olympics after a Russian figure skater who tested positive for a banned substance is allowed to compete.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHIEU REEB, DIRECTOR GENERAL, COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT: The athlete is under 16 and is a protected person under the World Anti- Doping code.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): Also, ahead this hour, six foot 3, 240 pounds, a man confronts crew members right outside the cockpit. At least two flights forced to divert this weekend due to unruly passengers.

But we are going to go live to Ukraine first where CNN international correspondent Michael Holmes is live in Lviv for us tonight. Michael, good evening to you. Thank you so much for joining us.

Russian tanks are lining up 15 miles from the Ukraine border. The U.S. saying an attack could happen at any moment. Are people in Ukraine ready?

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Don. Yes, welcome. Ukrainian leaders yes, they say yes. They say that they are ready and they are united. But you know, in a purely military sense, of course it's a one-sided affair if it comes to actual conflict. There is a booklet out now for citizens advice like, you know, know your blood type, know where there are shelters and hiding places near you.

[23:00:01]

And information also and plans on evacuations and stuff like that. I will say, as for the people, there is a sense of anticipation here.