Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

D.C. Police Corroborates Witnesses' Testimony; Text Messages Deleted By The Secret Service; Donald Trump Feeling The Heat Of January 6th Investigation; Former President Not Running In 2024; Rape Victim Became Political Football; Ivana Trump Dies At 73. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired July 14, 2022 - 22:00   ET




LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Thank you for watching. Everyone, I will be back tomorrow night. DON LEMON TONIGHT starts right now. Hey, Don Lemon.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: How are you doing, Laura Coates? Everything okay?

COATES: I'm good. Everything is great, you had a long day. I saw you earlier today, too. My goodness. Do you ever sleep? No, let's just past it.

LEMON: I do not, I have many, many jobs and you know. That's where we are, one must in this environment. Thank you, Laura. I'll see you tomorrow night, great show.

COATES: Nice seeing you.

LEMON: Thank you.

COATES: Good night

LEMON: Good seeing you as well. This is DON LEMON TONIGHT.

And you know what, one of the biggest bombshells of the hearing so far, right, now corroborated by someone who was there. A source telling CNN a Washington police officer corroborating to the January 6 committee details of what Cassidy Hutchinson was told happened when a furious Donald Trump tried to get the Secret Service to take him to the capitol where a mob of his supporters were trying to stop the election certification.


CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS: The president said something to the effect of, I'm the effing president, take me to the capitol now. To which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm and said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel, we are going back to the West Wing. We are not going to the capitol.

And Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. -- went Mr. Ornato had recounted the story to me he had motioned towards his clavicles.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): And was Mr. Engel in the room as Mr. Ornato told you this story?


CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel correct or disagree with any part of this story?

HUTCHINSON: Mr. Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.

CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel or Mr. Ornato ever after that tell you that what Mr. Ornato has just said was untrue?

HUTCHINSON: Neither Mr. Ornato, nor Mr. Engel told me either of this ever untrue.


LEMON: But now, that officer with D.C. Metropolitan Police Department who was right there in the motorcade a firsthand witness is corroborating details of what Cassidy Hutchinson told the committee.

And we have new reporting tonight which we'll -- we're going to bring you in just a moment on the question of loss or erased, Secret Service text messages from January 5th and January 6th.

But I want to get right to that reporting now, first on CNN from Jamie Gangel and Amy Gray or Annie Gray, I should say, that a D.C. police officer who talked to the January 6 committee is corroborating details of what happened in the president's SUV when he tried to go to the capitol after his rally.

Elie Honig and Andrew McCabe are both here, CNN's Evan Perez joins me by phone. Hello to all of you.

Evan, I want to start with you, because you have the reporting the Secret Service is responding to that reporting that they had deleted text messages from January 5th and 6th. Can you tell us first what our reporting is and how the Secret Service is responding tonight?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, so the reporting that is, you know, based on a letter from the office of executive general, which notified Congress that they had sought records from the Secret Service and that's apparently, according to the Secret Service they had -- they had found that text messages from July -- from, sorry, from January 5th and January 6th of 2021 had been deleted as part of a process during which the Secret Service was changing devices, telephone devices. And so as a result of that these messages were erased.

According to the Secret Service this is -- this was part of a process, again, they were changing devices and that's the reason why these messages were missing. The officer of the inspector general was notifying Congress because they said that this was of course a problem for their investigation of exactly what happened on January 6.

Now I should note that the Secret Service provided about 800,000 e- mails and other documents in response to this investigation from the inspector general, it's just that these very key obviously, these key text messages are lost according to the inspector general.


Don, as you pointed out, the Secret Service is now disputing a large part of what the inspector general told Congress. They are saying that again, that some of this was lost because they were changing devices. This is a process that is not at all nefarious, there was no intentional deletion of e-mails or text messages and they say that a lot of things were actually saved, you know, as a result of their efforts to save some of the -- some of the messages that were on these devices.

But they are disputing the central assertion or the suggestion that some of these text messages were deleted nefariously or with some intent to cover up something.


LEMON: Let me, Evan, let me give the report. If you're just joining us, again, the Secret Service is now responding to a report about erasing text messages as it relates to January 5 and January 6 of 2020, the day before the insurrection and the insurrection and the incident to reportedly whatever, everything that went down.

Here is what they are saying. Our Evan Perez, our justice correspondent is joining us now again, just in to CNN. The insinuation that the Secret Service maliciously deleted text messages following a request is false. In fact, the Secret Service has been fully cooperating with the OIG in every respect whether it be interviews, documents e-mails or texts.

First, January 2021, before any inspection was opened by the OIG on the subject USSS began, meaning the U.S. Secret Service began to reset its mobile phones to factory settings as part of a pre-planned three- month system mitigation. In this process data, resident on some phones was lost. They are explaining that. Our Evan Perez is on top of the story. Evan, continue please.

PEREZ: That's right, Don. And again, this is a huge part of the reason why this is important is, there is a lot of scrutiny on exactly what happened in those key days. You know there's a lot of concern about what exactly the Secret Service knew. And the fear was that some of that -- some of that information would be lost forever.

Because again, there are so many things that are the Secret Service agents were witnesses to and their communications at that time are key to understanding how they responded to the riot and how they responded to what the former president was trying to do.

All of these things, you know, are very important pieces of evidence for the investigation for January 6 obviously, and also for, you know, possibly the Justice Department if they end up looking at some of this. So that's the reason why this dispute is very important and it's very important to know what happened with these text messages that it appears at least some of them have been lost.

LEMON: OK, Evan Perez, stand by. As I mentioned we have our Elie Honig here as well as Andrew McCabe. Andrew, does this explanation make sense to you or do you still have questions about it?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I have a lot of questions, Don. And let's remember that this is an agency that whose actions around all these events has raised a lot of significant questions in people's minds. Right? This is an agency who took a senior leader, a person a senior leadership position on-duty federal agent and allow that person to take, essentially a political position in the Justice Department, that being Tony Ornato.

It's an agency who after the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson basically attacked her testimony with official and unofficial statements. None of them being under oath, and then has still yet to present any of those officials. Tony Ornato and Robert Engel to testify again in front of the committee to resolve some of these differences in the versions of events from January 6.

And now we learn of the loss of key text messages on January 5th and January 6th. The only way for the service to get out from under a cloud of suspicion here is to send appropriate officials up to the Hill to testify about these issues to be transparent and to bring these facts out into the light. And breathless press statements on a Thursday night at 10 o'clock are not going to do the -- are not going to cover this.

LEMON: Elie Honig, the Secret Service statements says that none of the text messages the committee wanted were lost and will soon likely learn if that is true. Correct?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: How would they know that, if they are lost, how do they know what they were. So, I have -- I have the same questions that Andrew just voiced. Now here's the bottom line. There are text messages from a crucial agency at a crucial time that are missing.

They say it wasn't what the committee wants. Who knows? They are gone. And if that was done intentionally, there is no evidence, but if that was done intentionally, that's going to be a major problem, a criminal problem. But even if it was not, when you replace your devices as any federal law- enforcement, FBI, Secreta Service, ATF, you just don't throw the device in the dumpster and say it's gone. You have obligations to preserve that information. You back it up. It's not that difficult technologically.


So, there is no excuse for Secret Service not at least having backups of the contents of these devices.

LEMON: Yes. Again, if you're just joining us, the Secret Service is now responding to the allegations about text messages being erased from January 5th and January 6th obviously of 2020.

Also, the developing news about now a police officer, D.C. police officer is corroborate -- corroborating now on what happened inside of the president's SUV on January 6.

Elie Honig, every day brings more eye-popping developments. Explain why you think this is so significant that a D.C. police officer is now corroborating what Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was. That Trump had a heated exchange with the Secret Service. He was upset that he couldn't go to capitol after a rally. A policeman saying it happened.

HONIG: Well, I think this particular question is all about settled at this point whether Donald Trump wanted to go to the capitol undisputed. Donald Trump, himself has admitted that. Whether he was angry, furious there is no question in my mind.

You have Cassidy Hutchinson's under oath testimony. You have this new corroborating evidence. You have Pat Cipollone who we don't know exactly what he said but we know the committee has said he was consistent with the other evidence. He did not contradict anybody.

And on the other side of this what do we have? A not under oath denial from a spokesperson for this guy, Ornato. So, the skills of justice are not particularly close at this point. Maybe Ornato will come and testify. Maybe there will be other corroborating evidence that backs him up, but we have not seen that yet.

LEMON: Is Evan Perez, our justice correspondent still there? Evan, no? OK. So, we'll talk to Evan more about this because Evan has some reporting on this as well. But Elie, listen, there is also -- Andrew, what do you, I want to get your response to this, what do you make of this officer now corroborating with what Cassidy Hutchinson said happened?

MCCABE: Yes. Really fascinating development in the story, Don, and it's one that, you know, quite frankly having a few more questions here, where was this officer? Did he hear what the exchange? It allegedly took place inside the Limo because of, you know, an open radio channel or was he physically approximate to the exchange, could he see through the windows?

There were all kinds of questions that if you're actually putting this person on the stand, you'd -- as Elie could tell you better than I could, you'd want to know things about his perspective and how he saw it or how he heard it and what exactly he perceived.

But Elie mentioned, all of the confirmation and the common sense quite frankly, is stacking up on the side of Cassidy Hutchinson here as we still sit and wait to hear an official under oath answering of questions by the agents involved in this, Robert Engel and Tony Ornato. And so, until that happened, you have to look towards the side of Cassidy Hutchinson as the one that you believe.

LEMON: More news tonight. All nine members, Elie, of the January 6th committee were huddling in Nancy Pelosi's office tonight unclear why all those she is says they were just using the office space that there was nothing else other than that going on.

We are learning that the January 6th committee is discussing possibly asking Trump to testify. Would that really happen?

HONIG: Would he testify? No. Would they ask him? Perhaps. I mean, look, there would be some feeder behind any such request. I think it would enable the committee to say, hey, look, Donald Trump keeps complaining, no one is here to defend him, this is one sided. Well, we invited him in, he's not going to take it. And they could say, well, he turned on his chance.

But in reality, if they wanted his testimony, they're not going to be able to get it because they'd have to go to court, they have to fight him, they don't have time to do that anymore.

LEMON: All right. Our thanks to Elie, to Andrew, and also, Evan Perez. We appreciate that. Let's not forget the former president tried to call a member of the White House support staff who was talking to the January 6 committee. Next, I'm going to talk to the man who could call -- you could call him patient zero for Trump whirls pressure campaigns. That's Michael Cohen, he is next.



WATTERS: The next hearing on the January 6 committee is scheduled for next week, committee members saying that they will present evidence that will add to the case against Donald Trump. That as sources tells CNN the former president tried phoning a member of the White House support staff who was talking to the committee. The call made after Cassidy Hutchinson testified. The sources saying that the staffer was in a position to corroborate what Hutchinson said under oath.

Joining me now is Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen is the former personal attorney for Donald Trump. Thank you, sir.


LEMON: Thank you for joining us. It's interesting that you're here considering what happened. You're a long time, as I said, Trump fixer, as you've been called. You know Trump better than most. So, when you hear how Trump tried to call a White House support staff member, when you heard that you found it striking, why is that, Michael?

COHEN: Well, it's striking because it's exactly what happened to me. I recall there -- I was raided in my home hotel law office on April 9, approximately a few days later I receive a phone call from a gentleman named Bob Costello, who by coincidence happens to be Rudy Giuliani's friend and his current attorney.

And one of the things that he turned around and said and I don't want to paraphrase it, I just want to give you a couple of the very same words that's are going here, I spoke with Rudy, very, very positive, you are loved. That's another one of the lines that Donald uses.

They put their arms around you to ensure that you stay within the, you know, the confines of what he wants you to say. And then they turn around and they further make a great statement which is that the president knows exactly what's going on, sleep tight, sleep well, you have friends in high places.

LEMON: So, what is that saying, what does that sound like to you?

COHEN: It just sounds like, to me, like the president is fully aware of what's going on, he wants you to stay within his zone of comfort in terms of what you say or don't say. And if you do exactly what he says, then you will be protected because you're being protected by someone in a high place.

LEMON: I want to get to your testimony because you had testimony in 2019, but the former president trying to contact someone that he didn't often or that he has no communication with previously, is that telling to you?

COHEN: Yes, it is. What it tells me is that he is extremely nervous. Why? Because first of all, in my tenure with him I never saw him call anybody, he would have Keith Schiller would do it, Hope Hicks, myself. Later on, he would have guys like Corey Lewandowski, Mark Meadows, et cetera.


He would never do it himself. I think the way that I know him and as well as I know him, he doesn't trust anyone anymore that's around him so he decided to do it himself.

LEMON: So, but after Cassidy Hutchinson that he -- after that testimony what does that tell you?

COHEN: Well, it's more than Cassidy Hutchinson --


LEMON: About the effect that it's having.

COHEN: Yes. And I think he is melting down but it's more than just Cassidy. Recently you just saw text messages come out from Brad Parscale to Katrina Pierson, two people that were with Donald going back to 2015, right from the very beginning. So, he sees them talking negative about him, he is nervous that everyone is jumping ship on him and worrying about themselves which they should.

I should've done that myself had you, you know, had I done that who knows where I would have been, you know, come sentencing time. But that's what I believe is going on here. LEMON: So, during the hearings, Liz Cheney read a witness statement

which sources tell CNN was from Cassidy Hutchinson about the pressure she was feeling from Trump's orbit. Watch this.


CHENEY: What they said to me is as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I am on the right team. I'm doing the right thing. I'm protecting who I need to protect. You know I will continue to stay in good graces in Trump world.

And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts. And just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee. I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.


LEMON: So, the language there, Michael, about being a team player, protecting who I need to protect, you know both sides of that equation.

COHEN: I sure do. I mean, that's part of the Trump playbook. I know --


LEMON: You think it's a pressure campaign?

COHEN: Sure. I know the pressure campaign because again, I was involved in the creation of the playbook. And what's interesting again on this April 21 e-mail from Bob Costello, he turns, there was never a doubt and they are in our corner. Rudy said this communication channel must to be maintained. He called it crucial and noted how reassured they were that they had someone like me whom Rudy has known for so many years in this role, sleep well tonight, you have friends at high places.

LEMON: So, this you believe it was from a Rudy Giuliani intermediary, right?

COHEN: That's correct.

LEMON: OK. So, sources are saying that people who may have been trying to influence Cassidy Hutchinson was a Mark Meadows intermediary. Meadows spokesperson has denied that Meadows had anything to do, was anything from his camp. That they were trying to intimidate or influence Hutchinson. Do you buy that?

COHEN: Not for a single second. It's exactly, look at the language that Bob Costello used, look at the language that Mark Meadows used. And I guarantee there are dozens of other people that they tried to reach out to with the identical language, these are Donald's words put in to an e-mail form because of course you know he doesn't have e- mail, no fingerprints. That's his motto so somebody else has to do it. LEMON: So then why would he call, you know, this time if he -- if he

doesn't --

COHEN: Right.

LEMON: -- that they're -- of he doesn't usually leave fingerprints?

COHEN: So, again, he is not sure who's actually in his camp anymore, he is absolutely petrified that everyone has turned on him and the only person of course that he can trust would be himself but that's the dumbest move that he could have made.

LEMON: I want to get to this. I want to play part of -- because I promise, I want to play part of your Capitol Hill testimony, this is from 2019. The hearing was focused on the 2016 election. And Michael Cohen, you talked about how Trump never directly asks for something when he wants something done. He speaks in code as you are mentioning now. Watch this, 2019.


COHEN: It would be no different if I said that's the nicest looking tire I've ever seen. Isn't it? What are you going to do, are you going to fight with him? The answer is no. So, you say yes, that's the nicest looking tire I've ever seen. That's how he speaks. He doesn't give you questions. He doesn't give you orders; he speaks in a code. And I understand the code because I've been around him for a decade.


LEMON: I mean, it's kind of, it's not kind of, it's mob like. Why does he speak in code?

COHEN: Because that's just the way he learn --


LEMON: Is it about shielding himself?

COHEN: Yes. And it's also how he learned to operate from a very young age when he brought on Roy Cohn as an advisor. It's never hey, Don, what do you think? It's, Don, those are great glasses, aren't they? And that's exactly what he was going to say. You are not going to argue with him.

Now you know what he wants you to say. And because he is who he is, especially when he was president of the United States, he knew exactly what he wanted to do without him directly telling you what to do.

LEMON: So, I want to, look, everyone is like, Donald is signaling today or has been signaling that he is going to run for 2024. I mean, is this shocking to anyone? They are saying, well, maybe he is going to do it to sort of shield himself from any sort of legal consequences with all these investigations swirling around?

[22:25:01] COHEN: So first of all, it doesn't shield him from anything.

LEMON: Right.

COHEN: Second of all, I've been saying since day, number one, this is still part of the grift, it's part of Don the con, where he is not looking too. Remember, he just pulled down $250 million with some nonsensical, you know, capital raise for some legal fund that nobody ever received a dollar from except for him.

So, he is now seeing this as four times better than The Apprentice. And he is going to keep this going until such time he then turns around and says, I can't run, I'm not going to run but I'm going to stay as a kingmaker, he has no interest in running.

LEMON: You don't think he is going to run?

COHEN: No, I do not.

LEMON: Not at all?

COHEN: Not at all.

LEMON: And for those, because you know people are going to watch this, right, and the critics will say, you've got an ax to grind, Michael Cohen with the former president that's why you are saying all of this stuff?

COHEN: Well, so far, I also told you that there would never be a peaceful transfer of power if he lost in 2020. I also turned around and said he is the greatest grifter in the history of the United States presidency. I also said that he would create a war in order to prevent himself from being removed from the White House.

So far everything that I seem to have said and I don't call myself Nostradamus, I just happen to know the man and I know that he has no interest in running. Because everything that he is doing then becomes suspect to more scrutiny, because he'll be the president.

LEMON: All right. Michael Cohen, thank you. I appreciate you appearing.

COHEN: Good to see you, Don.

LEMON: A horrific story. A 10-year-old girl traveling across state lines to get an abortion after she was raped. Now someone on the right who call the story a lie, well, they are refusing to apologize now.


MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, your tweet came across as if you are questioning her story that she was raped and that she had to across a state line to get an abortion.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Not at all. I came across as what Joe Biden had talked about; others had talked about. We were never questioning the child.




LEMON: Listen, this is a terrible crime, a 10-year-old girl in Ohio raped and impregnated by her rapist. So why were some politicians and TV hosts are casting doubt on the story making an awful tragedy even worse.

CNN's Manu Raju has details.


RAJU (voice-over): The alleged crime was heinous, a 10-year-old Ohio girl raped, and under the state's new abortion ban forced to go across state lines to Indiana to get the procedure. The case held up by Democrats outraged now that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Ten years old. Ten years old. Raped, six weeks pregnant, already traumatized as forced to travel to another state.

RAJU: But some on the right casting doubt.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Why did the Biden administration speaking of lying just repeat a story about a 10-year-old child that got pregnant and they got an abortion or was not allowed to get an abortion when it turns out that the story is not true.

RAJU: The Ohio attorney general, Dave Yost, also suggesting it wasn't true. Saying he had heard --


RAJU: And that prompted Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan to tweet a story repeating Yost's claim. Another lie, anyone surprised he wrote? But it wasn't a lie. On Tuesday, 27-year-old Gerson Fuentes, arrested, charged with felony rape of a minor under the age of 13 and according to a detective's testimony even confessing that he raped the young girl twice.

With no explanation, Jordan deleted his tweet. Approached by CNN, Jordan offering no regrets. On noting the alleged perpetrator is an undocumented immigrant.

JORDAN: That was on the story. Yes, the real issue is this is a heinous crime by an illegal immigrant and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

RAJU: Do you regret saying it's a lie, though?

After leaving the hearing almost two hours later, Jordan offered more of an explanation. Why did you delete the tweet?

JORDAN: Because we learned that this illegal alien did this heinous crime. So, we deleted the tweet.

RAJU: Do you apologize for that, to the girl and the family for suggesting that it was a lie?

JORDAN: No, I never doubted the child. I was -- I was responding to a headline from -- from your profession, the news profession which happens all the time on Twitter. Doubted that Joe Biden which is usually a smart thing to do based on all the things that he says that aren't accurate.

But you know, The Washington Post said that there was, that the story there was no evidence, that they hadn't seen any evidence, the Wall Street Journal, the attorney general. The attorney general said the same thing ,so that's why.

RAJU: But your tweet came across as if you are questioning her story that she was raped and that she had to go across a state line to get an abortion.

JORDAN: Not at all. I came across as what Joe Biden had talked about, others had talked about. We were never questioning the child.

RAJU: According to the police affidavit the incident occurred on May 12, and police were alerted to the girl's pregnancy in late June, forced to travel across state lines now the Ohio bans abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Jordan who would be the next House judiciary chairman in a GOP majority would not say if he believes young rape victims should carry their babies to term.

Do you think that a 10-year-old should be allowed to go and get an abortion if she is raped?

JORDAN: That's a question for the -- for the legislative state of Ohio. I mean, that's clear from the Supreme Court decision.

RAJU: What is your preference?

JORDAN: That's -- that's -- I agree with the court's decision.


RAJU: And Don, today, there was an emotional fight in the Senate. And was Democrats tried to get a bill passed that would allow women to go across state lines to have an abortion, Republicans blocked that measure. One Republican Steve Daines of Montana said, quote, "this would give fly in abortionist free reign to commit abortions on demand." Don?

[22:35:05] LEMON: All right, Manu Raju, thank you for that. It is a sad fact that this is where we are now. It's a reality in a post-Roe America. Is America ready for what that really means. That's the question for Kirsten Powers and Scott Jennings, next.


LEMON: A 10-year-old girl raped and forced to travel across state lines to get an abortion. This is the new reality in our country.

And I want to discuss now with CNN political commentator, Scott Jennings, and senior political analyst, Kirsten Powers.

Good to see both of you. Thanks for joining us.

Kirsten, I mean, listen, this is just despicable that this tragedy has become political, but the reality is, this is what a post-Roe America looks like. A 10-year-old rape victim has to travel across state lines to get the medical care that she needs.


KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. But you know, it's hard to even say that she is lucky in any way because she is obviously not lucky but at least there was a place for her to go to actually get an abortion. And there are people certainly in the state she went to who would like very much for that to not have been the case.

So, this is predictably what was going to happen, and I think the idea that women, children would be forced to give birth to, I'd say to any child that they don't want to, especially if we are talking about a 10- year-old. You know as the result of rape is just, it's sick.

Imagine, I don't know what else to call it, something is very, very wrong. When you have people actually defending this and there are people that are defending this including the person from the national right to life committee that drafted this sort of model legislation, saying that, that this 10-year-old should have been forced to give birth and that at some point she would hopefully come to understand the reason and the benefit, the benefit of giving birth to her rapist's child.

I mean, this is a person who holds a position, a senior position in the national right to life movement. So, this is just extremist behavior. And it's scary.


POWERS: I mean, I think people should be very scared.

LEMON: We want to talk -- we'll talk more about that quote that you mentioned, the benefit. But I want to get Scott's response. Because some Republicans, you know, who support the most restrictive abortion laws tried to pretend, Scott, that this tragedy didn't happen. Others say that it is rare. But according to the Ohio Department of Health 52 girls under the age

of 14 had abortions in 2020 in that state alone. So, what is going to happen to all of those young girls in this scenario now?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, a couple things I want to hear more about, number one, is what Ohio law actually allow? Because there are some people who think actually, she might not have had to have crossed over to Indiana. I know that she did go there for that -- for that procedure. So, I want to hear more about that.

Because in a post-Roe world this is -- this is going to be the law, right, what the state says, not what the Supreme Court says, so that's number one. Number two, regarding the skepticism and I want to freely admit, I was skeptical of the story. When it first came out, you know, you had a story with one source, there were no police reports, no arrests, no government sources. So, I was initially very skeptical of it.

And then the police then finally made an arrest and made an announcement and at that point all you can really do is just to dwell on the tragedy of it. I mean, --


LEMON: You didn't make a public announcement, you didn't go on Twitter, and you know, mocking the story.

JENNINGS: Well, no. I would say on Sunday morning I was on State of the Union with Jake Tapper and that was brought up by the mayor of Cincinnati. And I said, and I, you know, it's funny, I just read this piece in The Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, the fact checker. He was a little skeptical of it, saying we needed more facts. I agreed with that at the time.

It had been in a Joe Biden speech and we had that one story, so I knew a lot of conservatives that were skeptical of it because there had been moments, you know, over the past several years where things have popped up and we have been skeptical and then it turned out not to be. So, I --

LEMON: But the source of the story was a first-hand source. It was a doctor. She didn't name the child because it was a minor.


LEMON: That's an error.

JENNINGS: I'm telling you --


LEMON: Is that, do you regret that?

JENNINGS: There were a lot --

LEMON: She was -- JENNINGS: Do I regret being skeptical? No.

LEMON: From the doctor? I mean, that's the doctor's job is to protect the patient.

JENNINGS: Yes. Well, I don't regret being skeptical of a single source story. And once the police came out, I mean, I believe that it happened. I don't have any skepticism of it now and I don't really know any Republicans that do. But at the time last week there was a lot of skepticism of it.

And I honestly think part of the reason is when Joe Biden says something, it makes a lot of Republicans skeptical of it. And I heard Jim Jordan saying that on that piece earlier, and so, you know, that's, I guess that's the nature of our politics now, unfortunately.

LEMON: Yes. Kirsten, go ahead. I mean, what is the skepticism about --


POWERS: Well, I would just say --

LEMON: -- if it's a first-hand source is a doctor. I mean, go on.

POWERS: Yes, also, I mean, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand that these kinds of things are going to happen so it's not that far-fetched in my mind. So, I don't know. But, you know, Scott, if you were skeptical, you were skeptical.

I think that other people went a lot farther than just being skeptical. I mean, the Wall Street Journal was really mocking the idea of it. Right? Calling it fanciful, and so, I think, and I think, you know, Jim Jordan wasn't just being skeptical I think they were going a lot further. Tucker Carlson was saying it didn't happen. Right?

That's a little different than skepticism. But you know the bottom line is, these kinds of things are going to happen. It does so happen that this did happen. But this is what abortion right supporters have been saying, that this is the world that we are going to live in if Roe is overturned because there are people who hold very extremist views. I mean, I don't know how else to describe this, they are extremist. They are outside of the mainstream --


LEMON: Well, you said extremist views.

POWERS: -- many people identify as pro-life.

LEMON: I just want to put this up. This is a quote, but then there is something else that I want to talk about here. But this is the general counsel, the national right to life spoke to Politico about this case in Ohio and saying in part, she should have the baby. And as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child. I mean, this is a child having a child. Like, what is there for a child to understand?

POWERS: It's repulsive. I mean, it's repulsive, it's a 10- year-old.

LEMON: Scott?

POWERS: And what is he talking about many women who have had given birth to their rapist child. Who is he talking about? You know, I don't know any, a single woman OK. I have been on this earth for a while, I don't know a single woman who has ever said that. Now I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm just saying they are not falling out of trees. So, I guess he knows them but the way many women, I don't know what he is talking about.


LEMON: We are talking about a 10- year-old.

POWERS: I don't even know what planet he lives on.

LEMON: Ten-year-old.


LEMON: Scott?

POWERS: We're talking about a 10-year-old. But even -- but women also who aren't 10-year-olds should not have to be forced to give birth to their rapist's child.


POWERS: I mean, you don't have to be a child in order for people to see that that's wrong.

JENNINGS: I mean, she is 10 years old, it's hard to, I mean, it's hard to imagine how you would believe that forcing a 10-year-old to give birth was the right thing in this case. But it's 10 years old.

LEMON: Instead of focusing on the rapist, the Indiana attorney general is going after the doctor who performed the abortion, he released a statement saying in part, aside from the horror caused here by illegal immigration, we are investigating the situation and are waiting for the relevant documents to prove if the abortion and/or the abuse -- the abuse were reported as Dr. Caitlin Bernard had requirements to do under Indiana law, the failure to do so constitute -- constitute a crime in Indiana. And her behavior could also affect her licensure.

I mean, Dr. Bernard's attorney says that she followed all the policies, procedures, and regulations in this case and has not violated any law. Is that the goal here to punish doctors and scare them into refusing to help patients like this 10-year-old girl, Scott?

JENNINGS: I know I've seen people raise questions about the reporting of this thing. Why it went public, and why the police didn't make an announcement. Why did the doc, I've seen all these things raised? I don't -- I truthfully don't know what the law is in Indiana. I -- it is, this is from top to bottom, this is extreme --


LEMON: Scott, do you think they should go after the doctor? It's easy, do you think they should go after the doctor?

JENNINGS: I don't know. I don't know what the law is. I mean, the situation is terrible all the way around. I don't know what enough about Indiana law to tell you whether they should or shouldn't.

LEMON: Kirsten, I'll give you the last word.

POWERS: Well, I just think, you know, there is all this skepticism about this story that ends up being true but there is like zero skepticism about going after the doctor. Right? So, it's like there is no evidence that she did anything wrong. And yet, you have Republicans, you have the attorney general threatening her.

And in fact, there is a lot of evidence at least in what I've read that she didn't do anything wrong. That she did report it within the time period that she was supposed to report it. And I'm not sure why she wouldn't anyway.

Like what, I don't even know what this is about, it seems like a distraction to try to distract away from what -- from the core issue which is that a child, you know, some people would've liked to have a 10 -- forced a 10-year-old to have a baby and she had to actually flee to another state to get an abortion.

LEMON: Yes. We will be right back.



LEMON: The Trump family tonight confirming the death of Ivana Trump, the ex-wife of Donald Trump and mother of Don Junior, Ivanka and Eric. She was found dead in her New York City home at the age of 73. The cause of death has not yet been announced.

Here's CNN's Kate Bennett.

KATE BENNETH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Ivana Trump, first wife of former President Donald Trump, died at 73 in her New York City home. Donald Trump released a statement Thursday afternoon, saying, quote, "she was a wonderful, beautiful, an amazing woman who let a great and inspirational life. Her pride and joy were her three children, Donald Junior, Ivanka, and Eric. She was so proud of them, as we were also proud of her. Rest in peace, Ivana."


BENNETH: The couple married in 1977. Ivana, originally from Czechoslovakia, where she was a champion skier and later a model, meeting Donald Trump in New York, as his real estate career was taking off. Ivana Trump joined right along. A headstrong businesswoman, working with Trump to help design, open and operate several Trump properties.

IVANA TRUMP, FORMER DONALD TRUMP'S WIFE: I was running three casinos in Atlantic City for 10 years, going on helicopters at seven o'clock in the morning from New York. You know, getting up, landing on the roof, going through his office six o'clock, back home, children, homework.

BENNETH: His partner in business as well as in matrimony.

UNKNOWN: These people were the new stars of the late 80s.

BENNETH: The couple soon becoming a powerful force on Manhattan's posh social scene. Defining 80s excess, wealth entertainment and celebrity. Ivana and Trump had three children, with Ivana writing in her 2017 memoir raising Trump, she was the parent primarily responsible for the upbringing of Don Junior, Ivanka and Eric.

But the Trump marriage crumbled in the late 1980s. Donald Trump's affair with Marla Maples, who would become his second wife, making tabloid headlines, a messy public divorce soon followed.

I. TRUMP: You are devastated of course, but then it is a stage when you come in and you say why me, you get angry.


BENNETH: Ivana and Donald Trump would later mend their relationship, in 2017 even said Donald Trump had offered her the role of ambassador to the Czech Republic which she shed she declined. Ivana Trump would go on to marry two more times. She also wrote self-help books and created jewelry beauty and clothing lines sold on shopping networks. She made a famous cameo in the 1996 film, "The First Wives Club," playing herself and honoring the famous line.

I. TRUMP: Don't get mad, get everything.

BENNETH: Eric Trump posting on Thursday afternoon about Ivana, our mother was an incredible woman, a force in business, a world-class athlete, a radiant beauty and caring mother and friend. Ivana Trump was a survivor.


BENNETH (on camera): Later this evening, Ivanka Trump also posted on her social media about the loss of her mother who she called wickedly funny and brilliant. She said she will always hold her memory in her heart. Don, back to you.

LEMON: All right. Kate Bennett, thank you very much. It may come as a surprise to some of you, but I knew Ivana Trump. I didn't know her very well. I'd see her twice a year at Clive Davis would have events and invite a bunch of people over and Ivana was there. And guess what?

I know that members of the Trump family don't often have very nice things to say about me, especially the president and his namesake. But Ivana Trump was very kind to me. And every time she saw me in a room, she would seek me out and come talk to me. And I have -- I got some really good insights on her and what kind of mother she was and how she raised her children.

Listen, I don't know about anything else about her life or whatever, but I know she was very kind to me. She was a nice woman. She was always very outgoing. Very gregarious, as her children said, and always smiling, again, she was very kind to me, so she may she rest in peace. And we will be right back.