Return to Transcripts main page


Donald Trump Holding a Rally in Massachusetts Tonight, Details of the President's Plan; The Countdown to Iowa. Aired 10-11:00p ET

Aired January 4, 2016 - 22:00   ET


DON LEMON, CNN TONIGHT SHOW HOST: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the main event tonight. Donald Trump versus not one, but two Clintons.

This is CNN Tonight. I'm Don Lemon.

Donald Trump is rallying in Massachusetts tonight, interrupted repeatedly by protesters, but that didn't stop him from taking on the democratic front-runner.


DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let's say Hillary is president, Oh. Four more years of Obama, that's what you call it.


LEMON: And the Clintons are treading carefully when it comes to Trump.


HILLARY CLINTON, (D) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I've adopted a New Year's resolution. I'm going to let him live in his alternative reality and I'm not going to respond.

BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S PRESIDENT: There are candidates and then there are candidates.


LEMON: Well, with Iowa only four weeks away, are the gloves about to come off? We're going to talk about all of that. It's going to -- a lot going on tonight and we have breaking news, as well.

President Barack Obama taking executive action against gun violence. CNN's Evan Perez is here with more on that. So, Evan, this executive order likely to engage gun rights activists, enrages them and engages them, as well. We're getting details of the President's plan. What can you tell us about it?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: That's right, Don. He's going to announce this tomorrow. And really there's a lot of window dressing. There's no really big regulation here. Frankly, because as the president points out, Congress needs to act to really change the gun laws in this country and that's really, there's really very little support for that.

So, he's got very limited room for him to act on an executive matter. And so, we've got a couple of the regulations here. The changes for that he's trying to make here. And that is really to clarify the regulation on background checks so that, you know, even if you sell one or two guns, according to the ARF and according to the White House, you know, they want you to register to light -- to get a license as a firearms dealer.

They say that if you're doing it for profit, if there's any indication that this is something that you're doing, you know, acting as a dealer, then you need to get a license. The question is, how are they going to enforce that?

They say that they're also going to encourage or get Congress to fund more help for mental health treatment around this country. They want to encourage governors to provide more information, some of the information, for example, for domestic violence convictions, to get more of that information into background checks.

They also want to make sure that people who buy guns using corporate entities or legal trusts, that those people submit to background checks. This is, in theory, what they are going to do. The reality is a lot more limited, Don.

LEMON: Yes. And, of course, they're going to have to add resources, to have resources to do all that. The president wants to add 230 FBI examiners, Evan, to speed background checks, 200 ATF agents. Is that enough, do you think, to enforce these new regulations?

PEREZ: No. It just isn't. The reality here is, Don, that a lot of this regulation already exists and the agents already have a hard time keeping up with the case load that they have.

Now, as far as adding staff to the FBI's background check system, that probably will help because now they'll be able to operate more hours, they'll be able to perhaps act more quickly. If you recall, Dylan Roof, the murder who carried out the attack at the Charleston Church, he managed to get his gun simply because the FBI couldn't complete the background check in three days.


LEMON: Yes, I remember that.

PEREZ: In theory, that should prevent something like this.

LEMON: Yes, I remember that. Is any of this imminent?

PEREZ: Well, some of it is already taking effect. For example, they're going to print 10,000 of these pamphlets which is going to help people understand whether or not they should get a license to sell firearms. And then some of it they are going to have to depend on Congress to do funding, for instance, whether or not they're going to get more funding to increase the size of the ATF which, by the way, hasn't grown since the 1970s. So, a lot of this may never happen because Congress has no appetite

for increased regulation of guns.

LEMON: So, Evan, thank you very much. I want to bring in now to discuss this with republican strategist, Kevin Madden, Van Jones, a former Obama administration official, and Jeffrey Toobin who is here on set with me, CNN's senior legal analyst.

Jeffrey, you know, these details are still coming in on the president's plan. He wants to close the so-called gun show loophole that we have been discussing it that allows the sales of guns, and without a background check at gun shows and over the internet. The vast majority of Americans agree with him.

Now take a look at this poll. So, what's the problem here, do you think?



LEMON: Ninety three percent of Americans support that.

TOOBIN: But we don't -- we don't govern by poll. We govern by Congress. And the Republican Party is institutionally committed now to any form of gun safety, gun regulation, gun control.

[22:05:05] And so, it's dead on arrival in Congress and, you know, remember, he had a democratic Senate after the shootings in Newtown, and he couldn't even get background checks through there.

Now he has a republican Senate. So, you know, anything he's going to do is he's going to have to do by himself.

LEMON: So, what is the disconnect here then? I wonder, Kevin Madden, if 93 percent -- if we put that poll, look at this poll. Ninety three percent of Americans support background checks, right? Jeffrey Toobin says, well, we don't -- we don't govern by polls.

Congress won't do it. What's the disconnect here? Did the republicans force the president into doing this by not complying or not acting with what he wanted?

KEVIN MADDEN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think one of the political realities that the president faces that he didn't go and build a coalition over a long period of time on this issue if he truly did care about it. I think the one of the -- one of the big backlash that you're going to see is from the truly most animated gun owners, those who feel that this is, of course, a constitutional right.

They're going to feel that any executive action by the president is an encroachment on their -- on their rights. And I think on the other side of it, you have that -- the Congress believing that the president is going around the legislative process, which is the right way to change the laws and that he can't just -- if he doesn't get his way, seek to do it by executive authority. And that's where, particularly in an election year like this, many of

these republicans running for president are going to see this as a gift to go out and draw their stark contrast with the president on what many republican voters, particularly in the primary believe, is an important issue which is this president abusing, what they believe is abusing his executive authority.

TOOBIN: It's a gift to be on a 3 percent of the public as opposed to 93 percent of the public? That's a gift?

MADDEN: But that question, though, that 96 percent -- that question -- I'm sorry, the 93 percent, Jeff, that wasn't about executive authority. That was about background checks. So, I think the president does have some firm ground on background checks.

I think he's on particularly firm ground on the issue of addressing this with -- through mental health legislation or on the mental health side of the question. But he hasn't done it in concert with building coalitions...


VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: This is the thing that make very little...

LEMON: So, Van Jones, Jeffrey steal my question here. So, does the end justify the means here when, you know, if the voters do want it and Congress won't act and maybe they're being, you know, pigeon holed or strung by the -- by the gun rights industry, does the end justify the means here?

JONES: Well, listen, first of all, let's just say, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah. Somebody is doing something about all these funerals. And all these children who are being killed in the streets and all these attacks that are going down. And you're afraid to go to the mall, you're afraid to go to the movie. Somebody is doing something.

So, first of all, Hallelujah. Second of all, look at what he's doing. They say, well, if he really wanted to do something, he would go to Congress. He's going to Congress. He's asking Congress to do something. I was going to say, hey, we don't want background checks, we want mental health.

He's going to Congress asking for money for mental health. When all the dust settles down this is a very modest set of proposals, firmly within the Constitution by a president who's trying to get something done. I don't understand what the hoopla is about.

The conservatives should be very happy. They always say there's already so many books on the -- or laws on the books. The president is saying I'm going to enforce the laws on the books. Why is this something to be upset about? I don't get it. We should all be happy about this.

LEMON: So, Kevin, what about, you know, considering what Van just says, what about the argument that many gun rights supporters make that expanding background checks wouldn't have prevented any of the most recent mass killings?

MADDEN: Well, yes. I think, again, that's an argument that you'll continue to hear. I think -- look, I just think the politics of this is not as advantageous as you might think for the democrats. If this was an issue that had political advantages for it, the president would have acted on it before he went for re-election in 2012.

Again, many of these voters that care the most about this issue in the general election states, some of these states that are important battlegrounds, they -- this is going to be an issue that may motivate them in 2016.

TOOBIN: Kevin, you know, Kevin makes a very important point about guns here is that the people who are really motivated on this issue, the people who vote based on the gun issue, tend to be the people who are against any sort of gun regulation.

That a lot of, you know, the 93 percent or 96 percent or whatever it was, sure, they think that, you know, the background checks are a good idea. But they don't necessarily vote for or against a candidate based solely on that issue whereas a lot of the gun people do.

[22:09:59] LEMON: So, this is -- this seems to be -- guys, it's all about politics. It's not necessarily what's good for -- because if you actually think about it, right, the people who are law-abiding gun citizens or using properly don't break the laws, don't or not the people who are killing people every night on the streets, they're using their guns in the proper way and they are going through a background check. So, then what is the problem with better background checks or more efficient background checks?

JONES: Well, there is -- there is something good, though. I think there is something very good that's happening here. There have been a lot of just shenanigans going on where people are buying guns online and they're creating trusts and corporations, doing all kinds of weird stuff and the president is just saying, listen, cut out the shenanigans, I'm going to make sure we interpret the law as it exists in the way that deals with the problem as it exists.

That's very good. I don't think we should pooh-pooh that part of it. It isn't -- it isn't -- that is in fact the case that some of these mass shootings would have happened anyway, but maybe there are other lives that could be saved. The biggest mass shooting is 100,000 Americans have been killed in the past decade. That's an ongoing mass shooting...


LEMON: Well, that's what I was going to say. We talk about all the -- we talk about mass shootings which mass shootings don't happen very often.

TOOBIN: No, they don't. LEMON: It's tragic that they do happen, but most of the time, gun violence happens every single day on this place here in the United States.

MADDEN: Can I say something real quick, Don?

LEMON: Go ahead, Kevin.

MADDEN: Just real quick. You know, I don't want to make this all about politics. I think there are very deep, passionate beliefs on both sides of this issue. What happens oftentimes, though, is when you take it out, and I think there is a criticism of the president, that when you take it outside of the legislative process and you do it through executive authority, that it does become to -- it does tend to become a little bit more divisive.

LEMON: So, Kevin, what's the alternative then...


TOOBIN: Just like do nothing?

LEMON: Well, what's the alternative when you can't -- nothing happens? Like what do you do, then?

MADDEN: But that's why legislating is really hard. No one said this is going to be easy, particularly on an issue like this.

LEMON: All right. Let's put this out. Let's put up the executive -- OK. President Obama has issued fewer Executive Orders than George Bush or Bill Clinton. Clinton did 364. Bush did 291. Obama did 227. It's not like he's the...


MADDEN: No, and remember the...

LEMON: It's not like he says, hey, Executive Orders, whew, everybody, right?

MADDEN: Remember how the democrats criticized President Bush, then, right? Like it did. They all criticize each other each time when they go -- when they feel that there is an abusive executive authority.

LEMON: Yes, go ahead, Jeff.

TOOBIN: Well, no. I mean, that -- I'm not sure the number is such a significant difference among them all because...

LEMON: But it's OK when our guy does it but it's not OK when the other guy does it? That's all I'm saying.

TOOBIN: Yes. That's the, I mean, you know, that is a traditional political objection. The outside party always objects to the presidents...


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

JONES: Well, I'm was just going to say that Reagan also did, I think, more than the other two, even then Clinton or W. Listen, this is the...


LEMON: It matters because he wasn't your guy. But go ahead.

JONES: Right. But I'm just saying, listen, this is a very good thing. I think we should wait, hear the president out. If people do want to work with the president on this, as Kevin says, he has laid out a pathway. He says I'm going to go to Congress. I'm going to ask for your help. Everybody says mental health a common ground. Let's see if they take him up on it.

LEMON: All right. Thank you, everyone. Kevin, I think you're going to stick around, but thank you. I appreciate it.

President Barack Obama is going to join our very own Anderson Cooper, that's Thursday night, 8 Eastern. Thursday noght, 8 Eastern, it's for an exclusive one hour live Town Hall, Guns in America, it's called. Make sure you tune in on Thursday at 8 p.m. Eastern.

When we come right back, Donald Trump releases his first TV ad, but there's something about it that's not exactly what it seems. Plus, -- Jeffrey is laughing about that. Well, I'm glad. We're going to write this. Plus, Bill Clinton's first day on the campaign trail. Will he take on Trump? It's called a tease, Jeff. It's a tease.

TOOBIN: Well, that's why I'm saying to watch.


LEMON: The countdown to Iowa has begun and things are heating up on the campaign trail. And you know what that means? It's time for the day in Trump.


TRUMP: We get these big crowds. We have the tremendous support. We have the polls that are going through the roof. I'll read them to you in a little while. Boy, I love to read them. You know, you'll know I'm number two if I ever stop reading polls.


LEMON: Well, that was Trump just a little while ago in Massachusetts. I want to bring in now our republican strategist, Kayleigh McEnany, Amanda Carpenter, the former communications director for Senator Ted Cruz, and Daily Beast columnist, Dean Obeidallah. So, you know there's trouble because Dean is here.

Kayleigh, we're going to start with you first to limit the damage here. You know, we're just four weeks away from the first votes being cast in Iowa, four weeks. It's not very long. Donald Trump releasing his first TV ad. I want you to watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The politicians can pretend it's something else. But Donald Trump calls it radical Islamic terrorism. That's why he's calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on.

He'll quickly cut the head off ISIS and take their oil and he'll stop illegal immigration by building a wall in our southern border that Mexico will pay for.

TRUMP: We will make America great again.


LEMON: Kayleigh, why do us this ad is a home run? Why do you think it's effective?

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It's an absolute home run because what Donald Trump is getting at is this. We have had seven years of niceties; we have seven years of Obama extending overtures to the Muslim world. And what have we gotten? Twenty Coptic Christians beheaded on a beach, 130 dead in Paris, 14 dead in San Bernardino. The numbers are adding up.

In fact, this past year was the bloodiest year for terrorist's fatalities in this nation's history, in the world history. So, Donald Trump understands that Americans are scared and that ad hits at the heart of what the American voter is thinking when he goes into that voting booth, and I think that that ad is going to be playing in their minds when voters go to the polls in Iowa and beyond.

LEMON: Go ahead, let it out, Dean.

DEAN OBEIDALLAH, THE DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST: I would say I thought when the ad was over, we were going to hear live from New York it's Saturday night. That was so over the top, that ad. I'm not even kidding.

It was not grounded in reality in any way. First of all, the image of Mexico was Morocco. So, that wasn't correct.


OBEIDALLAH: Secondly, the idea that we're going to get rid of the head of ISIS? Wow, like the generals haven't thought about bombing ISIS. But the key thing to me was the thing we're going to take ISIS' oil. It's not ISIS' oil. It's the people of Syria and Iraq's oil. But because something mean...


LEMON: But you don't -- well, if it doesn't matter, right, and Trump -- many Trump supporters have said that it does -- it doesn't matter, right. So, but is it effective? That was the question to Kayleigh.

OBEIDALLAH: I think honestly, within the GOP it's effective. If you look at the poll numbers banning Muslim place great about that.

MCENANY: Beyond that, Dean, beyond that, 78 percent of Americans think there's going to be another terrorist attack. That's not republicans. That's nationwide.

OBEIDALLAH: Only 36, no, but only 36 percent of Americans support a wall that Donald Trump wants. Donald Trump is on his own with that one. And the idea of pathway to citizenship, a majority of Americans wants to pathway to citizenship. Donald Trump doesn't want that. So, we're in a war. Less than citizen of American...


[22:20:02] MCENANY: Folks don't care about a pathway to citizenship right now when they're lives are on the line because of terrorism. Pathway to citizenship very low on Americans minds right now when terrorism is erupting all around the world and in our own country.

OBEIDALLAH: Donald Trump is riding fear to try to win election. That's what Donald -- he's not trying to appease fear...


LEMON: But it's working.

OBEIDALLAH: He says, right, but the words aren't really well. Donald Trump is making them even more afraid.

LEMON: So, Amanda, Trump says he plans to spend $2 million a week on commercials. Do you think this is just par for the course or do you think he is now looking at some of the other candidates creeping up on the polls?

AMANDA CARPENTER, TED CRUZ FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, I think it's notable that he's finally spending some of his own money. You know, I think it's kind of funny that people question whether Donald Trump can make Mexico pay for the Southern border wall.

In many ways, he's gotten the media to pay for his campaign already. but listen, this ad, I agree with Dean. Donald Trump is a parody of the political process. I want to believe this is performance art at some level, but on the other hand, he's very good at identifying people's fears, tapping into the anger that is very apparent in the electorate.

But he has not turned the corner to have that optimistic vision for America. Yes, he says let's make America great again, which he stole from Ronald Reagan, but beyond that, he conveys no optimism and no joy that I think a winning candidate needs. And for that reason, I don't think he's ever going to clench the republican nomination.

LEMON: Dean, you tweeted that "Trump's new campaign ad saying he will quickly cut off the head of ISIS proves how unqualified he is. He's like the Justin Bieber of foreign policy." You're not a believer or what would you call it, the Trump believer or...


OBEIDALLAH: No, if Trump Justin Bieber by that. But one thing and that might be true. If Trump wins Mexico might pay to build a wall. So, will Canada just to keep Trump out. I mean, let's be honest, there are no policy details whatsoever. Trump's weakness is policy, its nuance. So, he want to talk about broad...


MCENANY: Dean, we've had policy and nuance for -- we've had policy and nuance for seven years. Your guy, Barack Obama, brought all the policy and nuance that every American could ever want. And what do we have? We have the Middle East exploding; we have double digit real unemployment when you look at the numbers. Policy and nuance is not going to win the day. When you try that it's not worthy.

OBEIDALLAH: We have -- our employment is gone down from 10 percent, to be honest. Jobs have been created, Wall Street is up, the stock market is up, middle class has finally has a little inching up in median income. Donald -- the Middle East, Donald Trump is not going to resolve the Middle East.

Donald Trump doesn't even know what the U.S. military nuclear triad is. You would ask you don't the difference between Quds Force and the Kurds. And I'm not kidding. This is reality. He is going to be president potentially if he wins these primaries and the man is not qualified. And I'm not being -- but he's just not qualified.

MCENANY: We need - we don't need executive resolve. Executive resolve is what we need.

LEMON: Amanda, meet me over here on camera one because we'll let them talk. All right.


LEMON: A sure back ad for your old boss, Ted Cruz also out with a new ad attacking Marco Rubio. Here it is.


MARCO RUBIO, (R) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I know I have a debate, but I've got to get this fantasy football thing right. OK?


LEMON: Talk about burn. I mean, Amanda, why focus -- why focus on Marco Rubio?

CARPENTER: Well, listen, the campaign, you know, they speak for themselves. I think this is kind of a funny ad and it's no secret that they've been duking it out, especially in Iowa. Marco Rubio has been going at Cruz hard on national security issues, hard on immigration trying to muddy the waters between the two.

And I don't think it's been working. Ted Cruz has gone up in the polls since Rubio has launched those attacks. And even today, we saw that Marco Rubio's super PAC transitioned and is now focusing their fire on Chris Christie.

And so, I think in a way that's a surrender to Ted Cruz and that they're shifting their focus on New Hampshire. So, maybe the Cruz campaign is having a little bit of fun right now.

LEMON: Let's look at that ad now. Here it is.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chris Christie could well be Obama's favorite republican governor. Why? Christie's record. He instituted an internet sales tax, supported common core and liberal energy policies. Incredibly, Christie even backed Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.

Chris Christie, one high tax common core liberal energy loving Obamacare Medicaid expanding president is enough.

Conservative solutions PAC is responsible for the content of this advertising.


LEMON: OK. So, there were five photos of him with President Obama. For that little, hey, welcome, he gets so much gaffe for that.

OBEIDALLAH: I'm from Jersey.

LEMON: Does that play well with the GOP?

OBEIDALLAH: It probably does for people that don't like Chris Christie don't like the establishment. But there was a tragedy. Hurricane Sandy was horrific. President Obama went there...


LEMON: Shouldn't he be applauded for that?

OBEIDALLAH: Chris Christie did his job, he met with the president trying to get help for people in New Jersey who lost their homes, lost their families.


OBEIDALLAH: It shouldn't be partisan. But I'm going to be honest, the politics can be a lot of fun in the next month. Look at these ads.

LEMON: All right. Every, stay with me. Up next, Trump takes on the Clintons, both of them, Hillary and Bill Clinton.

[022:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: Donald Trump is ramping up his criticism of the Clintons, both Hillary and Bill Clinton. The former president out on the campaign trail today for his wife, for the very first time.

So back with me now, Kayleigh McEnany, Amanda Carpenter, and Dean Obeidallah. Dean, can we call it the clash of the titans, Trump versus the Clintons, Donald Trump reviving Bill Clinton's past, his scandals? Here is how he defended this morning on CNN's New Day.


TRUMP: During the course of the debate, and many other times, he was talking about -- she used the word sexist. I'm sexist. And she was using very -- sort of derogatory terms. I said how the hell can she do that when she's got one of the great women abusers of all time sitting at her house waiting for her to come home for dinner?


LEMON: So, I mean, is Trump trying to bait the Clintons, Dean? Is that the motivation?

OBEIDALLAH: I think Donald Trump doesn't understand what the word "sexism" means. I wrote an article in CNN last week explaining it, using examples of Donald Trump saying things in recent times that were clearly sexist, like making fun of Carly Fiorina's face, call women dogs and pigs, telling a female reporter she got her job because she's beautiful not because she's smart. That's sexism.

But of course in politics everything is fair game. Frankly, it's a question of what resonates with the voters. I don't think it will resonate but perhaps he does.


LEMON: Kayleigh, go ahead.

MCENANY: That's not sexism, Dean. Sexism is when you treat two genders differently. What I recall some of the things Donald Trump said, his harshest criticism was of Ben Carson. That was his most derogatory criticism. Jeb Bush he criticizes as well. Sexism is when you treat two genders differently.

[22:29:59] But you know what, let's get rid of the word sexism and let's go with the word predatory because that's what Bill Clinton has done, which if you ask me that's a little bit worse than sexism when you're preying on young interns in the Oval Office.

LEMON: OK. So, then what did Hillary Clinton do then?

MCENANY: What did Hillary Clinton do? Hillary Clinton invoked, brought Bill Clinton on the campaign trail and called Donald Trump a sexist. So, by doing those two things together, even The Washington Post columnist who is not a conservative by any means have said its fair game. Now that has she has injected Bill Clinton into the campaign. LEMON: I understand that's one person opinion. Go ahead, Amanda.

CARPENTER: Yes, I would say Hillary Clinton herself opened up this can of worms when she said that every woman who is a victim of sexual abuse has a right to be believed. Now I don't think she reflected any sexual awareness in saying that statement.

You know, when most people heard her say that, they heard her talking about Bill Clinton's affairs. It's not what you say in politics, it's what voters hear. And so, she's purported to be a great defender of women. And so, many people are now looking back on the record and wonder whether she stood by her man in the 1990s or wanted to protect women. I think it's pretty clear what happened.


LEMON: When you say 1990s, do you think that's what most people think this many years later? I mean, because here's the thing. If you believe that, then you believe that Donald Trump's, you know, divorce and affair matters as well.

CARPENTER: Oh, listen, hey, here is where it -- sure, I think Donald Trump is probably a sexist and I think Bill Clinton was a workplace predator. I don't think Donald Trump is a perfect messenger to make this attack, but nonetheless, he's making opinions public that many people are talking about behind closed doors.

Donald Trump is very good at this. He knows what people talk about among themselves and he's willing to say in public, although he is not a perfect messenger. I mean, we're talking about it now. He's baited all of us into talking about Monica Lewinski without ever having to say her name himself.

LEMON: Is that, Dean, that is a fair assessment. So, how do you argue against that? That's probably the fairest assessment I've heard.

DEAN OBEIDALLAH, THE DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST: Everything is fair in running for President of the United States of America. The question is, is Hillary Clinton responsible for the sins of her husband? And some of it I really feel this, and you might disagree that Donald Trump believes that women are somehow identified and defined by their husband, they can't be their own woman who can have their own achievements, the way he's mocked Carly Fiorina to me about her face, calling them dogs and pigs to me says a lot about Donald Trump.

He's not the perfect messenger -- he cheated on his wife famously. I live in New York at that time. The tabloids on Marla Maples cheated on his first wife crushed his first wife. They talked about it later, it haunted him.

MCENANY: The issue is when Hillary, as his wife has actively tried to defame some of these women who are accused him of sexual assault, he's been accused of sexual assault twice, rape once. And she's defamed the women along the way.

LEMON: Yes. MCENANY: That becomes an issue. You become tied to your spouse when you do that.

LEMON: Here is what Bill Clinton said Trump's remarks today. Watch.


BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I'm trying to, now the democrats and the country, why I think she's going to be the best president. And I think there's always attempt to take the election away from the people, so I'm just going to give it to them.


LEMON: Yes, I understand there is one with clear sound. I heard one with Andrea Mitchell he basically had the same answer to Andrea Mitchell who is on a rope line today. So, Kayleigh, my question is, it seems to be he is sticking to policy here. He's avoiding, you know, handing a sound bite to republicans at this point.

MCENANY: Yes. And look, I'd like to stick to policy, too, Don, but the problem is when Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump a sexist, that opened the door. And Donald Trump only at that point did he start bringing up Bill Clinton's past.

I love to stick to policy, but Hillary Clinton has to stop name calling if we want to stick to policy.

OBEIDALLAH: Hillary hasn't...

LEMON: Go ahead.

OBEIDALLAH: ... stop name calling. Donald Trump is a name caller-in- chief. Look at his entire campaign, from mocking people to calling them losers to I've never seen a kind of like this. And there is an entertainment factor, I'm going to give you that.

But at some point, I'm hoping that people in the Republican Party assess who they think can be the best President of the United States, not the best entertainer.

LEMON: Yes. So, OK. Let's talk about Hillary Clinton because she today, revealed her New Year's resolution after she got a question about Trump's claim that she and President Obama created ISIS. Here is how she responded.


HILLARY CLINTON, (D) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I've adopted a New Year's resolution.


CLINTON: I'm going to let him live in his alternative reality and I'm not going to respond.


CLINTON: Right back there. This man right there that -- here we go. Right there. You are very rude and I'm not going to ever call on you. Thank you.



LEMON: So, that's a strategy. So, her New Year's resolution, she said, is that she's not going to deal with that, right? She's going to look to the future. And she's like, I'm just shut -- she just that woman down. What's your response to that, Kayleigh?

[22:34:59] MCENANY: Look, I don't like hecklers in general. I don't like to see them at Donald Trump's rally. I don't like to see them at Hillary Clinton's rally. But else I don't like to see her dismiss Donald Trump as fanciful and dismiss the notion that she created ISIS that somehow, because that's not the case.

Her and Barack Obama, who she then is Hillary tied to, she was the Secretary of State, left a vacuum in Iraq and from that we got ISIS. So, it's not some fairytale that she created ISIS. Her policies created ISIS. So, the heckler is the different story, but in terms of her trying to dismiss Donald Trump and the notion that she created ISIS, I mean, that's just false.

LEMON: Quickly, Amanda.

CARPENTER: I mean, yes. I think it's fanciful also that she will be able to dismiss Donald Trump particularly with the women's questions. There's a lot of republican women who resent the fact that democrats have purported that there's a fake war on women waged by republicans.

We saw that republican woman audience, you know, yelling, wanting to ask that question. There are many more like her and Hillary Clinton may be able to ignore Donald Trump for a short period of time, but she won't be able to ignore republican women.

LEMON: Last word for me, fast, Dean, if you can.

OBEIDALLAH: I think the voters of America are going to decide is Donald Trump -- is Hillary Clinton really responsible for ISIS or not? I don't think so. I think that she has to share the blame with George W. Bush. That's the reality.

LEMON: All right. When he come right back -- thank you all -- when we come right back, armed standoff. That armed standoff in Oregon. Why should you care and why it could get very bad.


[22:40:02] All right. Let's talk about that standoff in Oregon. Armed protesters seize a federal building. They say they won't leave until they get what they want. But what do they want? And what will it take to end this peacefully? Let's discuss all of that now with CNN's legal analyst, Philip

Holloway, and Chris Swecker, a former assistant director of the FBI. OK, gentlemen, let's discuss what's legal, what's not, what's going on here. So, Philip, break this down for me. What is at the root of this dispute and why does this group think that they are within their rights to do this?

PHILIP HOLLOWAY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Don, good evening. What's at the heart of this is this romanticized view of patriotism that sort of insurrectionist of the nature. This group has no legal authority whatsoever to occupy any federal building, armed or unarmed...


LEMON: Say that again.

HOLLOWAY: ... without authorization. They have no authorization, under the law, to occupy this federal building either armed or unarmed. And it all stems from this romanticized view of patriotism. And we see it with these groups such as the Southern Citizen movement and others that have contained people like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols from the Oklahoma bombing.

They operate with the sense that the laws of the United States and the laws of other government entities do not apply to them, that they operate outside the traditional framework and that the government itself is lawless. That is where this is all coming from, Don.

LEMON: And every legal expert that I've spoken to said that they are taking over a building that is not theirs, they are armed, it's fair to say that it is illegal, the Constitution does not allow for that to happen.

So, Chris, why would someone in this group think that they are within their legal rights to take over a federal building armed?

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Well, I don't think they have any legal basis whatsoever. They seem to think that they have the absolute right to free graze on federal lands and if they don't get what they want they can simply do an armed takeover of government buildings.

So, there is no -- there is no legal basis for it. But all these groups, they've grown from 300 groups to over a thousand groups during the Obama administration. They all seem to think they have some sort of constitutional right that's been trod upon.

And many of them or some of them will take matters into their own hands, like the Bundy's did last year in 2014, and as this group, which also includes some of the Bundy's doing with the buildings there.

LEMON: Chris, why is the Bundy family involved? Remember, they were famous, they became famous for the standoff two years ago. They're involved now. Why would the Bundy's do this and what do you think they are trying to accomplish? SWECKER: Well, they've been in a 20-year battle with the Bureau of

Land Management. As I mention earlier they have -- they seem to think they have the right to free graze on federal land. And even though it isn't their land, it belongs to the U.S. citizens.

So they've been in very much opposition -- or they think the government is oppressing them and they think that the government is heavy handed. They seized their cattle. So, they've had a running feud and this is sort of a continuation of that with the two sons now occupying the building and leading the movement here.

LEMON: So, then they're armed and they are ignorant of the law because they're breaking the law. So, Phillip, you say that this has all the makings of another Waco. This is dangerous. So, if they're armed, they're ignorant of the law, they're willing to lay down their lives to something they believe in which is wrong, then it could escalate beyond this. How should -- how should the federal government respond?

HOLLOWAY: Well, I think it's important that the federal government does what they're doing right now which is taking an arm's length sort of approach. They're not really engaging them directly. We don't see a large police presence there right now.

We're told it's supposedly media and the public is not being directly threatened. So, right now, I think they're going to be content to kind of wait this thing out. They do not want another Waco because that's the last thing that the federal government needs is to add fuel to this fire.

So, I think if they kind of wait them out, the odds are that a lot of these people will lose interest and they be go home. At least that's the hope of the authorities. I don't know if that's going to happen. The possibility exists that this could, in fact, escalate and we could see people who are like minded flock to the area and potentially, Don, make things worse.

They're actually welcoming people into the compound as we speak. We heard that earlier tonight on CNN.

LEMON: Does that embolden them, Chris, do you think that the federal government is basically saying, you know, there's a building in the middle of nowhere and there's not many people there. And so, just they're trying to let it take care of itself?

SWECKER: Yes, clearly they won the battle in 2014 when the cattle were returned and the Bureau of Land Management basically walked away. And they may think they're winning now because they walk right into the building and nobody is kicking them out.

I think what's troublesome about this and what worries me a little bit is that with that some of the elements that are attracted at this type of thing are very much on the radical side.

[22:45:02] And what we saw in 2014 was about a month later two people walked into a Denny's in Las Vegas and executed two police officers and then killed a third before they were killed.

A month later, a state trooper and a Bureau of Land Management agent was killed. So, some of the more radical elements were attracted to the area. So, it does behoove the government to pay very close attention to what's going on. I'm sure they have resources waiting in the wings here.

LEMON: Do you think, Chris, that they are domestic terrorist?

SWECKER: And armed takeover of a government building using violence and intimidation to further a political agenda is a definition of domestic terrorism.

LEMON: Philip, do you think that domestic terrorists.

HOLLOWAY: I do. But I think the FBI does as well. We know, Don, that Sovereign Citizen movement, they have been decimated by the FBI as the domestic terrorist organization, and we know that there are Sovereign Citizen types involved in this crowd and other like-minded individuals. So, I don't think it's a stretch to call them that at this point?

LEMON: Philip Holloway, Chris Swecker, thank you. We'll see how this all unfolds. We appreciate you joining us here on CNN.

When we come right back, what Miss Universe, that Miss Universe moment that went really, really, really wrong. Miss Universe is here tonight with the behind-the-scenes story. There she is. Miss Universe. Also, Miss Philippines.


LEMON: Now Miss Universe. So good to have you.



LEMON: So, this is the pageants of pageants. And winning the Miss Universe crown is a very big deal. But this year I think went very, very wrong. Watch this.


STEVE HARVEY, MISS UNIVERSE 2015 HOST: Miss Universe 2015 is -- Colombia! I have to apologize. The first runner up is Colombia. Miss Universe 2015 is Philippines. I will take responsibility for this. It was my mistake. It was on the card.


LEMON: Joining me now is Miss Universe Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach. So, when you watch that, is it still -- still come back to you, because you're like, how does it feel now?

WURTZBACH: I'm OK now, actually. I'm very excited to start my -- my reign as Miss Universe. This is actually my...


LEMON: This is your first day on the job, right? It's official.


LEMON: Your first official working day. And, but -- and that's great. And I know you're going to do a great job.

WURTZBACH: Thank you.

LEMON: We were all rooting for you, I have to say I was watching it live for that moment, rooting for you, and then we were like, wait a minute, what happened? We kind of knew something was wrong. Have you had a chance to recover from that moment, yes?

WURTZBACH: Yes. Yes, definitely.

LEMON: OK. All right. I've been wanting to ask you since the beginning, before I go with the question. So, they put the crown on your head and immediately, they went to the credits, and then on to the next show. Do you feel like you got your moment?

WURTZBACH: Well, I didn't know that they cut the show right after they put the crown on me because when I was there, everything just kept -- they just kept taping.

LEMON: Kept going, right.

WURTZBACH: Yes, they just kept going and they were still taping it. So, I didn't know to which part they actually stopped airing Miss Universe.

LEMON: They barely got the crown on your head and they went to that closing credit, that pink thing whatever it was, and then it went into, you know, next on the news, right? It was over. When you watch it, do you see, hey, I wasn't -- do you feel robbed in way?

WURTZBACH: Well, no, because I'm trying to recall the experience, what it was like for me while I was on stage. And I think I had my moment, so I'm OK with it.

LEMON: OK. So, what do you think about Steve Harvey admitted that he made a mistake and it was a heartfelt admission. What do you think of that?

WURTZBACH: Well, I respect him very much for that, right away he admitted that he made a mistake. He apologized. He actually went up to me backstage and he said sorry. I accepted his apology and I think that was speaks very highly of his character.

LEMON: Yes. And we're all human and we all make mistakes and it's great that you forgive him, and everybody should forgive him. He's human, right. He's going to come back next year. We'll talk about that a little bit more. But you seemed even more confused by the people at home. Because we were like, oh, my gosh, this is real.

Were you wondering if this is a joke, like if this is actually happening because you didn't move? The other girls were saying, go, and you were like, what am I supposed to do?

WURTZBACH: Well, definitely not a joke. There was never a moment there where I thought it was, like, planned or anything.

LEMON: But you weren't sure if it was -- if he -- what he was saying was true, right?

WURTZBACH: I didn't want to assume that I was the winner unless he actually announces it himself. So, when he said that he made a mistake, I had to wait, wait a little bit more and then say -- and then when he did say that first runner up was Colombia, I was thinking to myself, OK, Pia, wait a little bit more.

And then that when he said Miss Philippines was actually the winner, that's when I thought, oh, OK, so I won.

LEMON: What does it mean to you to win something like this? And I ask you that because I think that you have a great platform. It's something that people don't usually take on because they think it's too controversial or whatever it has to do. It's HIV and AIDS, which I think is really important and trying to end that whole epidemic.

What does it mean to you to finally have a platform like this in order to work on what you want?

WURTZBACH: Well, in the Philippines, because it's a growing epidemic and it's growing because of the unprotected sexual contact and rampant drug use. And also, I'm learning more about it now on an international level now that I'm Miss Universe.

So, as I'm going along with it -- I'm not an expert, but as I'm going along with it I'm learning and that's why I'm an advocate for it.

[22:54:58] So, also, besides the HIV and AIDS, some other causes that I want to put some light into as I go through my year. One of them are relief operations for places that are hit by natural disasters and calamities because it happens quite often, unfortunately, where I'm from, the Philippines, and another one is cyber bullying, actually.

LEMON: Yes. Those are all great platforms.

WURTZBACH: Thank you.

LEMON: And that you're not only a beautiful young lady, you are very intelligent. You're very smart. And I have to ask you, you're going to be, in a year, putting the crown on the next Miss Universe. And Steve Harvey, are you going to go, Steve, give me that card. Let me look at it.

WURTZBACH: Maybe I'll be there to make sure that everything goes smoothly, yes.

LEMON: Yes. And you are, again, amazing. Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach, Miss Universe. Can we see the crown?

WURTZBACH: Yes, definitely. Would you like to...


LEMON: Do I want to put it on, no. I don't want to put it on

WURTZBACH: No, but then...

LEMON: It's really heavy isn't it?

WURTZBACH: Yes, it's quite heavy and it's real, by the way.

LEMON: And it's quite an honor -- I'll hold it right here. And it's quite an honor, too, in the Philippines for this to happen.


LEMON: This is a very big deal.

WURTZBACH: It's a very big deal. We take pageants very seriously.


WURTZBACH: Especially Miss Universe. I think the relevance is it gives people hope. It's like seeing Manny Pacquiao do very well in a boxing match. That's how it feels like for them to see somebody win in an international pageant especially Miss Universe.

LEMON: Thank you. Best of luck.

WURTZBACH: Thank you very much.

LEMON: We'll be right back.


LEMON: Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow. AC360 right now.