tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN November 28, 2018 12:00am-1:00am PST
this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. we've got breaking election news to tell you about. cnn projects republican senator cindy hyde-smith is the winner in mississippi's senate runoff election. hyde-smith defeating democratic challenger mike espy, a former congressman and agriculture secretary in this, the last senate race to be decided in 2018. that is -- the president's attorney, rudy giuliani.
we've also learned that manafort is denying ever meeting julian assange following a blockbuster report he had met with the wikileaks founder at least three times in previous years. let's discuss now. renato mariotti is here as well as josh campbell. thanks for joining us. renato, what's your reaction to manafort sharing information from mueller with trump's legal team? >> i'm absolutely shocked. it's something that i have never heard of or seen in my time, both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney. so i was a prosecutor for almost a decade. i've been a defense attorney on the other side. i have never heard of somebody flipping, in other words, being on the government side in a case, cooperating against everybody the government asks, and then sharing information with other people who are under investigation about what the prosecution is doing. it's highly unethical, and i think the communications between
trump's team and manafort's team are not privileged. those are communications that mueller could obtain. >> was he essentially the president's spy? >> it seems so based upon the reporting that we've seen. essentially what he was doing was getting information from mueller's team when they were asking him questions and assuming that -- they were assuming because that's what manafort said, and what him and his lawyer agreed, that they were on the government's team and that they were agreeing to cooperate and assist mueller in any way. and then they were taking that information and providing it to one of the people that he was investigating, knowing full well that trump and his team would spread it to others. it's completely unethical and could potentially become part of an obstruction of justice case that we might see down the line. >> josh, the fact that manafort would lie to mueller, report back to trump, does this mean his ultimate goal was a
presidential pardon? >> yeah, i certainly think so. this whole thing is stupefying. those of us on the outside looking in, we thought that this group was going to come in and grain the swa drain the swamp. i think we see the glistening sheen of pond scum because they're duplicity and malfeasance coming at us left and right. to have this person essentially reporting back on what is taking place within the government, it signals something that's highly unethical. to your point, i think that is the ultimate goal. i talk to people in my former business who think all along the goal was for manafort to obtain a pardon. i was in court during his trial and he did not appear to be a man who really was concerned about anything. you saw some of his actions. i think at the end of the day, if the end goal was a pardon, this was just something he had to get through. now the fact this revelation we're hearing that he was actually gathering information a allegedly and reporting it back to the white house, possibly
endearing himself to the president with the ultimate goal of getting that presidential stroke of the pen. >> i want to get your response to the guardian report that paul manafort met with julian assange multiple times during the 2016 campaign. you say if true, this is a complete bombshell. why do you say that? >> it is absolutely. again, we don't know 100% that's true. we've been attempting to gather our own reporting. if it is true, that signals this idea of collusion wasn't some fairy tale or fantasy because there would be no reason other than collusion for paul manafort to be meeting with julian assange or his associates because it all came back to those hillary clinton e-mails, the dnc e-mails, john podesta's e-mails, and these are the people who were doling them out and pushing them out on behalf of those who stole them. again, if he was actually in communication and involved with that team, then it is a bombshell. i'll say one last thing, don, on that point. this shows you the importance of having a good reputation. now, if someone were to say that you or me or renato were out
doing these kind of things, people would shake their heads and say that's not those kind of people. when i heard this of paul manafort, my first reaction was, yeah, i can see that. the reason that's important is these were people that were in the president's orbit. these were people that had access to him and possibly would have had high-level jobs in government had he stayed on and not been arrested. so, again, it shows you kind of that level of just malfeasance that surrounds this group. you know, what is going on that we don't know about? it's very concerning. >> he's denying it, meaning manafort, renato. he's denying it strongly through his lawyers, that he ever met with assange. but if it's proven that he did, what would that mean to the investigation? >> well, it would take mueller somewhere down the path of being able to prove that there was an involvement in a conspiracy to hack the servers in the united states that contain those democratic e-mails and to use and distribute those. so ultimately what mueller would be trying to prove there would be, you know, there was a
hacking of u.s. server. that was of course a federal crime. and then some u.s. individuals were participating in that conspiracy. now, just to be clear, merely knowing that those e-mails were going to be hacked, merely knowing that they were going to be distributed on wikileaks, that itself is not a crime. but it certainly begs the question. criminals do not usually tip off people who aren't involved in the scheme about what they're going to do or what they're in the midst of doing. so why the heck is julian assange talking to paul manafort on that topic or, for that matter, to people who are talking to roger stone and jerome corsi, which we've also learned about today? so, you know, that really is very hard to explain for those people. if i were them, i would exercise my right to remain silent on that question. >> renato, i have something else for you because this is trump campaign -- former trump campaign manager corey lewandowski speaking to chris tonight. chris asked him about this report. here it is. >> do you think if he had met
with assange back in march right before he got made campaign chairman, that you would have heard something about it, or did he keep to himself in a way that you can't say that he would have disclosed it? >> look, i wouldn't have heard about it. paul did a lot of meetings we found out about later. he took a lot of meetings in his apartment in trump tower. >> that's not exactly a denial, is it? >> no, absolutely not. and, we also heard today rudy giuliani on behalf of the president said that trump cannot recall having conversations about wikileaks with roger stone or jerome corsi. he's not flatly denying it. he's not saying he didn't have those conversations, just he doesn't recall. and here we've got lewandowsky saying, well, you know, paul manafort was doing things on his own. you know, whenever somebody gets -- there's proof that they're involved in criminal activity, suddenly those people appear to be hermits, and they're not talking to anyone. no one knows anything about
those people. but of course at the time, paul manafort was the chair of donald trump's campaign. he was a very important person connected to everyone. >> yeah. the former fbi director james comey, who is now a witness in the mueller investigation, weighed in today on the acting attorney general, matt whisker, josh. i want you to listen to this. >> to what extent do you think he can derail the special investigation? >> i think it's -- it's a worry, but to my mind, not a serious worry. he may not be the sharpest knife in our drawer, but he can see his future and knows that if he acted in an extra legal way, he would go down in history for the wrong reasons, and i'm sure he doesn't want that. >> you worked closely with comey. is he right? >> well, i won't comment on his intelligence because i don't know the man, but i think his general point is correct. should he act now as this, you know, i think representative swalwell was on cnn talking about him as the assassin who was brought in to really take the legs out from under mueller
and make this whole thing go away. if he were to act in that manner and do this on behalf of the president, not only would he go down in history in a very bad way, but he would possibly face additional consequences now with this new democratic majority in the house of representatives coming in and actually being able to have subpoena power and go after what discussions were under way. why was he put in place? i think he knows that he's now boxed in. if his original goal was to come in and make this whole thing go away, it's gotten a lot harder. >> whitaker has publicly slammed the mueller investigation multiple times. a lot of people say that's why he is the acting a.g. do you think that he's concerned about how history will remember him? >> i hope for the sake of this country that he is. and really i can't read mr. whitaker's mind. he may be more concerned about how people who are trump supporters view him, how the folks who watch fox news view him. and if that's the case, if he's concerned about, you know,
having a book tour and being on "fox & friends" when this is done, he could have a very different perspective. so let's hope for our nation that he's concerned about how history will regard him because he is the acting attorney general, at least at this moment, and there is no question that history will judge his actions one way or the other. >> well, since you put it that way, not so much. thank you. remember, he wanted to be on national tv. he wanted to come on cnn because he wanted to get the president's attention according to someone who was on this show in the green room. that's what he reportedly said to the guest on with him. thank you. appreciate it. the president doubling down on his defense of the saudi crown prince, ignoring his own cia's conclusion that mohammed bin salman personally ordered the assassination of jamal khashoggi. fareed zakaria weighs in next. ♪ bum bum bum bum bum t-mobile believes it's better to give than to receive.
and i'm the founder of ugmonk. before shipstation it was crazy. it's great when you see a hundred orders come in, a hundred orders come in, but then you realize i've got a hundred orders i have to ship out. shipstation streamlined that wh the order data, the weights of , everything is seamlessly put into shipstation, so when we print the shipping ll everything's pretty much done. it's so much easier so now, we're ready, bring on t. shipstation. the number one ch of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get two months free.
president trump again tonight ignoring his own cia's assessment that journalist jamal khashoggi was murdered by saudi agents on the orders of the crown prince mohammed bin salman. the president in an interview with "the washington post" claiming that assessment is not definitive. so i want to talk about this now with fareed zakaria. he's the host of fareed zakaria gps. good to have you on this evening. again tonight president trump brushing off the cia's assessment of the saudi crown prince that he ordered the assassination of journalist jamal khashoggi. this is what he told the post. maybe he did. maybe he didn't. but he denies it. and people around him deny it. and the cia did not say affirmatively he did it either, by the way. i'm not saying that they're saying he didn't do it, but they didn't say it affirmatively. >> we'll let gras marians figure out the -- >> i know. it's kind of hard to read, but it's incredible to hear that from the president of the united states, isn't it? >> well, what's sad about it is i don't understand why the president is, you know, on his
knees with the saudi royal family. it's perfectly understandable, and americans are adults. if you were to say, look, this was a terrible thing. you know, we have to hold them accountable, here's what we're going to do. but we're not going to destroy the relationship. we've got serious strategic relationship with saudi arabia. we've got to do this, that, and the other. for some reason, he wants to buy the saudi cover-up. for some reason he wants to affirm the saudi cover-up. for some reason he wants to participate in the saudi cover-up. and for a president of the united states, that's demeaning. the larger question, of course, is why are we subcontracting u.s. foreign policy in the middle east to saudi arabia? leave the khashoggi matter aside. why have we supported a saudi war in yemen that has now created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world? a million and a half people are on the verge of famine. you go to yemen, and there's a
brilliant "new york times" report out of yemen. you go to yemen, and they believe that this is an american war against them because they look at the bombs. they're made in the america. they look at the planes made in emergency. they look at the tensions, comes from america. we're being implicated in this war that most americans don't even know we're participating in. why? what american interest does it help that the saudis kidnapped the prime minister of lebanon and tried to shake him down? that they blockaded qatar? these are all saudi goals. why is the u.s. implicated in them? >> that's a good question because is anyone that ignorant of what's going on, especially the leader of the free world, or is it just that he doesn't really care? >> well, i mean there are a whole bunch of theories. one of them, to be honest, is there some reason why donald trump is being so nice to the
saudis? i mean there are people who have speculated the gulf arabs provide an enormous amount of the investment capital for result. who the hell knows whether that's -- but, again, as with russia, there is a puzzling pattern where you say, why do this? this is not in america's interest. why are we getting ourselves implicated in the middle of a very complex middle east situation? consistently on the side of a very dangerous saudi foreign policy that has not succeeded anywhere. >> but the very weak response -- my grandmother had this saying, maybe this, maybe that. it seems like a u.s. president should be more definitive. so obviously he's like, i really don't -- basically what he's saying is i really don't give a crap. >> there's also a level frankly of a lack of seriousness to the foreign policy. if you look at george bush senior, he was president during
tiananmen square. this is when the chinese cracked down pretty brutally on student and pro-democracy demonstrators. the bush administration did hold the chinese accountable, did impose sanctions, did suspend some important relationships. but then a couple of months later, they sent the national security adviser to beijing and said, look, we regard the u.s./china relationship as too important. we want to restart it, but we can't pretend you didn't do what you did. so that seems to be an adult, serious way to have this -- again, why are we participating in a saudi cover-up? why can't we say what is plain for the world to see with regard to this particular case and say, that doesn't mean we have to upend the whole relationship? >> that is the big question, the unanswerable question, i believe. so jaw-dropping moment today. were you watching john bolton live? i don't know if -- >> i don't speak arabic. >> i mean what kind of answer is
that? >> well, you do have to say this. if you're the national security adviser and you're only going to listen to the intelligence that comes to you in english, you're going to have a very limited -- >> we're in big trouble. >> but in a sense that doesn't matter. i mean franklin roosevelt didn't probably hear the japanese, you know, saying tora, tora when they were bombing pearl harbor. when president trump keeps talking about how it's important for us to keep the saudis happy, he gets it fundamentally wrong. it is important for the saudis to keep america happy. we are the big brother in this relationship. we are the ones who are protecting this regime. we're the ones that support it. the saudis, after 75 years of buying american military hardware, cannot turn around and on a dime say, oh, we're just going to get russian stuff from now on. it doesn't work like that.
it's not like having an iphone and then getting an android. this is a much more complicated deal, and it seems as though trump doesn't understand he's the guy with leverage here, not the saudis. >> let's talk about climate change, all right, because the president telling the post, "the washington post," one of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence, but we're not necessarily such believers. then he added this. as to whether or not it's manmade and whether or not the effects that you're talking about are there, i don't see it. people with high level intelligence, don't they accept their own administration's reports about climate change and experts and hundreds of scientists in the scientific community? >> this is in some ways the most troubling shift that's taken place in the republican party under trump. people forget that in 2008, john mccain ran as a republican, as
the presidential nominee of the republican party, in favor of a cap in trade, in favor of a effective version of a carbon tax, in favor of massive subsidies for renewable energy. this was the republican position. ronald reagan enacted policies to help the environment with regard to the ozone layer. george h.w. bush was, you know, much more green than any republican is today. if you think about republican governors like christine todd whitman, who later became the epa administrator, the republican party has had a long tradition of environmental activism. what we now have is, you know, people who are saying two plus two is equal to six. i mean it is really denying basic science. and you wonder to yourself, do you take that approach with other stuff, you know? when you're ill, do you decide you're not going to trust the experts. you're going to go to your local witch doctor? no. you trust the experts. why on this issue do they get to
pick and choose? and this is of course the fundamental issue facing the planet. >> yeah. >> and on that issue, they say, no, we don't trust -- you know, who knows about the science? it's like the next time you have to get an operation, i'd like to hear you dispute the views of the three surgeons who tell you you need to get an operation. >> or the next time you're touting the advances of nasa being able to send a rover to the moon -- i mean to mars, right? it's the science. >> and it's the same science by the way, you know? it's not like that's a different science, that climate science is some kind of voodoo stuff that the left wingers are doing. no. this is just two plus two. >> yeah. so let's talk about you have this special. the special is called "presidents under fire: the history of impeachment." you say that impeachment has been cheapened over the last years. explain that. >> if you look at impeachment over the course of american history, it was something that was viewed as a kind of nuclear option. this was the thing you did
because in any democracy, what you want to do is change governments when you don't like them, when you think the president is doing a terrible job, when you think your congressman is doing a terrible job, by voting him or her out of office. impeachment was meant to be the thing you reserve for the really special, the rare case. >> as they call it the nuclear option. >> in a sense like the nixon case. the nixon case is a textbook example of impeachment working. >> right. >> over the last 20 years, we have had massive sustained calls for the impeachment of everybody. i mean it was true for george w. bush. it was true for obama. bush and obama both ended their presidents with 33% of the american public calling for their impeachments. some large number, i think, in that range called for the impeachment of hillary clinton when she wasn't even president. >> well, in some places she is president. she's president in people's minds. >> and of course you have it with trump. and the danger of this kind of rhetoric is we now have a case
where you really do want a serious analysis of what exactly the charges are, what is the evidence. but it has become sort of the tool that everybody uses just, you know, instinctively. so what we decided to go was go back to the history, look at the nixon case, look at the clinton case, which are fascinating examples, by the way, two very different cases of how impeachment worked. and what lessons can you draw from it? >> you got what i meant, right? if you watched some networks, you would think hillary clinton is president. >> absolutely. i mean she is still being attacked. people still talk about locking her up. so it's only one step from there to impeachment. >> impeach her! oh, my gosh. thank you, fareed. always a pleasure. make sure you tune in. cnn's special report, "presidents under fire: the history of impeachment." it airs sunday night at 9:00 eastern. democrats looking to block one of the president's judicial nominees from the bench. we're going to tell you who thomas farr is and why the naacp
democrats stacey abrams and andrew gillum are calling on the senate to reject president trump's nomination of a federal judge in north carolina saying that he supported measures that disenfranchised black voters. they join all 49 democrats who say they will vote against thomas farr's nomination as well. how did president trump's judicial nominee become such a lightning rod for civil rights vooblgs? well, farr is currently a raleigh based employment attorney, but it's his past political work which is raising those concerns. here's some of those instances. back in 1990, thomas farr was the lead lawyer for former senator jesse helms' election campaign. in that campaign, the department of justice filed a complaint against the helms campaign and the north carolina republican party for sending over 100,000 postcards largely targeting black voters. the doj said the intent of the postcards was to suggest black voters were not eligible and to
discourage them from going to the polls. farr denies knowledge of the postcards, saying he attended a meeting about ballot security. farr also worked on defending a 2013 voter i.d. law, which included a controversial provision requiring residents to show i.d. before they could cast a ballot. it also eliminated same-day voter registration and voting on sundays, a day where black voters show up to polls in significantly greater numbers than white ones. in its ruling, one of the federal appeals judges wrote this. he said, the general assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected african-americans. after a federal judge in 2016 struck down the legislature's 2011 map as a racial gerrymander, they passed another map with many of the same districts in place. they argued this time lawmakers were motivated by politics and not race. farr was hired by the north carolina republican party to defend those proposed
boundaries. so i want to discuss now. joining me now is congressman gk butterfield from north carolina. he is the former chairman of the congressional black caucus. so good to have you on. thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you, don. good evening. >> so all 49 democratic senators, the naacp, and the congressional black caucus, they all oppose thomas farr's nomination. why do you think president trump nominated him? >> well, here's what we have in north carolina, don. we have three federal judicial districts in the state, the eastern, the middle, and the western districts. the eastern district has never had an african-american judge in its history, nor has the western district. so during the obama years, we tried to persuade president obama to appoint an african-american to the federal bench, and he did everything within his power to integrate the court. but each time he would nominate an african-american to the eastern district, it was blocked by the republicans in the united states senate. and of course after obama's second term, then president trump came along and instead of nominating an african-american
to the position, chose to nominate thomas farr, probably the worst choice he could make in the state of north carolina. >> yeah. >> thomas farr has been very divisive. he has led the charge on behalf of the republicans to set us back in voting rights and disenfranchising african-american voters. he is the worst choice that president trump could choose. >> let me read this because the naacp called farr the voter suppressor in chief. they said, even among dangerous trump nominees, farr stands out for his decades-long crusade to disenfranchise african-americans. he learned how to intimidate black voters from segregationist senator jesse helms and helped turn north carolina into ground zero for voter suppression. his nomination is a travesty. his confirmation would be heresy. talk to us about his role specifically if voter suppression. >> well, thomas farr started with senator jesse helms many years ago. he was part of the effort to disenfranchise african-american voters when helms was challenged
by har vip gant in the senate race of 1990. they sent out 125,000 postcards targeting african-american voters, suggesting that they could be arrested when they came to the polls. it was dhajchallenged and they reached a consent decree and the helms campaign suspended any further postcard deliveries. but thomas farr has been involved in voter disenfranchisement for years. he has represented the north carolina legislature. he's been the one who has gone in court and has defended voter i.d. and the discriminatory election systems and district maps that have been drawn. he is the worst choice that president trump could have chosen for the federal district court. >> it certainly seems to be a thing there in the south with voter suppression because voter suppression played a role in both governors races in florida and in georgia as well as ugly racist robocalls. both democratic candidates
andrew gillum and stacey abrams issued a statement saying, we call on all u.s. senators who revere our democracy, who put that democracy above party loyalty, to reject this nomination and deny thomas farr the platform to continue his crusade against voting rights. what's the message representative to african-americans if farr takes this seat? >> look, we have been asking for years to integrate the eastern district in north carolina. the public depends on a fair judiciary and to have an all-white judiciary in the eastern district of north carolina is unfair to the voters and unfair to the administration of justice. we are calling on the united states senate to reject thomas farr, and let's just start over. let's just wait for this congress to expire, come back into the 116th congress, and let's find a consensus candidate, someone who can be fair and impartial and who does not bring the baggage that thomas farr brings to this process. >> let's talk about someone now who played such a big role in the confirmation of brett
kavanaugh because our manu raju is reporting that senator susan collins, a potential swing vote, says that she will likely vote in favor of farr. but senator tim scott of south carolina isn't on board yet. senator jeff flake says he'll decide on the merits. how do you see this playing out? >> well, all of the democrats in the united states senate are united in opposition to thomas farr. we believe that senator flake is going to be voting no, and hopefully we can get senator scott or one of the other republican senators who really understands the importance of the judiciary to vote against this nomination. we need to start over. we need to wait until next year. let all of the senators settle down and find a consensus judge for north carolina and not try to ramrod thomas farr through at the last moment before the session expires. >> representative butterfield, thank you for your time. >> thank you. bill and hillary clinton kicking off their big speaking
when i gave isotoner gloves to all my teammates. now i have a different set of teammates. my family. and they all want isotoner gloves for christmas because they keep getting better. there's smartouch. for selfies whenever, wherever. then there's four way stretch for flexibility. they even have smartdri. see? stays dry. so get isotoner gloves for the whole family. take care of the hands that take care of you.
we're truck and jeep experts,ore than a store. and have been for over 50 years. from wheel and tire upgrades. to full custom builds. 4-w-p has you covered. whether you want to order the best parts online or shop in-store. do the work yourself. or get it done by a pro. all roads lead to 4-w-p. do your rig right. shop online or find your store at 4-w-p.com.
bill and hillary clinton back in the spotlight tonight in the form of a big speaking tour in cities across the u.s. and canada. it's called "an evening with president bill clinton and former secretary of state hillary rodham clinton," and tonight they're in toronto. so is our suzanne malveaux. what do the former first couple have to say about the current
president? >> reporter: sure. well, it was fascinating actually. i mean this is the first stop of the bill and hillary show, if you will, toronto being the first of 13 cities across north america. essentially it's being promoted by live nation. they normally handle these big music superstars like beyonce and justin timberlake, but it was billed as an evening that was going to provide something fresh, something new and intimate here. there are a lot of skeptics, don, that i talked to earlier. democratic allies essentially who say that they want bill and hillary to go away. but we did see in this crowd a very enthusiastic crowd, that they're still very much an appetite for the clintons. now, it started off, and there really weren't any zingers, if you will. there was no real controversial questions. it really was a lot of policy, kind of wonky things. but then there were a lot of zingers when it came to trump, a lot of criticism from both bill
and hillary clinton. the first thing out of the gate was the elephant in the room that was addressed. people wondering if this was a tee-up for hillary clinton going for 2020. here's how she responded, don. >> you're on a 13-city tour, the two of you, president clinton, madam secretary. now, is that because you guys just want to hang out together, or is it because you're testing the waters for a run at being president of the united states? [ cheers and applause ] >> actually, frank, i'm thinking about standing for parliament here. >> reporter: don, it was notable that just over the midterms, neither one of the clintons was called really to participate and campaign for a lot of the democrats who are really trying to paint a fresh face for the party and are hoping that the clintons talk a back seat. so there is kind of this
struggle seeing them re-emerge now and what that means. but both of the clintons really stressed a real emphasis, criticizing the trump administration for pulling out of agreements, whether it's the iran nuclear deal, the paris accord, all kinds of things. a great deal of frustration. and then also quite a startling accusation from the former first lady, hillary clinton, about how trump has really denied or refused to believe that the crown prince, saudi crown prince, had anything to do with the killing of the journalist ja -- jamal khashoggi. here's what she said this evening about that. >> we have a president who is part of the cover-up as to what happened in that consulate or embassy when mr. khashoggi was murdered. and we have a president and those closest to him who have their own personal commercial
interests. >> reporter: so, don, not only did she accuse the president but also the family of really having those ties with the saudis and being one of the reasons that they would not hold the crown prince responsible. we also heard from bill clinton today, very frustrated about climate change and saying how this just didn't make any sense that the president didn't believe the scientists and wasn't willing to believe the scientists. so both of them taking quite a sharp aim at this administration and also hoping to move their party in a forward direction. >> suzanne, i understand hillary clinton also took a shot at president trump tonight. what did she say? >> reporter: so the comments that were made earlier, she talked about the fact that he had mentioned something about his decision-making process when he said that he went on more with his gut than people with their brains.
she used this refrain over and over throughout the evening, kind of teasing him about what was this gut thing that was going on, and what did that have to do with real things that were based in fact? and part of that was climate change, and part of that was what they argued was working in the iran deal, and all kinds of deals that had really both of them -- both clintons had promoted at some point. even nafta, bill clinton saying it was 25 years ago. it needed some changes, but it didn't need to be dismantled in the way it was. and then ultimately it was renamed. we saw bill clinton almost apologize really to the canadians for the way that trump treated them in those nafta negotiations. so it was a fascinating conversation, and at the end, they ended up talking about the first time that the two of them met at yale as students and really kind of a refreshing change from some of the things that you hear on the 20th innovate of the affair with monica lewinsky and the
impeachment that has been so prevalent in the news lately. >> suzanne malveaux, toronto, thank you very much. >> snowy toronto. >> i want to bring in now hilary rosen and scott jennings. good evening to both of you. good to see you. scott, it's going to have you back by the way. listen, let's talk about this. the clintons are controversial. you know, they're launching this speaking tour right now after the midterms. is this the right thing for democrats right now? is this a distraction for the party? >> oh, i don't think it -- look, democrats just won 40 seats in the house of representatives. i don't think bill and hillary clinton are any harm to the democratic party. >> is it a distraction they need right now, the party? i don't know. >> i don't see anybody being distracted. i think that, you know, it's actually good to have people as smart as bill and hillary clinton out there talking some truth about donald trump. i think that they are distant
enough from the presidency to be able to feel comfortable saying things that perhaps barack obama as the most recent president can't say. and, you know, some things need to be said, and i'm okay if the clintons want to say it. it's tame compared to the things that donald trump has said about bill and hillary over the last several years. >> before i get to scott, you heard the crowd. i mean this is canada, right? remember, they don't vote in our elections when they said, is this a run. they sort of screamed. did you hear? i couldn't hear with my earpiece here a definitive no, but what did you think of that? what do you think if she actually does decide? >> she's not going to run. come on. >> all right. scott? >> i'll be honest. i understand her impulse. i mean she's looking around at a field of democrats, a bunch of has beens and never will bes, thinking i got more votes for
president than anybody not named barack obama in history, and i can't run? why does joe biden get to run and i don't? i'm a proven vote getter. i beat this guy once. that's what she's thinking. so i understand the impulse. i think she clearly wants to run, and i think she believes the country may have buyer's remorse, and that she is the antidote to giving people a chance to have their vote back. so the thing about folks with egos like this is they can talk themselves into anything. i think she would probably lose to donald trump again, but i understand the impulse and it's clear to me she's not done with this yet. >> hilary, you said she's not going to run. >> there's a difference between wanting to be president and wanting to run for president. i think hillary has been very clear that she wishes she were president, and i think that, you know, a majority of the country actually wishes she were president right now. but that's very different from wanting to run for president. i don't think democrats are chasing hillary away from running for president. i think hillary doesn't want to do this again.
she's done it twice, and, you know, that's enough. but she's still got a lot to contribute. i think she doesn't want to be told that she can't speak, and that's, you know, more coming from republicans than from democrats. she's got a lot to offer, you know, in foreign policy. she was the most popular secretary of state in history. and when donald trump does what he does to our relationships abroad, you know, she does take that personally. >> yeah. let me ask you one more question, hilary, because this is about me too. this is the rise of the me too era. bill clinton really has gotten a lot of criticism. so has hillary clinton, right? >> yeah. >> many people feel that they're out of touch and that he really hasn't atoned for his part in what happened with monica lewinsky. do you think they're out of touch with the mood in the country? >> well, you know, i do think that he has not responded well, effectively or, you know, even
kind of as compassionately as people would like to hear him do it. he has, i think, not matched the authenticity that monica lewinsky has demonstrated in the last several months on this issue. you know, i'd be surprised if they can get through this entire tour without him having to address it more thoroughly. >> that was a very good answer, a very honest answer. what do you think, scott? final thoughts. >> you know, i think hillary is right. i think that bill clinton has fallen short on this, and he's fallen short since the moment it happened all these years ago. i think if i were hillary clinton and i were serious about the next run, i wouldn't be on a book tour with him. i'd be on a book tour by myself saying, i'm out here speaking in my own voice. i don't need this guy. and honestly he's done some things that i don't like, and he's handled some things in a way i didn't like. to me, that's what people are craving. i think authenticity, a world that hilary used, is the exact right word.
people are craving that in our politics, and she's probably better able to do that with him not sitting right next to her. i think at some point if she's serious, she needs to break away from this guy at least as a public matter. >> thank you both. i appreciate your time. we'll be right back. may disagr. seriously...no...no...no... others won't believe it. (screaming in excitement) and some just won't have the words join t-mobile and get the samsung galaxy s9 free. we look forward to your reactions. (screaming in excitement) ♪ bum bum bum bum bum
they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!
welcome to emirates mr. jones. just sit back, relax and let us entertain you... ...with over 3,500 channels of entertainment, including the latest movies and box sets from around the world. ( ♪ ) we even have live sports and news channels. ( ♪ ) and your free wi-fi will start shortly. enjoy your flight mr. jones. world's best inflight entertainment. fly emirates. fly better. it's giving tuesday, and we want to show you how you can help our 2018 top ten cnn heroes continue their very important work. here's anderson cooper to tell you more. >> i'm anderson cooper. each of this year's top ten cnn heroes really proves that one person can make a difference. and again this year we're making it easy for you to support their great work. just go to cnnheroes.com and
click donate beneath any 2018 top ten cnn hero to make a direct contribution to that hero's fund-raiser on crowdrise. you'll receive an e-mail confirming your donation, which is tax deductible in the united states. no matter the amount, you can make a big difference in helping our heroes continue their life-changing work. cnn is proud to offer you this simple way to support each cause and celebrate all these everyday people who are changing the world. you can donate from your laptop, your tablet, or your phone. just go to cnnheroes.com. your donation in any amount will help them help others. thanks. all of our top ten cnn heroes will be honored at the 12th annual cnn heroes all-star tribute hosted by anderson with special guest kelly ripa. it's live sunday december 9th. thanks for watching. our coverage continues. are you a christian author with
a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! does robert mueller know about trump associate roger stone? new court documents just obtained by cnn. and president trump says he has a high level of intelligence, and still his gut instincts are better than anyone's brain. we can go forward, and we're not looking back. >> a republican win in last night's senate runoff with the balance of power in the house continuing to turn blue. plus, how a party stunt gone wrong sparked an $8 million disaster. good morning, everyone, welcome to "early start." i'm dave briggs