decision. >> and what a difference a day makes. yesterday was all about the e-mails. now, donald trump's campaign has got problems. new problems. okay, he didn't pay his taxes, but how did he get around paying his taxes? "the new york times" says maybe he did it in a way that was cheating new reports. there are also these multiple uncorroborated reports about his campaign's potential links to russia and what the fbi may know about that, but not saying. we're only a week away from the election. we have it all covered. let's begin with cnn justice correspondent, evan perez. evan? >> good morning, chris. the big question today remains, will the fbi be able to provide more information about what it's finding so far in this investigation, of huma abedin's recently discovered e-mails. fbi director james comey has told officials that at this point, he doesn't plan to provide partial updates, and that it's unlikely that his investigators can complete their work before election day. a team of investigators has begun its work to dig through these thousands of e-mails, that were found on a computer
belonging to huma abedin's husband, former congressman, anthony weiner. abedin's attorney says she has no idea how her e-mails ended up on this computer. and fbi forensic experts are still trying to figure out how they got there. comey's been under attack, including all three most recent attorneys general, from the bush and obama administration, tall three are finding fault with comey's handling of the comey investigation, and particularly for commenting on the latest abedin e-mail discovery, just days before an election. comey's current boss, however, attorney general loretta lynch, for the first time, met briefly with him yesterday on the sidelines of a national security meeting. lynch, as you remember, was posed to comey sending his letter to congress last friday, but we're told that the conversation yesterday was a friendly chat between to officials, who are under a great deal of scrutiny over this clinton investigation. chris? >> evan, thank you very much. the clinton campaign is going directly at the fbi's chief. and they say this is a blatant
double standard. he'll talk about the e-mails when he doesn't have the underlying proof, but he won't talk about any investigations about donald trump. for that we have phil mattingly, live in chappaqua, new york, of course, that's where hillary clinton lives. what do you have? >> reporter: chris, you nailed it. it is an escalation right now. it started with shock. the clinton campaign, obviously, had no idea this was coming, when that letter was sent to capitol hill on friday. but slowly, over the course of the last three or four days, you've seen an escalation of attacks. a clear effort by the clinton campaign to undercut what that letter means and it's not an effort we're going to see slow down anytime soon. >> there is no case here. >> reporter: hillary clinton and her campaign firing back at fbi director james comey, slamming his decision to notify congress of a new investigation into thousands of e-mails, found on a computer, belonging to the estranged husband of a top clinton aide, huma abedin. clinton's campaign turning the tables on comey.
>> it's impossible to view this as anything less than a blatant double standard. >> reporter: seizing on reports that comey refused to publicly comment on potential ties between donald trump's campaign and russia. on sunday, senate minority leader harry reid accused comey of sitting on, quote, explosive information. trump's russia connections, without offering proof. cnn cannot corroborate any of these reports. u.s. officials do tell cnn that russia is behind hacks that could potentially influence the u.s. election. meanwhile, trump is capitalizing on comey's new e-mail probe. >> it took guts for director comey to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had. >> reporter: comey has only said the e-mails found on disgraced congressman anthony weiner's computer, quote, appear to be pertinent to the now-closed clinton private server investigation. >> we can be sure that what is
in those e-mails is absolutely devastating. and i think we're going to find out, by the way. for the first time. thank you, huma! thank you, anthony weiner. >> reporter: abedin's attorneys responding, saying in a statement, quote, from the beginning, miss abedin as complied fully and voluntarily with state department and law enforcement requests and reiterate, they only learned of the e-mails on weiner's computer friday from the press. clinton continuing to apologize for her private e-mail server, but issuing a challenge to investigators. >> i'm not making excuses. i've said it was a mistake and i regret it. by all means, they should look at them. and i am sure they will reach the same conclusion they did when they looked the at my e-mails for the last year. >> reporter: all of this as "the new york times" obtains documents that they say show trump potentially escaped tens of millions of dollars in
federal personal income taxes in the 1990s, by using a tax-avoidance maneuver, later outlawed by congress. trump's campaign responding to the report in a statement, saying, quote, any tax experts that you have consultaed are engaged in pure speculation. there is no news here. so, alisyn, the big question seven days out, what is the state of play of this race after these last crazy four or five days. so to get a sense of things, look at where the candidates and their surrogates are. donald trump today in pennsylvania for a big speech with his running mate, mike pence, on obamacare. then going to wisconsin. hillary clinton is in battleground, florida. president obama, ohio. vice president biden, north carolina. what does all of that mean? donald trump's going to blue states. states with a clear democratic advantage, basically saying, he has to flip these states, almost pull off an upset if he wants to win. hillary clinton and her surrogates in battlegrounds. battlegrounds where if she just wins one of those three, she likely locks up the white house.
so that, at least as of now, that's your state of play, alisyn. >> thanks so much for updating us. we want to wring in now south carolina congressman, trey gowdy, chair of the house select committee on benghazi which first discovered that clinton used a private e-mail server. good morning, congressman. >> good morning. how are you? >> doing well. congressman, explain why you are comfortable with director comey releasing word to congress that there is this new wrinkle in the investigation involving huma abedin's e-mails, before knowing if there's any there there. >> i think there are two reasons. number one, let's just concede, being a police officer and a prosecutor is a lonely and tough jobs and unusual facts make for some pretty tough conclusions. but he did tell congress in july that the investigation had been completed. and he had determined that she department have specific intent to commit a crime. so i think he felt the need to supplement the record.
remember, john koskin is being investigated for potential impeachment for failing to update the record and update congress. so i think number one, you take him at his word that he wanted to supplement the record, but number two, let's say that hillary clinton were to say today, all of this is in the rearview mirror, i've been investigated, all of my aides have been investigated, there's nothing here. well, if comey knows that there is potentially new information that may impact the investigation, then what she's saying is not true. so under the general theory that the public should be given the information and then they can sort it out, my guess is, he wanted us to know that there was new potentially relevant information. >> before knowing if it is relevant. you know. you've heard lots of legal experts say, it just breaks with protocol. him coming forward before knowing if there's relevant information. >> yeah, i wish i had a nickel
for every time i asked the media to not report facts in my murder trials and they did itnyway. i wish the president had not prejudged the investigation when he did so. i wish loretta lynch had not met with bill clinton on the tarmac. i wish a lot of things had not happened in this case. again, this is an unusual fact pattern, which leads to unusual conclusions. >> okay. so in terms of the public's right to know, do you share that same measure about whether or not the fbi should talk about any investigation they had into donald trump's campaign's ties to russia? >> well, as a general rule, the bureau does not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation, although that rule lately has been honored more in its breach. so if you want the bureau to update the public about an investigation into mr. trump, then they're also going to need to update the public about the clinton foundation investigation, if one exists.
remember, there's a referral on secretary clinton's perjury. there's an allegation that she committed perjury. there was a referral letter sent by senator goodlatte and chaffetz. they have not updated congress on that. i don't view his letter as an update on the facts of the investigation. i view it as a notice document. i want you to know my previous testimony has changed. the matter is still open. that's how i viewed the letter. >> well, one of your colleagues on the house oversight committee says that you and your republican colleagues are basically just accepting this double standard. that you do want the update on hillary clinton's e-mails, but you're not pressing the fbi for any update that could be, of course, wildly relevant to the presidential race, if donald trump's campaign had some sort of connection to russia. well, i'm sure my colleague on the oversight was not referring to me. maybe i'm a universe of law, and i don't want an update on the status of the e-mail investigation. i'm not entitled to an update on
the status of the e-mail investigation. i used to work for the department of justice. they should not be discussing the facts of an investigation, until the investigation is over. if my colleague meant that comey should have kept it a secret that they had potentially hundreds of thousands of new e-mails, i just find that interesting. a couple of months ago, they thought that jim comey was the second comie ining of christ. and a couple of months later, now they think that he should be investigated for violation of the hatch act. i don't like relativism. i think the same rules should apply. this is a very unusual fact pattern. but alisyn, it is difficult and unusual because of decisions made by people not named jim comey. secretary clinton is the reason you and i are having this conversation, not jim comey. >> so, congressman, if hillary clinton were to win the race a week from now, should the american public and voters
expect years and years of more investigations and committee hearings into things that you believe are wrongdoing? >> it depends. congress does not have jurisdiction. and frankly, we are terrible at investigating potential crimes. but the legislative branch does have an obligation to provide oversight. and part of that oversight, frankly, includes the department of justice. the department of justice is funded by congress. so we should provide oversight after things have happened. just like we should provide oversight over the cia and the state department. but it's not our job to investigate potential criminality. we're bad at it. and even if we found evidence of a crime, there's nothing we can do about it. that's an executive branch function. so, i kind of depends upon the nature of the investigation and what our motive and intent and purpose is. >> congressman trey gowdy, thanks so much for joining us on
n "new day." >> you too. >> chris? >> let's get the other side with senator ben cardin of maryland, a hillary clinton supporter. it depends, senator. trey gowdy giving a good description to have the limitations of the house in terms of investigating crimes, but he didn't say there would be no hearings on a then president-elect or president hillary clinton. what does that tell you? >> well, chris, we've already seen that the house of representatives has had more and more investigations concerning secretary clinton. so, it's hard to predict what they'll do, but i would like to think that they would be objective and that they would only do an investigation if there was a reason to. but that has not been the practice in the past. >> so, let's go from what could happen in the future to what's going on right now. goudy and other republicans are making a very obvious case about what jim comey just did. he owed it to congress. he said he would tell them if anything changed, and that's why he wrote the letter. they just took it as a status
change, nothing more. obviously, donald trump takes it as a hell of a lot more than that, but they're distinguishing themselves from him. what do you say? >> here's the situation. information was discovered. the fbi does not know whether it's relevant to secretary clinton or not. they haven't reviewed the e-mails. there is no indication that there's anything new that would warrant this type of a scrutiny. but they need to look at it. there's a reason why close to election, when you have that type of information that does not point to an active investigation -- active concern, that you don't make that information public. you hold off because of the impact it could have on the elections. i think director comey when he released that should have anticipated that donald trump and toaster would then say, use that, and draw conclusions. conclusions that have no merit whatsoever in the information that the fbi has. it's part of a strategy -- >> do you think -- >> it's part of a strategy, i
think -- >> do you think -- senator, do you think that the fbi director should come out with more information about the case before the end of the election? do you think that he should do an expedited review? or do you think that's even possible? the suggestion seems that he is not inclined to do so. >> well, first, i don't think he should have sent that notice to congress. secondly, now that he's done that, yes, i think it's important that that information be made more public, so the public can draw conclusions, rather than having donald trump and others draw their own conclusions, that just are without any merit to the information that's available. the criticism is -- >> to make more -- >> the criticism is, you loved him when he was on your side. now he seems to be doing something that could help the other side, so you don't like him. you're having it both ways. >> well, quite frankly, i would like to see investigations done out of the spotlight of the public. but director comey was the one who made his decisions. the fact that he closed the investigation, that is public. the fact that there's more information now that may be
relevant, may not be relevant, that needs to be investigated before public comments are made. so i think he -- look, he's a good person, he made a bad judgment here. and you see how it's being spun in an effort, i think, and a strategy to deal with some of the clinton supporters, to say, well, maybe there's a question here, you need not come off the vote. i think it has something to do with suppression of the voter turnout. people get depressed about this election. and it's been used. and director comey fell into this trap. >> well, you've got to be ka careful about that, right? if he fell into a trap of others, that's maybe a bad judgment. if you say he's part of that trap, that would go to the hatch act. and that's what harry reid was suggesting. you don't go that far? >> no, i think he made a judgment. i think the judgment was a bad judgment. >> the russians and their impact on the election. the hacking of these e-mails seems fairly clear to the government's resources. the clinton campaign is pushing
for there to be more disclosure from the fbi about any potential connections between members of trump's campaign or trump himself, and russia. are you in favor of that, when we don't really have any basis to understand that they are even investigating something like that. there's word, maybe, there's a probe or an inquiry, but certainly not enough for the director to feel confident enough to say anything. in fact, he didn't even want the fbi put on the disclosure about russia's the source of the hacking. >> chris, i have deep concerns about russia's engagement here in the united states. i have serious concerns about donald trump's international involvements. i would like to see his tax returns. we have a right to see his tax returns. he's running for president of the united states. i think that could be telling, as to his international dealings, as well as his use of our tax code. that's relevant information. russia's involvement in the u.s. elections, important information. and any of those associated with the trump campaign and their
association with russia are all very, very relevant. but i stand by the point, this close to an election, you don't want to have the fbi, if they're active investigations going forward, they should be very cautious as to what they make public, because it will be used in a political way. that's why, i thought, it was absolutely wrong to send a letter to congress, a few days before an election. >> senator ben cardin, thank you very much for being on "new day," as always. alisyn? >> chris, we are following some breaking news out of baltimore, where as you can see, the aftermath on your screen right now, a school bus has crashed wth a transit bus, killing at least three people. we do not know if any children were on the school bus at the time or which bus the victims were on, but you can see it was a terrible accident. investigators are on scene, trying to figure out what led to this crash. so, of course, we are working on getting much more information for you. we will bring it to you as soon as we have it. all right. north carolina is big and in play in this election.
and it's also now the focus of a really ugly moment. senator richard burr apologizing, but what did he say that deserved an apology? pout it this way. it involved having a bull's-eye on hillary clinton. next. et videos. tv: oh, it's gonna get crazy! this is black friday that is insane. i would never do that. at chevy, you can avoid the chaos and get great deals on the most awarded lineup. i like that. bam! it's awesome! you don't have to camp out at the chevy dealer two days in advance. i love it. (laughs) wow. and you don't have to wait until black friday. find your tag and get 20% cash back, or, get 0% financing for 72 months on select remaining 2016 chevy vehicles in stock. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.
want a great way to help our children thrive? then be sure to vote yes on proposition 55. prop 55 doesn't raise taxes on anyone. instead, it simply maintains the current tax rate on the wealthiest californians to prevent education cuts that would hurt our kids. no wonder prop 55 is endorsed by the california pta, teachers and educators. because all of us want to help our children thrive. it's time to vote yes on proposition 55.
north carolina senator richard burr apologizing after cnn obtained audio of him making an inappropriate joke about hillary clinton having a target on her. >> nothing made me feel any better, i walked into a gun shop, i think yesterday in oxford. there was a copy of a rifle magazine on the counter. it's got a picture of hillary clinton on the front of it. i was a little bit shocked at that, didn't have a bull's-eye on it. >> okay, let's bring in cnn political commentator and former south carolina representative, bakari sellers, he supports hillary clinton. and cnn political commentator and former reagan white house political director, jeffrey lord. he supports donald trump. gentleman, nice to see you. >> good morning. >> so senator burr apologized. he said, the comment i made was
inappropriate and i apologize for it. bakari, do you think this has any relevance on the presidential race? >> well, i think that what people are seeing is that we've reached the depths and the doldrums of dirty politics and games and things that should not be said. and i think people are really sick and tired of having this, especially from one of the 101 most powerful people in the world, who is a united states state senator. it has no place in our rhetoric, no place in our political discourse. i think that senator burr is actually apologizing that he got caught. and we see these things said at fund-raisers all the time. and may i dare guess that he's probably said it more than once. and so, i think what this does is set him back in his race. i don't think it plays a huge role in the presidential race. but i do think it ties into a narrative that people are sick and tired of this rhetoric, which sometimes, especially in this instance, can be dangerous. >> jeffrey, what do you think about what it says, about the state of the race, that we're now at this point, where you can
make a joke about violence, and it's met, you know, guffaws from the crowd. >> alisyn, to be perfectly candid, whatever senator burr said, he should apologize for it, as i guess, he's done. i think it only affects his race. but alisyn, i certainly recall a few years ago that then senator kerry was on bill maher's show and when bill maher -- he talked about going to vermont for vacation -- i'm going to read you the line maher said, you could have killed one bird with two stones. and john kerry said, i could have went to 1600 pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone. there was no outrage to this moment. >> what does that even -- >> that's what drives the american people crazy. >> what does that mean? what does that joke means? >> what it means is that he could have killed the president. that's what it means. president bush. >> oh, he was saying that about president bush. huh. >> bush, yes, exactly. this is all on tape. i'm just reading you the
transcript. >> okay. so jeffrey, what you're saying, i think, is that there's long been violent rhetoric in politics. >> i think this kind of humor is disgusting, to be perfectly candid. and in that sense, i agree with bakari. but most assuredly, it happens on both sides, it's just that the outrage only seems to come when somebody on the republican side does it. >> let's talk, gentleman, about the fbi's disclosure about this new wrinkle in the hillary clinton e-mails that may or may not have any relevance whatsoever. bakari, hillary clinton seems very bullish on the trail. she has said there's nothing here, there's nothing to see here, there is no case here, to quote her directly. how can she be sure, when huma abedin says she doesn't know what these e-mails are. >> well, i think hillary clinton is very sure that she hasn't committed a crime. i think she also knows that what director comey came out and said, which was against policy, back on july 5th, is still
relevant today. and she feels fairly confident like everything else feels confident, that this is a nothing burger. the fact is, though, this is the most disconcerting park. that the fbi is leaking like a sieve. every single day, we'll get new leaks from the fbi about one thing or another. but the most troubling aspect is what we know to be a fact is that the fbi was investigating the trump organization and donald trump since this summer. but they didn't feel compelled to make a public statement. but you have something that may or may not be something with hillary clinton's closest aide, and you decide to throw a wrench in the whole campaign 11 days out? that is the clinton rule. that is the double standard. if it wasn't hillary clinton, director comey wouldn't have done it. and he's a great man who made a judgment call based on politics. and that's why we're here today. >> jeffrey, we keep hearing this from clinton supporters, basically saying that this is the definition of a double standard. if the fbi is investigating donald trump, why don't they make that public? why did he feel compelled to make whatever new wrinkle this is in the investigation of
hillary clinton public? >> well, two quick points here, alisyn. number one, this is -- we're here in this situation because of hillary clinton. not because of director comey. congressman goudy has it exactly right. from the moment she first appeared on the public scene as first lady of arkansas and turned $1,000 into $100 grand in cattle -- >> let's not relitigate all of that. focus on what director comey has done. >> alisyn, it's a pattern. that's why we're here. because she keeps doing it. and her response, the clinton response, at this moment, is to try to make jim comey ken starr. once upon a time, special prosecutors like ken starr were treated with kid gloves. you weren't supposed to say anything, you weren't supposed to do anything. and the clinton white house in the day launched a full-scale attack on a special prosecutor. now they're doing the same thing to jim comey. number one, they get in this situation, and then number two, as is their pattern, and number two, they attack the investigators. this is what they do all the time. so jeffrey, you don't see it as a double standard, that he's
revealed information against precedent about one of the candidates, but not about the other? >> i don't -- i think that in the first case -- in the first place, the evidence was there for the justice department, for loretta lynch to seek prosecution. but she, of course, was compromised by bill clinton -- >> that's not true. that's not true. >> bakari, go ahead. >> it is true. he was on the plane with her. there's no question. >> hold on. let bakari make his comment. go ahead, bakari. >> that's not true. the evidence was not there. in fact, loretta lynch took a step back and took the recommendation of the fbi. the recommendation of the fbi was not to prosecute. which should have happened when loretta lynch took the step back after that meeting, which we can all say was ill-conceived, what we can all say should not have happened. what should have happened is director comey makes the recommendation and does not make a public statement, contrary to decades and decades of policy. that statement, if any statement, should come from sally yates, who was the next in line.
who is a line prosecutor. who is very respected by both parties. that's how this works. it doesn't come out where director comey gets to come out and make any public statements that he wants to make. and just briefly, just briefly, really quick, you know, jeffrey lord likes to go down these historical tangents, especially about ken starr and what the clinton white house did. well, ken starr is now a hillary clinton supporter, so take that. >> yes, politics, the tables turn sometimes. this is certainly getting curiouser and curiouser. gentleman, thank you very much for the debate. >> thanks. >> thanks. election day is one week away. join us next tuesday for election day in america. we have every race and every result covered. stay with cnn until the last vote is cast and even beyond that, quite frankly, you should stay with cnn, i think. >> good call. lock her up. no, not alisyn, or at least not today. but that's what trump folk yell, echoing trump himself, who constantly calls for clinton to be in jail. this is a banana republic vibe that reflects a recent trend in
our politics. fareed zakaria has thoughts you need to hear about where this is coming from and where it may lead, next. the things they love to do most on these balloons. travel with my daughter. roller derby. ♪ now give up half of 'em. do i have to? this is a tough financial choice we could face when we retire. but, if we start saving even just 1% more of our annual income... we could keep doing all the things we love. prudential. bring your challenges.
perfect driving record. perfect. no tickets. no accidents. that is until one of you clips a food truck ruining your perfect record. yup. now, you would think your insurance company would cut you some slack. right? no, your insurance rates go through the roof. your perfect record doesn't get you anything. anything. perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness,
liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you twenty-four seven. for a free quote call liberty mutual at switch to liberty mutual and you could save up to $509. call today at liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
liberty stands with you™. he's the drug company big shot who raised the price of a lifesaving pill by five thousand percent. said he wished he'd raised it more. prop sixty-one targets drug company price-gouging to save lives. the drug price relief act will save californians nearly a billion dollars a year. join the california nurses association and aarp and vote yes on sixty-one. the drug giants won't like it. and he'll hate it.
some hillary clinton supporters say their candidate is the victim of a witch hunt. from the clinton foundation to benghazi to her e-mails, they say that clinton's opponents will try any reason to take her down. and they're using the legal system, they say, to try to do it. our own fareed zakaria says that may not be so far off, but it is an issue on both sides of the aisle. and fareed joins us in and out. good morning, fareed. >> a pleasure. >> so what do you mean that politics has begun criminalizing bad behavior? >> well, if you think about the way most people from outside america think when they come to america, the thing they notice is, americans are constantly suing each other. in other words, anytime anything goes wrong in america, everybody sues everybody. so we have -- we use the legal system as a way to adjudicate disputes. this has now infected the political system. ever since watergate, which was a legitimate high crime and
misdemeanor, what has happened is, both parties, the minute anything goes wrong, the minute you have a big disagreement, you search for something that you can attribute criminality to rather than adjudicating it politically. >> but, isn't this exactly what -- i mean, the root of this, isn't this why voters feel so frustrated? because they think that politicians exercise all this bad behavior, sometimes even illegal behavior, but they don't have to pay the way regular people, you and i, would have to pay. and so, they want there to be some sort of level playing field for politicians. >> no, i actually think it's exactly why most people think of politics as such a dirty, sordid business. because this feeling about politics has only existed, really, in the last 30 or 40 years. and what has happened in the last 30 or 40 years? every time, you know, there is some kind of policy deadlock, each side tries in some way or the other to lock the other person up. remember, during the iran contra scandal over the reagan
administration, an independent council was appointed. and he spent tens of millions of dollars trying to find criminality over what was really a policy dispute between the democratic congress and a republican administration. flash forward to the clinton years, when this, of course, exploded and ken starr spent god knows, $100 million trying to find something and could never -- you know, people forget, clinton was impeached for something totally unrelated to the actual investigation, which was white water, about which no charges were ever filed. democrats wanted to try george bush and donald rumsfeld for war crimes. my point is, these are political debates. they should be -- you know, the fbi could investigate a thousand crimes every hour. it chooses to do some. let politicians handle political debates politically. if you don't like something that hillary clinton has done, don't vote for her. but the idea that everything becomes criminal is a unique feature of american democracy.
it doesn't happen in other advanced democracies. we don't spend our time trying to throw the other side into jail. >> but, you know, let's use a real-life example, and that is if people said, if you had sensitive information on your e-mail, that you weren't supposed to be -- that you were supposed to be using the state department's server and e-mail and not your own, you would have go to jail, they say. >> well, first of all, they're wrong, in that you need to be able to show that there was some criminal negligence. the supreme court has ruled about this. you need to show that there was some actual leaking, intentional leaking of information, neither of which existed in clinton's case. but, yeah, i am making a larger point. when there are clear, serious cases of the violation of laws, let the law take its course. but the fbi chooses what to investigate and there's a thousand crimes a minute that they are not investigating. and to be badgered into investigating political crimes
and politicians, what ends up happening is you turn america into a banana republic. we are constantly searching for ways in which to prove that the other party isn't just wrong, but criminal. and you know, if you look -- if you put that kind of lens on it, for example, a lot of things, frankly, roosevelt did in the course of getting america into world war ii were probably violations of the law. abraham lincoln, certainly, were violations of the law. but these are political matters that should not be adjudicated by courts, because what you do is you turn politics into a game where each side is trying to put the other one in jail, rather than simply having the voters kick the bums out. that's a much better, more healthy system. >> and of course, you've also heard from donald trump, that he will try to put some of his opponents in jail. he said he will sue people who have offended him. some of the women who have come forward with accusations, if he were to be elected president. so it sounds as if this is not going away anytime soon. >> well, if donald trump is around, i think, you know, lots
of people will go to jail, because he seems to relish the idea of having that awesome police power of the state at his disposal. >> fareed zakaria, great. thank you for explaining it all to us. people can read it on cnn.com. let's get over to chris. >> just crossing the internet, paul ryan said that he voted for donald trump in early voting last week. what will that mean to the election? we'll discuss that, coming up. but let's get some historical perspective about what this election means, especially what we just heard out of the fbi. this newest october surprise. take a listen to this. >> this is the biggest scandal since watergate. hillary clinton wants to blame everyone else for her mounting legal troubles. but she has brought this situation on to herself. she's got nobody to blame but herself. >> that's interesting.
that's exactly what trump's critics say about all the litigation he's facing. let's get to the matter at hand. he says, this is the worst scandal since watergate. let's get some perspective on what this means. we have some smart people who know history for you. douglas brinkley and senior editor for "the atlantic," david frum, who's got a very interesting facial growth today. mr. frum, we start with you. this notion of the october surprise is out the window. they happen every week. but what happens with the e-mail, with comey coming out, with no e-mail proof underneath it, but this suggestion ten days from an election, how big? >> smallish. look, at the core of these e-mail allegations is the charge that hillary clinton mishandled classified information. that happens a lot in washington. people sometimes lose their security clearances for it. sometimes they have to resign their jobs. on rare occasions, when they act with malice and intention, they face criminal charges. but most of the time, resignation is the penalty.
it's important, if there is classified information. it is not equal to the allegation that a foreign power is attempting to manipulate an american election. that has not happened since the 1790s, when revolutionary france tried to sway the united states into war on its side. >> good pivot. point for you, frum. so professor, what david's saying is, if we want to talk about it holistically, what's going on with the e-mails, let's focus on the hacking. that's the part that may be of historic proportions. russia's involvement in destabilizing an election, to great effect. what do you say? >> i agree with that, i think historians are going to look back at that being the key part of 2016, the very thought that russia is trying to interfere with our elections, i mean, cybersecurity is the most single most important foreign policy objective of the united states. how do we stop this from happening? if we can hack into people like john podesta, they can hack into just about anybody.
but i also wanted to say, i think we've got to stop the word "october surprise," because it seems to me right now, what we're going through are just bombshell after bombshell in and october surprise sounds something squant, like from the 1980s. but we're now hitting these octobers where every day, or every week, at least, somebody is coming out with something unbelievably inflammatory, whether it's "access hollywood" take place or the comey affair, it's brutal out there right now. >> well, it's true. sounds better when you said it, but i was making the same point when we started this segment. and trump, unwittingly, in saying this is the worst scandal since watergate, he's right, but not because of hillary clinton. it's because of what you're talking about. that was a felony, what happened with nixon and his associates at that time. this is a felony that happened with the hacking. talk about october surprise, they happen too often. october 1st, you had "the times" with trump's '95 tax return that
leaked out a little bit of what he's been trying to hide from people and continues to do. then the 7th, wikileaks has the treasure-trove on clinton being paid for wall street speeches. the 8th, the release of that "access hollywood" ugliness. the 28th is the comey bomb coming out. when you look at these, which matters? do any matter? do any matter, because can anybody's mind be changed? >> well, they matter in this way. they matter in that democratic -- the democratic constituencies often contain a large number of people who are thinly motivated to vote. it's no secret, democrats draw more strength from the less-affluent, less-educated, people less committed to the political process. if they get the idea, everybody's equally bad, they're likely to stay home and that hurts democrats disproportionately. but notice that list of bombshells. those are not equivalent bombshells. the news of hillary clinton's speeches to goldman sachs, i would certainly feel better if i
had paid $350,000 and that's what i got. and likewise, these comey revelations, these are not big reveals. meanwhile, the discovery that a nominee for president bragged about how he liked to grab women or the revelation that he hopes to profit from a hostile foreign power's manipulation of a u.s. election? you know, one are little firecrackers that you set off at a tent ceremony. the other, these are real blockbusters that bring down city blocks. >> how will the history books be written on this, professor, in terms of how people make sense about how donald trump said so many tranoutrageous things, offd so many, had so much come out about him that would be disqualifying for anybody else, yet survived, if not won the election? >> well, it was so far as -- he was cast as a p.t. barnum figure and everybody kind of enjoys that. the great showman and hillary clinton is kind of joan of arc of america. and it became, i think, a reality tv show, one that went
haywire. it's like frankenstein's story. it became a monster. now we're all living with it. there's a dark cloud hanging over the land and donald trump saying the election is going to be rigged and hillary clinton is attacking the fbi and everybody wants the election to end. and it went on for over two years. so we've got to kind of reassess what we're doing with these presidential elections. they're supposed to be an enhancement of our democracy. instead, i think, 2016 has seemed to dehabilitate all that's best in the american spirit. >> how did we come to this point? we came because, some of the most important issues in american life, immigration, the effect of trade on those who are not globally competitive, had been left to the margins of society, because as much as democrats and republicans disagree, on those issues that were so important to so many people, we had an elite consensus they were not to be discussed. nafta and tpp, everybody agreed on that.
those important issues were left for irresponsible actors, when they should have been dealt with by responsible actors. and if we have another immigration consensus after this election, it will be even worse. >> gentleman, thank you very much. appreciate the perspective. alisyn? >> all right, chris. house speaker paul ryan announcing moments ago that he has cast his vote for president. we'll tell you who it was and we'll talk about it in the bottom line, next. so i feed jake purina cat chow naturals indoor, a nutritious formula with no artificial flavors. made specifically for indoor cats. purina cat chow. nutrition to build better lives. tv: oh, it's gonna get crazy! internet videos. this is black friday that is insane. i would never do that. at chevy, you can avoid the chaos and get great deals on the most awarded lineup. i like that. bam! it's awesome! you don't have to camp out at the chevy dealer two days in advance. i love it. (laughs) wow. and you don't have to wait until black friday. find your tag and get 20% cash back, or, get 0% financing for 72 months on select remaining 2016 chevy vehicles in stock.
sharing a ten by ten room,ng threestruggling.nding, i rent this place and then i started home sharing. my roommates help out all the time. they are glad to meet the guests and that opportunity that airbnb has given me is such a priceless gift. i was able to take three months off to take car of my family during a family tragedy. the extra income that i get from airbnb has been a huge impact in my life.
all right. house speaker paul ryan just announcing this morning, he has already cast his vote. take a listen. >> wait for it! >> playing coy. >> wait for it. with rapt attention we wait for it. >> i thought on it all summer. in fact, i already voted here for our nominee last week, in early voting. we need to support our entire republican ticket. here's the other thing i'd say. for those of us who lived through the 1990s, steve, it's sort of feeling of deja vu. and the point i keep trying to make to younger voters, who did not live through the 1990s, this
is what life with the clintons look like. it's always a scandal, one after another, then there's an investigation. and what happens, steve, is you never know what's coming next. they lf beyond the rules. and they live to work the system, to help themselves. to help clinton incorporated. >> and oh, yeah, i'm a republican and speaker of the house. who was he going to vote for? let's bring in cnn political editor, david chalian joining us now with the bottom line. >> chris, did you notice the name he said in that whole clip was clinton, he said it twice. the name he did not say was trump, he called him, our nominee. i think paul ryan is quite clear there that he is not embracing donald trump in any way, he's casting his vote for whoever had the "r" after his name on the ballot. and this has been his struggle throughout this entire time. in fact, i think we've seen this struggle in the establishment sort of wing of the party. look at john kasich, we learned yesterday he wrote in john mccain's name on his ballot. there was a divide about how to handle the trump candidates, because nobody seemed very eager to embrace it fully.
>> well, speaker ryan has obviously had his public disputes with trump. and if you take him at his word, for why he didn't want to vote for hillary clinton, beyond that she's a democrat and he's a republican, lives beyond the rules, one surprise after another. are those the things he thinks he's going to be getting rid of with donald trump? >> that's a good question, alisyn. but i think it makes the point that there is a real significant anti-hillary clinton vote out there for donald trump to win over, when he is not in the center of controversy, right? this is why it's better for the trump campaign when hillary clinton is the focus of the news and the chatter and the controversy. and so, somebody like paul ryan, and i think, a lot of people in the republican party who think like paul ryan or consider themselves a paul ryan type of republican, are very open to that argument, about not wanting a clinton in the white house. >> right. and look, he's got to do business as speaker of the house, whether or not trump wins. now, john kasich had a different
calculation, the governor of ohio, we all remember him from the primaries. he wrote in john mccain. what's the calculus there? listen, the calculus there is, first of all, john kasich's looking at his future and still assessing what he wants to do beyond this election cycle. but he has made it quite clear for quite some time now, chris, that he wasn't going to vote for trump. he didn't show up at his convention in his home state. this popular republican governor in ohio is now saying that he didn't vote for the republican nominee. i don't think that that will change votes at this late date. anybody in ohio knows where john kasich stood. but in case trump loses and in case john kasich wants to be part of redefining what the republican party is, in more of his image, he wants to be able to say, i didn't support donald trump. >> is it bad for him to vote for yourself? kasich could have done that? he ran for president. >> you could write in anybody. ana navarro is writing in his mom. >> i know that. i guess he likes john mccain better than what he was
offering. but meanwhile, give us the bottom line on where we are with director comey having come forward to say, we're going to be looking into this. we don't know if there's anything relevant on huma abedin's husband's laptop. because robby mook was on our show, and he says, it's obviously a big breach of protocol. where are we today with all of this? >> here's where we are. and i think you heard this from robby on your show, as well. but i think there's a concern in the clinton campaign about dampening enthusiasm among some of their softer supporters. moderates that were coming their way, maybe even some republicans, democrats who weren't totally enthused with hillary clinton. they're concerned about dampening enthusiasm there, with this story, which is why i think you're going to see the clinton campaign aggressively try to change the subject, such as our jeff zeleny is reporting now, that alicia machado is back in the news today, because hillary clinton is going to have her introduce her in florida, the former miss universe. >> that will be interesting. >> thank you, david chalian. >> take care, you guys. >> you too.
well, monique louise was a little girl when she starred in this shocking ad for lyndon johnson's campaign about the dangers of nuclear war. >> eight, nine. >> nine, eight, with seven, six, five, four, three, two, one -- >> these are the stakes, to make a world in which all of god's children can live. >> who would have imagined that 52 years later, she would be in another ad, this time for hillary clinton. watch this one. >> this was me in 1964. the fear of nuclear war that we had as children, i never thought our children
would ever have to deal with that again. and to see that coming forward in this election is really scary. >> trump asked three times -- >> three times, why can't we use nuclear weapons? >> all right. joining us now, the man behind
the original 1964 ad for lyndon johnson, and partner for senior creative people, sid myers. hi, sid. >> hi, good to see you guys again. >>
good to see you again. what do you think of your ad being reprised 52 years later? >> i'm kind of proud they think it's worthwhile. it's still pertinent today as it was 50 years ago. it's the same problem. >> how so? how do you think it manifests today? the daisy ad is how it was referred to in '64, was particularly resonant, because it was the invocation to the nuclear age and that this is a possibility. how do you think it resonates today? >> it resonates today because the same problem exists. the threat of nuclear annihilation is with us, with bush -- not bush -- trump trying
to say that he wants to give the rights to the nuclear weapons to saudi arabia, to japan. it's just, it's just, it's just a nightmare. and it will -- you know, and he says he wants to bring jobs back to the united states. you can't bring jobs back to the united states if the united states is in ashes. >> but you know what's interesting, sid, is that this is not -- i mean, nuclear war is not on the top of what voters say are their biggest concerns. they think about the economy, they think about jobs, and they think about terrorism. i mean, terrorism might be today's version of sort of the apocalyptic, scorched earth, nuclear war scenario. but do you think that hearing that same actress talk about how her fear is nuclear war will sort of be a wake-up call for people? >> yes, it is a wake-up call. because the -- if isis gets a
dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb, we're in a lot of trouble. we have to put laws into place and structures into place to keep this, keep this down. because it would be a nightmare if it gets loose. >> let me ask you something. as a veteran of the messaging game in elections, what do you think about the messaging so far from both campaigns? who do you think's done a better job? >> well, you know, the original ads that we did in 1964, were the first time that those kinds of ads were made. before that, the ads for presidents were jingles, like "i like ike" and "vote for kennedy, he's the best guy for you" and they never went into the depth
of the issues of the time. skpfr we -- anddid that for the time in 1964. we took the issues of nuclear proliferation, poverty, selling the tva. we did 23 different commercials just on all domestic issues. >> well, sid, thanks so much for sharing your sort of process with us. one little known fact, that daisy ad so famous, only ran once. and that was it. but everybody knows it, because it was then talked about so much on the evening news and everywhere else. sid, thank you. >> the more important your words, the fewer you have to say. sid, thank you very much. appreciate it. time for "newsroom" with carol costello.
very succinct. >> good morning. i'm carol costello. good morning. thank you for joining me. one week until election day, donald trump and hillary clinton are in the sprint to the finish line. the candidates and their surrogates blanketing battleground states in an effort to rally supporters and convert the undecided. team clinton heading to seven states including florida, ohio, north carolina, and wisconsin. donald trump will also visit wisconsin. but all eyes are on pennsylvania, where running mate mike pence will give a joint address on obamacare later this morning. cnn is tracking all of the fast-moving developments on and off the campaign trail. phil mattingly is in new york with the clinton campaign, athena jones is at the white house, and christine romans is here with me in new york. let's begin with you, phil. good morning. >> reporter: good morning, carol. there's no question, over the course of the last four days, it se