Return to Transcripts main page


Trump Congratulates Putin; Polygraph Test: Porn Star Stormy Daniels Truthful About Sexual Encounter With Trump In 2006; Data Firm Connected To Trump Suspends CEO After Undercover Recordings Air; The Washington Post: Advisers Warned Trump to Not Congratulate Putin, Trump Did It Anyway. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired March 20, 2018 - 22:00   ET


DON LEMON, HOST, CNN: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon. President Trump facing lawsuits tonight from three women - a porn star, a Playboy model, and a reality T.V. star, three different cases over this alleged relationship with three different women. I mean, this is where we are right now.

So I want you to take a look at this -- yhe picture of the porn actress who says she had an affair with Trump, she's hooked up to a polygraph. This was back in 2011. The result? She passed with flying colors.

The report saying Stormy Daniels was quote, "truthful about having unprotected vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump in July 2006." I'm quoting from that. I can't believe I just had to say that, but it's not admissible in court, but it is a potent weapon in the porn star's campaign against the president.

Stormy Daniels tweeting tonight, quote, "Technically, I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping, he-he. And he was just a goofy reality TV star. But I digress. People do care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it, et cetera. And P.S., I'm not going anywhere, XO, XO, XO."

Is this really happening? The president may really have met his match in Stormy Daniels. Tonight, I'm going to talk to one of her friends, who says she and Daniels have both been threatened in an effort to keep them quiet.

But there is more. In addition to Stormy Daniels, there's the former playboy model who says that she had a 10-month affair with Trump. Karen McDougal says she had an affair with Trump at about the same time as Stormy Daniels. She sold her story to the parent company of the National Enquirer, which killed that story.

Now McDougal wants out of the $150,000 agreement, so she can speak freely. There's also former apprentice contestant, Summer Zervos. She says Trump groped her in 2006 and she says he defamed her by calling her a liar.

Now a judge is refusing to dismiss her lawsuit against him. And even for a president whose no stranger to depositions and lawsuits, this is a lot. And it comes as the president's team is laying the groundwork for what could be a monumental interview with the Special Counsel Robert Mueller, amid serious questions about what exactly it is between the president of the United States and Russia.

President Trump called Vladimir Putin today to congratulate him on his victory in what can only be called a rigged election. We first found out from the Kremlin, by the way, what the president apparently didn't do according to Sarah Sanders is condemn the nerve agent poisoning in the U.K. which the British and our government have blamed on Moscow.

And there's more. "The Washington Post" reporting that the president congratulated Putin even though his national security advisers warned him in his briefing, in all capital letters, no less, quote, "do not congratulate."

But apparently, a president who loves nothing more than to talk about his own Electoral College triumph just couldn't keep himself from congratulating the Russian dictator on his victory.

We'll also have the latest on the hunt for a serial bomber in Austin, Texas, to tell you about. That's coming up a little bit later on in the show.

All right. So here we go. Let's bring in now CNN politics editor-at- large, Chris Cillizza, legal analyst, Laura Coates, and political commentators, Ana Navarro and Scott Jennings.

Good evening to all of you. I've got to ask, Chris, before I get -- are the floodgates opening?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: So, first of all, congratulations, Don. I just wanted to offer that up. Second, I don't know, I mean, look, none of these allegations, Summer, Zervos, Katherine McDougal, and obviously Stormy Daniels, none of these are new.

LEMON: No, no, no, but here's what I'm asking --


CILLIZZA: Je knew about them. But --

LEMON: Yes, but if Stormy -- this is maybe --


LEMON: This maybe I'm thinking, this is why they're silencing, I had this conversation earlier. Maybe they're trying to silence Stormy Daniels to keep that NDA --

CILLIZZA Yes, in place.

LEMON: -- intact because one woman, two woman, three women, four. And OK, you let her out of hers, maybe you can let me out of mine.

CILLIZZA: So we knew about the allegations prior to the election. What we did know, and this is what makes the Stormy Daniels case different and what makes it potentially hugely problematic for Trump and the floodgates opening is we know about the $130,000 payment, right?

Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's lawyer/fixer, made a payment through an LLC he set up seemingly for that purpose. Why? He says he didn't believe it. Well, unlike all the other allegations he said/she said, this is a payment of $130,000.

So I think that what you've seen with Stormy Daniels has emboldened these other women that we're now seeing come forward to say, wait a minute, I had a very similar setup here. I want to also be able to tell my story. So, yes, it's fascinating because the Stormy Daniels thing seemed totally dismissible way back when. It's not --


LEMON: A reality TV star had an affair with --


[22:04:59] LEMON: Or the president, fine, he was philanderer at one point.

CILLIZZA: He had an affair with someone who's a porn star.


CILLIZZA: OK, lots of people --


CILLIZZA -- no one voted for Donald Trump because they thought he was the outstanding moral -- you know, the example of moral turpitude in America. But --


LEMON: Well, some people did. They said that he was forgiven and he had asked for forgiveness.

CILLIZZA: True. A $130,000 that is that Cohen payment is so central to everything that comes after it. Because it's different in kind than what we knew about before.

LEMON: Let's get to the law lady here, to the lawyer. These women are like they a triple threat, Laura. I mean, how strong of a case do they have?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, really, the woman of the hour is Summer Zervos. She's got the strongest case right now, because it was her case, it's not necessarily about whether or not there was a sexual assault, but she has the one advantage that no one else does.

She's got a court of law in New York saying that the President of the United States, the sitting president, is not immune to a civil action in a state court. He can be deposed, potentially. It's potentially a minefield. And clearly the Achilles' heels to the attorneys were trying to avoid in every other litigation.

But Stormy Daniels' case also presents its own unique issue for the reasons you've already laid out, Don. And that is that the reason that the President of the United States and his team is likely fighting so hard about this one is to avoid the floodgates from opening and to send a very clear signal, that if this contract is valid. And there's a strong argument why it would be valid, if this type of contract is valid, it's trying to serve as a deterrent for whoever else may come along and try to break it.

Remember, he's retained Charles Harder, who was known for his counsel with Hulk Hogan in the Gawker litigation that brought down Gawker and got $100 million plus jury verdict in this case.

And so when you think about this spectrum of the people who are very, very strong in their push against the president and why he's chosen his counsel, it really brings you to that last person, McDougal. And why that's important is, her case may be similar to Stormy Daniels, but it's different in very one very key respect.

She doesn't have the advantage of having a contract between a David Dennison, a.k.a., Donald Trump or perhaps Michael Cohen. It's between a media company that was entitled to do what they call the catch and kill. Meaning, you're required to never talk about it with anyone else and I'm never required to publish your story.

And so that's the weakest of the cases among them, but certainly it's indicative of the fact that if what's true, she says that Michael Cohen may have been behind the scenes pulling the strings about that. This all comes down to the president can now be sued in civil cases, in state court, and there is still a campaign finance issue that revolves around all of them.

LEMON: So, Scott, you know they say a picture is worth a thousand words. And here's Stormy Daniels taking a polygraph test in 2011, which concluded that she was telling the truth about her sexual relationship with Donald Trump. With a 1 percent, a 1 percent chance of deception. Does this photo have any impact?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I'm not sure the alleged affair or probable affair, whatever you want to call it, is having any impact on the president. I mean, look at the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from this weekend. The Stormy Daniels story has been out there for a couple of weeks and he has ticked up to 43 percent job approval.

So the actual affair piece of it I'm not sure is having any political impact on the president, the potential legal impacts though, are worrying if you're a supporter of the president. You know, depositions that could be coming out, more information about when this was happening and what was going on the interactions between Stormy and Cohen.

I mean, these things are worrying, because they could have a material impact on how people view the president's interactions with women. It's interesting, though, right now, if you just look at his job

approval in the most recent national surveys, it hasn't yet taken a toll. But I do wonder, if you look at the micro piece of this, women in suburban America, we saw a lot of them come out say in the Virginia governor's race last year, we saw a lot of them vote in the Pennsylvania race, are they looking at these things saying, I'm going to send a message in November.

So if you're a Republican Party operative, through that lens, it's very politically troubling.

LEMON: Let me just say this to you. And it's the same thing that I said during the campaign when maybe the polls weren't showing that Donald Trump was leading or even catching on. And I would say, you know, I hear people all the time just sort of whispering to me, hey, I like that guy and I'm going to vote for him. And I said, I don't know what's going on here, but I think he has a real chance.

So you know what people are talking about in every single facet of my life, no matter the demographic? You know what they're talking about? Stormy Daniels. Every single person from my 70-something-year-old mother to my 20-something-year-old niece. They're all talking about Stormy Daniels.

Ana, the polygraph report, which was given to CNN by Michael Avenatti, Daniels' attorney had three pertinent questions, OK? I can't believe I have to say this on TV, but these are the facts.

Around July of 2006, did you have vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump? Stormy Daniels answered "yes." Next question, around July of 2006, did you have unprotected sex with Donald Trump? Stormy Daniels, "yes."

And finally, did Trump say you would get on the apprentice? Stormy Daniels answered, "yes."

[22:10:05] So, Daniels replied yes to all three questions. The first two were analyzed to be truthful. The third question was inconclusive according to the polygraph examiner. So what's this tell you?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: My God. What does this tell me? Look, it tells me that we are living in an epoch of political surrealism, to hear you read that off the teleprompter, I almost feel like you are auditioning for a part in "House of Cards."

What you are reading is insane. That we are talking about this is insane. That we are not talking about things like today is six months after Maria devastated Puerto Rico. That we're not talking about things like the March 5th deadline of DACA passed. That we're not talking about things like the Russian election.

You know, it is maddening, because we've got to talk about this. Look, I absolutely think that it is having a political effect. And not -- maybe not as much on Trump, because we already all knew that he has no moral compass. What it does, though, is it really harms the Republican Party. The Republican Party has billed itself as the family values party for

decades. And now, how can you lecture anybody about family values when you look the other way and remain silent in light of this? When you are saying that he gets mulligan after mulligan.

Where I do think that it has got to be, it's got to be affecting Donald Trump is in his personal life. It is in his personal life. Look, I've got to think that Melania Trump has got to be mad as hell about everything that's going on. And perhaps it's -- you know, your question about why is he fighting this so hard. One is, the floodgate issue that you mentioned and another one is because it's got to be wreaking havoc in his personal life, frankly.

LEMON: Yes. I agree with you again. Another conversation I had, why are they fighting it so much? And I said, it probably has a lot to do with the first lady and number two, the floodgates opening up. Listen, the Stormy Daniels tweeted this --


NAVARRO: It's got to be terribly humiliating for her.

LEMON: Yes. So Stormy Daniels tweeted this today. "Technically, I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping. He- he. And he was just a goofy TV reality star. But I digress, people do care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, et cetera. And P.S., I am not going anywhere, XOXOXO."

Is she trolling the president despite a threat of $20 million that she doesn't appear to be afraid of him or Michael Cohen? Scott, I'll ask that to you?

JENNINGS: Yes. I mean, clearly, she's not going anywhere. And her lawyer seems like, you know, a ubiquitous presence now across all media platforms. So they've obviously dug in and they think they've got a hold of something.

Look, I think it's not yet proven about the bullying and it's not yet proven about, you know -- I mean, she's accused the president of being a criminal. Those are allegations and those are not yet proven.

The affair, I think people assume happened, and it doesn't appear to be having an impact. So they're going to have to take it a step farther and actually prove these allegations.

My advice to the White House all along, you know, since this story broke was, it strikes me that given the kind of lawyer she has and given the kind of situation this is, all the facts are coming out. There's going to be no way to suppress this forever.

So at some point, somebody, probably Cohen is going to be the first one, is going to have to step forward and say, OK, OK, here's what really happened. Because I find it inconceivable that the entirety of the facts of these aren't going to come out at some point between now and, you know, the next several months.

LEMON: Well, right now --


COATES: Well, you know, if I could just say --

LEMON: Hey, Laura, hold on, and I want you to respond, but just listen. Right now, there's -- it's not in a courtroom. I don't know if it will ever go to court. But in the court of public opinion, you mentioned her attorney, they're winning.

And they're playing the reality show, I don't know if it's a game or whatever, but they are really playing it well and he does well on television and people love watching it, she's tweeting it and she's trolling him. The court of public opinion right now, Stormy Daniels winning.

Go ahead, Laura.

COATES: Well, welcome to the show. That's what in fact is happening here. But whether that's going to persuasive in a court of law is a very different story.

But make no mistake, you haven't heard from Stormy Daniels directly on this issue but for today. And why is that? Because what she did was cast out a very long line that you can call bait. And she's hoping the President of the United States is going to take that bait.

It was the equivalent of her saying, here, kitty, kitty, here, kitty. And what does she want to accomplish? Well, make no mistake of what happened today, Summer Zervos' case was not thrown out of court. Why? Not because there's a court is trying to figure out whether or not a sexual assault happened between her and then citizen Donald Trump, but because he called her a liar.

And that's another way for people to pursue these sorts of actions. And I know it's consensual but the idea of defamation cases getting you into courts. And so, she's trying to probably cast out this line, trying to have this bait out in front of the mouse hole and hoping he'll take it. Because if he does, in fact, call her a liar, what can you do?

[22:14:59] You have to then litigate whether the underlying actions actually happened. It's another way for her to try to get in the court of public opinion one, but also, more pressingly, in the court of law. They're borrowing examples from one another. Whether it's conscious or subconscious, it's happening. And this playbook will get passed around to I'm sure several other people.

Remember, Avenatti just told you last week, that there were about, what, six women who had come to him with similar stories? Well, that playbook is probably getting passed around. If he takes the bait, he'll be hook line, and sinker.

LEMON: All right, I need you to stand by. I know you want to get in on this, Chris. But stand by, everyone. When we come back, President Trump facing a looming possibility of an interview with Robert Mueller. So it's no wonder his team tried to add a prominent lawyer. Tried and failed. Why Ted Olson said no to President Trump.


LEMON: So this is classic Trump. The president called Vladimir Putin today to congratulate him on his re-election, which is bad enough given the widespread conclusion that Russia's election was rigged.

And the president's apparent failure to mention the nerve agent poisoning in the U.K., which the British and our government have blamed on Moscow. But there's more.

President Trump congratulated Putin in spite of warnings from his national security advisers and briefing materials that said do not congratulate, in all capital letters. That's according to the Washington Post.

[22:20:00] Back with me now, Chris Cillizza, Laura Coates, Ana Navarro, and Scott Jennings. So, given what I just read, Chris, I'm going to come to you first. Do you understand now why people are so suspicious about what the deal is between the president and the Russians?

CILLIZZA: I mean, look. At some point, Don, you have to add up his unwillingness to come out and say, without any caveats, yes, Russia did this. He's clearly pained when he does do it. His touting of Putin as someone he could work with.

I mean, I don't know that it adds up to anything, but it certainly is more than just a single string. It is now a narrative that's spanned over a number of years.

The thing that I find totally revealing about this is that, Donald Trump -- this is Donald Trump. If you wanted him to ensure that he would congratulate Vladimir Putin, the most surefire way to do so is to tell him not to.

Like the one thing we have learned throughout his political career and really his private life, as well, if you say to him, Mr. President, no one has ever done this before in office, if you do this, it will be a break of protocol, it will be record setting, he's sure to do it.

So, I think you have to understand his psyche. He is someone who is naturally a provocateur, a contrarian, someone who want -- does not want to be told what to do. All of these things are at play here. And that it has to do with Russia, that he didn't bring up the poisoning, that he didn't bring up again, Don.

I mean, I know, we lose sight of it sometimes, but the confirmed Russian meddling in the 2016 election. And the intelligence community saying yes, they will do it again, in fact, they're probably already at work to do it again in the events of 2018 election.

Yes, I mean, I think at some point, that should be concerning.

LEMON: Scott, it was written on briefing -- it was part of his written briefing, that's according to the Post -- am I right, producers? The New York Times is reporting that he may not -- the New York Times is reporting he may not have seen the cards. What do you think?

JENNINGS: That's right.

LEMON: I mean, isn't that's a big problem, right, Scott?

JENNINGS: Well, let me take a counter narrative to what Chris was talking about. I do agree with him that the president's own rhetoric on Russia has been weaker than his overall administrative posture. His administration has been pretty tough on Russia.

I mean, look at the sanctions that just rolled out. But it's true, though, the president in his own rhetoric and his own actions has personally not been as tough.

I will also say this about tonight --


LEMON: That did come -- that comes from his deputies, though. Even the sanctions on Russia, everything negative or harsh on Russia comes from his deputies.


JENNINGS: Yes, but those are real actions. Those are real actions.

LEMON: It doesn't come from the president's mouth.

JENNINGS: But those are really actions undertaken by the administration. Let me say one other thing about what's come out tonight. Everybody's talking about, do not congratulate and, you know, but there's been recent polling, and Chris knows this, that shows a significant personal of Americans actually believe in the concept that there is a deep state working in the national security field to undermine this president.

And within mere minutes of him having a conversation with the president of Russia, what do we get? Leaks to major media organizations of confidential material. These are illegal actions. And so, do you want to keep feeding the narrative that there's a deep state out there trying to undermine this president? Then keep acting like it. And that's what tonight I'm pretty mad about it.


LEMON: OK, let me ask you this, Scott. Let me ask you this.

JENNINGS: It's not right.

LEMON: So, who is -- who would be leaking except for someone who is in the president's inner circle who knows about the conversations he's having with Putin and the Russians? That wouldn't be deep state. That wouldn't be someone who doesn't have --


JENNINGS: No, those kinds -- those kinds of materials are viewed by both political appointees and career people. There are people in both genres that have access to that. I don't know who's leaking it, but I will tell you this. They ought to find him and march him out of the White House and charge him with a crime.

You cannot operate a presidency with this kind of information leaking like this and so quickly after a call occurred. It's ridiculous.

NAVARRO: That's a nice pivot.

LEMON: Go ahead, Ana.

NAVARRO: Look, that's a really nice pivot, but we learned -- we learned about the phone call to Putin from Russia. Then Donald Trump confirmed it today to the press and then Sarah Sanders came out and basically confirmed that, no, the issue of the elections, the issue of the poisoning had not been addressed.

Look, you know, I remember when republicans used to be against us cozying up to dictators of this kind. I found it appalling when Barack Obama went to Cuba and legitimatized Raul Castro. I found it appalling when Jimmy Carter and his foundation went to Nicaragua and legitimatized the fraudulent election of Daniel Ortega.

And I don't care if he is a Republican or is pretending to be, I find it equally appalling to see now Donald Trump legitimizing this fraudulent election in Russia by a dictator who's been poisoning people on the soil of our biggest ally.

And I am equally appalled by the relative silence of the Republican Party, who was very vocal when it was Obama doing it, when it was Jimmy Carter doing it, when it was anybody else doing it.

[22:24:55] But for the lone exception of John McCain, who continues to be the morality, who continues to be the moral compass of this party, even from his sick bed, most republicans have looked the other way and have very soft words about the actions that Donald Trump took today. It is appalling.

LEMON: But also, I mean, to Scott's point, and I don't know if Scott was legitimizing this, but believing in conspiracy theories like some sort of deep state, which is again a conspiracy theory and not necessarily fact.

Laura, the president seems to be on a collision course with Robert Mueller. Now he's shaking up his legal team. Ted Olson, one of the nation's top litigators, a former solicitor general for President George W. Bush won't join him. He also hired Joe DiGenova. What does that tell you?

COATES: Well, speaking of deep state, you've got now an attorney that's promoted that conspiracy theory who's now part of the Trump team. And the reason for that, is quite frankly, the muzzle and the gloves have come off. They came off over the weekend when Trump mentioned Mueller and the

investigation by name. He spent a great deal of time trying to discredit the overall investigation, probably in the hopes that if the investigation leads to an unfavorable conclusion to Donald Trump, he can try to seduce the public opinion to say that, let's not believe it at all.

But those theories that are being promoted was one that was being promoted by the new attorney. And the reason that he's probably trying to have somebody else be his mouthpiece and perhaps a flame thrower in that regard is because the administration has said that the statements of the president really in fact can become official policy.

And the courts, the fourth circuit and ninth circuit have both said, we're going to look at the president's tweets and his comments on things as we gauge the action of the President of the United States. This happened in the many iterations of the travel ban.

And what that tells you is that perhaps he is not aware that his statements with regard to the Mueller investigation, although they have been recent, they will implicate him in some way if the court is ever to try to gauge his intent, his motivation, and his commentary.

Now he has somebody a little bit removed to do so. But with respect to the other attorney who chose not to be a part of perhaps what's going to be perhaps a clown collar. This attorney decided he's going to have a 10-foot-pole, and maybe no good can come out of an exercise what it seems to be a lot of varying opinions, a lot of chefs in the kitchen that one particular diner does not regard with any sort of respect or listen to.

That's a real problem for an attorney looking at a long career or has been solicitor general, has been the person who argued the Bush versus Gore case before the Supreme Court of the United States, perhaps he doesn't want to dirty his hands.

LEMON: Yes. OK. That's going to be the last word. A 10-foot pole or as the old folks would say, a long-handled spoon.

COATES: Both work.

LEMON: It's all the same. I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole or a long-handled spoon. Thank you very much.

When we come back, Stormy Daniels' friend talking tonight about a weekend at Lake Tahoe when she says the porn actress actually called her along with Trump inviting her to party, quote, "to party." She's going to join me live, next.


LEMON: New developments tonight in the saga of the President and the Porn Star. Stormy Daniels' attorney releasing a polygraph she took back in 2011.

The report saying she was, quote, truthful about having unprotected intercourse with Donald Trump in July of 2006. Now, a friend of Daniels is speaking out. Her name is Alana Evans, an adult film star, and friend of Stormy Daniels, and she joins me now. Hey, Alana, how are you?

ALANA EVANS, FRIEND OF STORMY DANIELS: Hi. I'm doing well, thank you, Don, yourself?

LEMON: I'm doing well. Thank you for coming on. Let me just ask you quickly before we go on to the other things. When they said they invited you to Lake Tahoe to party, what does that mean?

EVANS: Well, I was already there kind of doing my own thing with friends, and Stormy had called me repeatedly after telling me that she had met Trump previous in the day.

When you call me to ask me to party, and the man is calling with you, and I'm an adult film star, it probably means you're calling me for, you know, a sexual encounter. I was asked to go party with them.

LEMON: So to party, in your estimation means a sexual encounter with you guys?

EVANS: Yes, absolutely. I feel like I was invited to hang out with them in all likelihood for a threesome.

LEMON: OK. So if you believe the polygraph test taken in 2011 released by her attorney today, Stormy Daniels was telling the truth about having sex with the President, what's your reaction, and were you aware that Stormy had taken that polygraph? We just put the picture up, by the way.

EVANS: I heard the story once the news started leaking out about the In Touch interview from 2011. I heard that Stormy had taken a polygraph. And I'll be honest with you, I was relieved, because it's very difficult to fight those results. It's difficult to cheat them. And so I knew at that point people were going to have a very hard time discrediting our truths.

LEMON: What do you mean people have a very hard time? What are you talking about? Say that -- explain that.

EVANS: I'm -- thanks to Michael Cohen initially coming out, and consistently denying that any type of relationship or that anything had even happened in Lake Tahoe, I'm constantly called a liar, I'm threatened, I'm harassed.

Even after my earlier CNN appearance today, I received more threats via social media, even someone suggesting that they would bomb the CNN studios because we're talking. So we're getting threats on a daily basis just for speaking out.

LEMON: Did you -- have you alerted authorities to that? Do you take them seriously? Do you think they're hollow?

EVANS: I believe some may be hollow, but for the most part when people put those kinds of things into words, you have to take them seriously. Otherwise you may end up in a very dangerous situation. So I do take them seriously.

[22:35:01] I've been compiling everything to pass over to authorities through my attorney.

LEMON: All right. You said earlier today that you don't always feel safe in situations like this one in Tahoe. Stormy was in that, you know, men like him can be dangerous. What did you mean by that? You don't feel safe, and men like him can be dangerous.

EVANS: I meant that if I end up in a situation with someone who is as powerful as Trump, even at the time, just a very wealthy man who had been on television, owned numerous businesses that he has a lot of power.

And if something were to go wrong, something would happen, girls like me disappear all of the time, and people don't really question it too often. So, no, it puts me in absolute fear spending time with someone like that, and having it go bad. Anything can happen to me.

LEMON: Stormy's attorney, Alana, has implied that they have some form of proof, whether that's photos or text messages. I mean, we're not sure what it is. Are you aware or have you seen anything along those lines?

EVANS: The only thing that I know of that Stormy does have is the dress that she wore from the initial meeting. As far as text messages or images, I'm the type of woman that I save conversations with my past lovers.

Some of them may be high-profile. I enjoy reading them. I enjoy looking at them from time to time as many people do. So I would not be surprised at all if she still had that type of information. It's Donald Trump.

LEMON: So what do you mean the dress? Because remembering Clinton, there was the blue dress. What do you mean the blue dress? Is there some sort of evidence on the dress?

EVANS: That I don't know of. I believe in the photograph that you have of Stormy and I from my birthday party, that is actually the dress in question, and so I know that she still has it, but I don't know if there's any DNA. I don't know if it's, you know, a Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp-type situation.

LEMON: But you mentioned the dress, and I just wonder what the relevance was. And as soon as you said that, you know, my mind sort of harkened back to that. I didn't know why you were saying it.

EVANS: Well, I have met men in my past that I were fans of. One in particular, an actor I really enjoyed, and I saved the shirt from when I met him. I never washed it, because I was a bit of a fan girl. So it's very possible that she hasn't washed the dress either.

LEMON: OK. Alana Evans, thank you. We appreciate your time.

EVANS: Thank you. LEMON: Thank you. When we come back, caught on camera. What

Cambridge Analytica CEO was caught saying about working with the Trump campaign. How he says they won the election for Trump.


LEMON: We've got new developments tonight on Cambridge Analytica, the firm that worked for the Trump campaign, and tried to influence American voters using information harvested from 50 million Facebook users.

CEO Alexander Nix was suspended today following undercover reports from Channel Four News in the U.K., showing him bragging about the firm's work on the Trump campaign.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you met Mr. Trump?



NIX: We did all the research, all the data, all the analytics, all the targeting. We ran all the digital campaign, the television campaign, and our data informed the strategy.


LEMON: I want to bring in Kylie Morris, Washington Correspondent for ITN Channel Four News.

Thank you so much for joining us, Kylie. I really appreciate it.

Cambridge Analytica responded to the new undercover recordings released today, and they say that they never claimed it won the election for President Trump, and that they have spoken publicly about their contribution to that campaign. They're proud of the work that they did. What do you say to that?

KYLIE MORRIS, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, ITN'S CHANNEL FOUR NEWS: Well, they're sending quite contradictory messages. I mean, it's important to note, as you say, that Alexander Nix has now been suspended, because they say he wasn't representing the company in the way that they wanted that company to be represented.

But I think, you know, if we judge him by his own commentary, he is very keen to, you know, boast about the role that they played, and the kinds of tactics that they were prepared to employ.

And then they talk about one of his colleagues talked to us about putting material out on the Internet, and kind of pushing it into the bloodstream of the Internet in a way that it was completely untrackable and untraceable. Yes, this was in the context of a sales pitch. Our undercover operators, our journalists went in describing

themselves as kind of political consultants working for a wealthy Sri Lankan family, looking for assistance in trying to make sure that the right candidates won races in the upcoming Sri Lankan elections. So it was in that context, but they certainly didn't hold back when it came to describing their own role.

LEMON: Well, Kylie, at one point, one of the executives talked about how the company's research allowed Donald Trump to win by a narrow margin in key states to ultimately win the Electoral College, despite losing the popular vote.

How much of what we heard is Cambridge Analytica bragging to get a new client? I mean, this is a sales meeting. It is. They're exaggerating as companies sometimes do in a pitch maybe.

MORRIS: That's possible. It's very difficult for us to know at this stage exactly what Cambridge Analytica did. We knew that within the digital team certainly within the last months before the election, Brad Parscale, the head of the Trump digital team, then, you know, decided to try to do a lot of kind of Facebook advertising.

We understand that some of the micro-targeting, you know, exactly where those ads were sent out to, part of that was based on the kind of data, analytical work that Cambridge Analytica does. So certainly, they were there. I mean, they were the data analytics company, you know, at the heart of the Trump campaign. And that is undeniable.

[22:45:00] I think there is now a debate, though, obviously, between people who are trying to distance themselves from the commentary of Alexander Nix saying, well, we didn't use it very much or the psychographic stuff wasn't very interesting.

It proved fruitless for us. But the reality is they did play that role. They were brought in as consultants. Steve Bannon had been a Vice President of the company. So there were very close connections and links between, you know, the very top level of the Trump campaign and this company.

LEMON: All right, Kylie, I want to play another little clip of Alexander Nix speaking to the House Intelligence Committee.


NIX: I would like to speak to these.


NIX: And the Republicans ask three questions, five minutes, done. Democrats ask two hours.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you have to answer anything?

NIX: No, it's voluntary. But I did, because I'm trying to help them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Really? NIX: We have no secrets.


NIX: And they're politicians. They're not technical.


NIX: They don't understand how it works. They don't understand because the candidate is never involved. He's told what to do by the campaign team.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So the candidate is the puppet?

NIX: Always.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, right, right.

NIX: But in every election or nearly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So for Democrats this is like sour grapes? They're saying...

NIX: Yes, sour grapes. That's exactly what it is.


LEMON: This is speaking about -- not to speaking about. He is laughing at the House investigation, and how little he says Republicans wanted to investigate.

MORRIS: That's right. And he goes on to say, look, can you make sure, speaking to the clients -- the prospective clients, saying, can you make sure that we, you know, try and organize a secret e-mail, you know, using ProtonMail, which is an e-mail that he said he could set to self-destruct within two hours.

So there was no record. He also talked about not recognizing the jurisdiction of the House Committee when it came to their dealings with foreign clients, and saying he would never tell them anything about the foreign business that he'd been doing, because it was none of the committee's business, so certainly very disparaging.

When we spoke to the Senior Democratic Members of the House Committee today, they are, as you would expect, very keen now to bring Alexander Nix back to face more questions.

LEMON: Kylie Morris, thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

MORRIS: Thank you.

LEMON: When we come back, the President's National Security Adviser is giving him a three-word warning in all caps regarding President Putin, and he flat-out ignored it.

[22:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: The President called Vladimir Putin today to congratulate him on his re-election, an election widely considered to have been rigged.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I had a call with President Putin, and congratulated him on the victory -- his electoral victory. The call had to do also with the fact that we will probably get together in the not too distant future, so that we can discuss arms -- we can discuss the arms race.


LEMON: Trump going against his own adviser who warned him in all capital letters, do not congratulate Putin. I want to bring in Matthew Rojansky, the Director of the Wilson Center -- Wilson Center's Kennan Institute, and Julia Ioffe, the Staff Writer for the Atlantic.

Good evening to both of you. I appreciate having you on. Julia, you first. What is the deal with the President and Vladimir Putin? Do you think the President -- do you think Trump is afraid of him?

JULIA IOFFE, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: I don't think he is afraid of him. I think -- you know, it's hard to say if there is something more sinister, or if it's something as simple as the President being stubborn and contrarian.

And, you know, everybody is telling him don't congratulate him, so he congratulates him. Say something negative about him, so he doesn't say anything negative about him.

Plus if you remember, Vladimir Putin is one of the only people who praised him in the 2016 campaign, who believed in him. And -- plus Trump I think really likes that authoritarian style of rule.

He definitely has an affinity for those types of rulers -- Duterte in the Philippines, Erdogan in Turkey, Xi Jinping in China. And Putin is just -- Putin honestly -- Putin is the blond white guy that he can -- you know, he can relate to.

LEMON: Yes. You know, Matthew, we learned about the call initially from the Kremlin. Why do you think -- why do you think that is? I mean stirring pot a little bit, right.

MATTHEW ROJANSKY, DIRECTOR, WILSON CENTER'S KENNAN INSTITUTE: Yes, so that's actually been the pattern so far, Don. Each time there's been an interaction between President Trump and President Putin, in some cases interactions between other folks in the government, the Kremlin has made sure to get out ahead of the story to essentially define the terms of what happened, usually a relatively detailed release.

So this is a way of ensuring that there is nothing the United States can add that would potentially change the character. And so the Kremlin defines the narrative. That is problematic. That's something I think we have to address. It's important that the U.S. message gets through. This is why it's

important that we have advisers, and of course translators from our side in the room when the two heads of state meet.

But it just to know and I think this is an important context that seems to be missing from the description here. You know, most of what Trump said to Putin in both content and form is relatively normal. What's not normal is the context.

This is a context in which everything Trump says about Putin is going to be scrutinized and understandably so. It's also a context in which Russia's behavior is essentially war like behavior, right?

They have just attempted an armed attack on U.K. soil. That's one of our NATO allies. So the actual content of the conversation, reasonably normal interaction between heads of state, totally abnormal context.

LEMON: Yes, considering...

IOFFE: Absolutely.

LEMON: Go ahead, Julia.

IOFFE: I absolutely agree with Matthew. And I think that, you know -- the fact that, you know, even if we have advisers and translators, President Trump doesn't seem to feel that they're necessary, or that they know better than he does.

Meanwhile, the Russians are running laps around him. And this is happening -- like, Matthew said, it's a normal phone call, Barack Obama congratulated Vladimir Putin after a few days, albeit with his 2012 victory.

But it wasn't at a time when Russia was poisoning people with, you know, world class, you know, military grade nerve agents on, you know, western soil.

[22:55:07] It wasn't happening when most of the world was turning their back on Putin for his war-like behavior. It's really stunning that the odd man out is the American President, the leader of the free world, ostensibly.

LEMON: Listen, Matthew, Senator John McCain slammed the President as well. He's congratulated Turkey's Erdogan during closed door remarks. Trump praised China's Xi Jinping for consolidating power. Why does the President like to cozy up to strongmen?

ROJANSKY: I think the way that you address this problem, it's not by, you know, sort of black or white. You either congratulate, you know, warm, loving friendly relationship, or you open the phone call by saying, you're the devil because that ends the phone call, right.

You figure out a way to say, look, we recognize, you know, you are now going to be Russia's leader for another six-year term. Therefore, you are responsible for X, Y, Z, right? Arms control, the President did mention that.

This budding conflict now between the U.K. and Russia, again America's treaty ally, that is, you know, one of our core allies in the NATO alliance. And then the other problems we've got in this relationship, Russia's behavior in Ukraine, in Syria on down the line, and areas where we could cooperate.

You know, Trump himself made the point in the campaign. And I do think he is right. There is potential for counterterrorism cooperation that can save American and Russian lives.

You put this stuff on the agenda, but you say it's your responsibility as the leader of Russia without seeing in positive judgment of the election, or congratulating the President.

That's not necessary. Though, Julia, is right that happened before. You know, even if the Reagan administration with Soviet leaders. So again, they are relatively normal interaction between presidents, but a very, very abnormal context.

LEMON: Hey, I got to go, Julia. But I can't let this slip because I wasn't sure of the date, that's why I didn't check on it earlier. But Litvinenko was assassinated in London in 2006. I mean that was -- and President Obama's victory was 2012, well after that and that was in British soil.

IOFFE: Sure. I am saying it wasn't right after the fact, right?


IOFFE: I'm saying that it wasn't -- there wasn't this atmosphere of people, you know, of western leaders turning away from Russia increasingly since 2014 with Russian aggression, you know, basically in Ukraine, in Western Europe, interfering in our election.

You know, he didn't -- Putin didn't interfere in Obama's re-election, or Romney's loss in 2012, right? He is not congratulating him right after that. Like, Matthew said, it's a very different context.

LEMON: Thank you, Julia. Thank you, Matthew. I appreciate your time.

ROJANSKY: Thank you.

LEMON: We'll be right back.