Return to Transcripts main page
Final French Debate Gets Heated; FBI Director Defends Clinton Bombshell; Macron And Le Pen In Final Presidential Debate Abbas Expresses Hope Trump Can Help Ensure Peace; U.S. House To Vote On Health Care Bill Thursday; The 10-Year Search for Madeleine McCann; Saudi Arabia to Join U.N. Women's Rights Commission; Facebook Hiring 3,000 as Monitors. Aired 1-2a ET
Aired May 4, 2017 - 01:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[01:00:00] ISHA SESAY, CNN ANCHOR: You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles.
JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Ahead this hour, Le Pen versus Macron, face to face, one-on-one, throwing insults in the last Presidential debate before Sunday's vote.
SESAY: Plus, they claim it was a choice between something really bad and catastrophic. The Director of the FBI defends his Clinton e-mail bombshell, dropped days before the U.S. election.
VAUSE: And later, ten years on, still no answers in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
SESAY: Hello, and thank you for joining us. I'm Isha Sesay.
VAUSE: Great to have you with us, I'm John Vause. We're now into the second hour of NEWSROOM L.A. France's presidential candidates clash in a vicious final debate as they try to win over voters before Sunday's election.
SESAY: Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron have radically different solutions to key issues like immigration, a stagnant economy, and terrorism. Le Pen slammed Macron as an elitist, and Macron fired back calling her a liar.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (through translator): I am talking about the party of the far-right, the one that you lead, it's the party that spreads lies on social media which encourages hatred, molests journalists, who generously dispense brutality everywhere.
MARINE LE PEN, FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (through translator): We have never molested anyone.
MACRO: You did on several occasions. At my meetings, you have threatened and beaten people and I have experienced that. That is the truth, Ms. Le Pen. So, it is your party, the party of the far-right which has no resemblance to our country. But I respect all the voters. I understand their anger and distress. I know them because I come from a town that also voted for you, but they don't deserve your anger. You have no answers for them. You stoke their anger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SESAY: Dominic Thomas is with us once again. He's the Chair of UCLA's Department of French and Francophone Studies. Dominic, thank you for sticking around. These debates are as much about the style, the optics as they are about the substance. It's about who appears to be Presidential. On that score, who emerged the winner here?
DOMINIC THOMAS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF FRENCH AND FRANCOPHONE STUDIES CHAIRMAN: Think that most people watching this and going back over the reels back to 1974 when these debates started that pitted members from mainstream political parties, would say that these candidates did not behave in a Presidential fashion. Historically, and the sort of, you know, the President's office has moved from right to left, to right to left, and it is a similar sort of establishment people have been around.
These two represent, you know, nonmainstream political parties. This has never happened and I think the debate, the technique, the mud- slinging, the insults, the lying, and demeaned the debate if we look back over these kinds of traditions. I mean, they are strange debates. They last 2 1/2 hours. There's no audience. They just go at each other for this entire time.
In this particular case, it really was mud-slinging and quite disrespectful even in the way they went about discussing this. But Marine Le Pen provokes this in a way because she came straight out of the box and started insulting Macron. You know, calling him a cold- hearted banker, and essentially a sort of porn for the socialist government and so on. And he was on the defensive very quickly. And that was much better at responding clearly and articulately to specific agenda questions and to describing his program. But he did get caught up in feisty cuffs with her.
SESAY: Yes. As we talk about the issues dominating this election, of course, we know Europe, the common currency, terrorism which as we know Marine Le Pen has kind of really taken to be her own key issue. Let's take a listen to one of the exchanges on this, on this issue between Le Pen and Macron and talk about it on the other side. Let's take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LE PEN: You are actually indulgent towards Islamic terrorism. We have to eradicate the ideology of Islamism in France, and that is something which you wouldn't do because you are subjected to them.
MACRON: We have to strengthen the resources of the police and we have to act before the attacks are committed. So, on the question of fake watch list, this is a question of intelligence. I would strengthen the measures which do with the watch list, even if it does deprive people of some of their freedoms. These are intelligence documents and putting everybody in prison or sending them abroad really doesn't make any sense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SESAY: Dominic, with terror as being such a big issue in this election, did either of them, as you watched that exchange, do enough to move the needle in their favor when it comes to the voters?
[01:05:03] THOMAS: I think moving the needle, no. That discussion came right after the discussion about the economy, which she did not do very well on. It is certainly not her strong point. She's much better at dealing with emotions, fear, appealing to people's anxiety and so on. And of course, linking the question of Islam, French identity to the question of terror has worked very well for her because she's been able to appeal both to prejudice and to fear. So, if Emmanuel Macron who let's not forget, who was being accused of having worked in the Hollande administration. It is the Hollande administration that was in power during the terror attacks over the past three years, and that has imposed and maintained a state of emergency.
The response has been very strong to these questions, but it's very difficult for Emmanuel Macron to counter those kinds of discussions attack by acting in a rational and reasonable way because when he starts to say that this is a deeper problem. The big question is, how is it that young people, born and raised in the French Republic can be more inspired by terrorism than by online recruitment videos, and by the values of the French Republic? But when he does that, she just comes back at him and says you're anti-French, you're anti-patriotic, you're advocating for these sort of communitarian groups and organizations rather than protecting French people.
SESAY: So, with all of that being said, we still hear that up to even slightly over 30 percent of the French electorate have said they will abstain, that they will not take part in Sunday's vote.
SESAY: Did this debate do anything to move that, in your view? And what is really at play here anyway that you have it? On Twitter, people are saying some of them may without me, I'm not taking part.
THOMAS: Well, I think that one of the big -- you know, it's interesting in this big discussions and the other news items were, you know, Comey being interviewed as the question of, you know, catastrophe versus disaster, so whether or not one supports Emmanuel Macron. Emmanuel Macron is not Marine Le Pen. And his movement and the people around him are definitely not the for national. And he eager to re-enforce that link between her and the extremist far-right that she had refused to debate against in 2002. And to underline the connection of her family name to the extremism of her father.
And I think if anything came out of this tonight is the reminder to people that to vote and to not vote; both have consequence. And one hopes that after the vote in November for Trump, or the Brexit vote, that people realize that whether or not they are themselves Muslims or Jewish, that the Le Pen is in the fore-national is Islamophobia and anti-Semitism is also offensive to other people. And in many ways, I would say, that not voting is a privilege. There are many people who will be negatively impacted by a Le Pen candidacy, and that voting is an act of responsibility.
SESAY: And to that point, not voting benefits Le Pen.
THOMAS: Not voting absolutely, unambiguously benefits her. The new research is being done on polling and the field of Socio-physics and so on points to the fact that her base is more likely to show up and vote, to vote and least likely to abstain. And so, this is a concern and potentially creates a path for her to the presidency. The NATEs aren't really on her side, but there is a possibility here. And I think it is important that people realize the dangers that they face by not voting. But, of course, the design to not vote reflects what has been a very fractured electoral campaign with so many divided parties, views, positions and so on.
SESAY: Dominic Thomas, we always appreciate the insight. Thank you. Are you off to France tomorrow?
THOMAS: Off to France tomorrow, and look forward to covering from there.
SESAY: We will speak to you from Paris.
SESAY: Thank you.
VAUSE: OK. FBI Director, James Comey, says he made the right call by telling Congress he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails just days before last year's Presidential election. The FBI Director was on Capitol Hill, yet again, Wednesday, where he also defended his decision not to disclose Donald Trump was also under investigation. CNN's Jim Sciutto has details.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: At times defiant and others reflective, FBI Director James Comey said the idea that his decision to go public with details of the renewed Clinton e- mail probe impacted the election results made him feel nauseous. But he has no regrets.
JAMES COMEY, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DIRECTOR: It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election. But honestly, it wouldn't change the decision.
SCIUTTO: Comey argued that he was battling for the very credibility of the FBI, saying he doubted the top officials in the Department of Justice could carry out the investigation without the perception of bias. This even before a highly-publicized meeting between then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on a Phoenix Tarmac during the height of the campaign.
COMEY: Her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me. And I then said you know what, the department cannot, by itself, credibly end this. It was a hard call for me to make to call the attorney general that morning and say I'm about to do a press conference, I'm not going to tell you what I'm going to say.
[01:10:07] SCIUTTO: Pressed by Democrats on why he confirmed the investigation of Clinton, but not a concurrent probe of Trump campaign ties to Russia. Director Comey argued it was a matter of timing, too early for the Trump investigation. Not so, for the Clintons'.
CHRIS COONS, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM DELAWARE: Had there been public notice that there was renewed investigation into both campaigns, I think the impact would have been different. Would you agree?
COMEY: Remember, the Hillary Clinton investigation, we didn't confirm it existed until three months after it started, and it started publicly. So, I thought the consistent principle would be we don't confirm the existence of -- certainly, any investigation involves a U.S. person, but a classified investigation in its early stages.
SCIUTTO: Comey also defended his decision to notify Congress on October 28th, just days before the vote that the FBI was reopening the investigation into Clinton's e-mail practices after the discovery of new e-mails from long-time Clinton aide Huma Abedin on the computer of her then husband, former Congressman, Anthony Weiner.
COMEY: Somehow, her e-mails were being forwarded to Anthony Weiner including classified information. He is then spouse, Huma Abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him. For him -- I think to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the Secretary of State.
SCIUTTO: It was that discovery that led Comey to write his now infamous 11th-hour letter to Congress.
COMEY: I had to tell Congress, that we were taking these additional steps. I pray to find the third door, I couldn't find it. Two actions speak or conceal. I don't think many reasonable people would do it differently than I do.
SCIUTTO: Also, a topic of questioning leaks. Director Comey, when press said, he has not leaked any classified information about the Russia investigation to reporters. He says, he has not authorized his staff to leak any information. When asked, however, if he's investigating leaks from inside the Intelligence Community? Director Comey, would not comment. Jim Sciutto, CNN, Washington.
VAUSE: OK. We have just a bit of news coming into us here about, essentially, what has been a very unusual meeting called in London at Buckingham Palace. A lot of buzz on this on social media about what this might actually mean. CNN has confirmed that royals staff have actually been summoned to this meeting -- it was called by Lord Chamberlain, the most senior member of the queen's household staff. (INAUDIBLE) says, you know, these meetings are unusual, but they do happen a few times a year. So, still a lot of speculation as to what this actually might mean. We should note that the queen was at the palace yesterday meeting with Prime Minister Theresa May. And Prince Phillip, he was seen out and about at the Lord's cricket ground on Wednesday.
OK. Now, we want to stay with our -- the FBI and Steve Moore is with us. Steve, sorry for that. We just had to get that news out there. Let's get back to James Comey for a minute. He basically made this huge point that you know, he was above politics, he didn't want politics to be part of this decision-making process when he made that announcement, but he was kind of confronted with this choice of whether or not to go public. And this is what he told the Senators on Wednesday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COMEY: I stared at speak and conceal. Speak would be really bad. There's an election in 11 days. Lordy, that would be really bad. Concealing in my view would be catastrophic. Not just to the FBI, but well beyond. And honestly, as between really bad and catastrophic, I said to my team, we're going to walk into the world of really bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUSE: I think the problem I have with this is that catastrophic is kind of very ambiguous. Catastrophic in what way?
STEVE MOORE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRIBUTOR: Exactly. He never outlined what catastrophic was. And I think he also misframed his dilemma. He said that his choice was between speak and conceal. Well, the opposite of speak is silence, not conceal. And, so, I think he's overstating his situation in July. He may have needed to -- Congress may have said, if you reopen or change your testimony, you have to tell us. But all of this would have been moot, had he not made the announcement in July. That-
VAUSE: The original announcement is, no charges will be brought against Hillary Clinton. He said he did that because he'd lost faith in the Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Is that his call to make?
MOORE: Well, at a certain point, you have to bring that into your logic. But you are responsible for the actions you take regardless. And I can tell you that the loss of confidence in the Justice Department, and Loretta Lynch in particular, after the meeting on the Tarmac, was endemic through the FBI. It was viral. So, that does not, however, change the fact that the FBI as the Director said himself, can never be allowed to be a political organization.
[01:14:54] VAUSE: And at the same time, there was an investigation underway into Donald Trump and his alleged ties to Russia, and the campaign ties to Russia. And he kind of made this sort of, kind of argument as to why he didn't release those details. You know, the two reasons didn't sort of marry up. They seem to be inconsistent with each other as to why go public with Clinton, not go public with Trump.
[01:15:15] MOORE: Because he gave the right reason for not going with Trump. And he had no good reason for going public with Hillary Clinton. I mean I've got to tell you, I believe there was smoke -- and there was fire where that smoke was. I disagreed with his decision not to prosecute. But I also disagree with him going public with it. That is just something you don't do and it indicates more than simply a loss of faith in Loretta Lynch. It's a loss of faith in the system. If he believed the system would work, it didn't really matter if he made that announcement. Even if she had been elected President and.
VAUSE: It was like she'd be elected, and then it would come out that there was this investigation, and there would be some kind of political blow back for the agency.
MOORE: Yes, well that's real tough. You're the FBI Director. It's going to happen.
VAUSE: Live with it.
MOORE: And obviously he didn't have any political blow back on this. Did he?
VAUSE: That's how it worked out. Steve, good to see you.
MOORE: Good to talk to you.
SESAY: Have a quick break and next here on NEWSROOM L.A., President Trump says he's going to achieve a mid east peace deal. But can he really succeed where so many of his predecessors have failed?
VAUSE: And after recent killings were broadcast online, Facebook is now on a hiring spree to try and end these violent videos.
[01:20:18] VAUSE: The President of the Palestinian authority says he's hopeful about a peace deal with Israel under Donald Trump's leadership.
SESAY: Mahmoud Abbas met with the U.S. President in Washington Wednesday. Mr. Trump says he will work as a mediator to help broker a mid east peace deal something other U.S. Presidents have tried but failed to do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENT: Over the course of my lifetime I've always heard that perhaps the toughest deal to make is the deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Let's see if we can prove them wrong, OK?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUSE: Joining us now Democratic Strategist Dave Jacobson and Republican Consultant John Thomas. You know the problem here, John, for the rest of all, they don't you know didn't get Trump speak. They don't understand the hyperbole or exaggeration. You know they don't really understand the President and you know how he talks. And so, they can be very serious and dangerous consequence when you raise expectations like this only to have people disappointed when failure follows. And that's what the danger is here in some ways.
JOHN THOMAS, REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT: I think Trump, yes, Trump would counter that he's here to represent the American people, but obviously there are consequence beyond America. So, I do understand. I think my advice to the rest of the world would be study up on Trumpism. You know learn how he speaks. He considers himself to be a negotiator, first and foremost, and I think he does intend to -- he thinks he can get a deal done. I don't know if he can, but, look, I don't fault him for trying. I think he also, you know, is plain spoken. He believes that bureaucrats and politicians speak that language. He speaks another, maybe he can get something done where others couldn't.
SESAY: But Dave, here is a man boasting that he's going to get the deal done but doesn't tell us how. I mean.
DAVE JACOBSON, DEMORATIC STRATEGIST: Quite right. The same way that he said that he was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall on the southern border right I mean it's disingenuous, it's misleading, and look, it's not the responsibility of other world leaders to like read up on Trumpism, right? He should speak truth to folks. And I think that's the large issue here, is that this is a guy who sort of exaggerates about all the issues and doesn't fully tell the truth.
VAUSE: You know in a situation like this, it wouldn't be helpful if Donald Trump could maybe talk to those past Presidents who have tackled this issue and ask them, you know where they went wrong and ask some advice. But the problem is that he's not talking to anyone because he's insulted them or he's accused them of false allegations so you know. To John, that is a consequence of all these new tweets and insults which the President has put out there.
THOMAS: It sure is. Yes, he has to rely on people like Rex Tillerson to help guide him through this process. It's hard. But I've got to say, his actions have spoken more clearly and loudly than his words dropping a bomb in Syria, applying pressure on working with China. It seems like they might be getting some movement against North Korea better than perhaps the last eight years so we'll see.
VAUSE: It could be oil on the west bank, too.
SESAY: And to all of that, the movement he's had with all of those issues, all of that could be for naught once he gets, you know bogged down in the mid east peace process because this is a time start.
JACOBSON: Let's not forget this is like a bipartisan issue. Democrats and Republicans they want peace in the Middle East. They want to come to some agreement, some understanding here. And so this is an issue where I think it was a, you know a miscalculation on his part to sort of overstate these objectives. Like I think he should have been more humble and methodical in how he sort of laid this out because this is something that he could have gotten Democrats and Republicans to coalesce behind. VAUSE: OK. Well he's only got Republicans behind him on this Healthcare reform bill. Third time the charm by those who vote on Friday. Still not certainly thinks he had the votes on house but you know this is looking more promising than before. The problem is no hearing, no studies, no CBO analysis, not even a text of the bill is out yet. So, you know, Dave, this does seem to be rushed it just. These people don't even know really what they're voting on here, do they?
JACOBSON: It could potentially be a catastrophic failure for the House GOP and for the Trump administration. You have Kevin McCarthy who basically said today he's guaranteeing that he has got the votes. This is the guy who said after the Trump ultimatum after round one that they had the votes. Ultimately they didn't even take the votes. So I think look this is a very big challenge for both Paul Ryan and for Donald Trump because it's a tough vote for this folks covering pre-existing conditions is widely popular among all Americans. Doesn't matter what political party you have and so I think the folks who are going to take this vote tomorrow, I think it could potentially put a big red target on their back for Democrats going for mid terms.
SESAY: You mention pre-existing conditions at the heart of this long drawn out process. Take a listen to Sean Spicer's back and forth with our own Jim Acosta about this very issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: If someone has continuous coverage that's never going to be an issue regardless of no circumstance does anyone with continuous coverage would ever have a problem with pre-existing continues. If someone chose not to have coverage for 63 days or more and they were in a state that opted out and they had a pre-existing condition, and they were put into a high- risk pool, then we've allocated an additional $8 billion over five years to help drive down those costs. So for someone to know how many people that is, what numbers of states are going to receive a waiver, ask for and receive a waiver is literally impossible at this point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[01:25:20] VAUSE: Now the great communicator.
SESAY: Yes. I mean he's trying, you know trying to sell it there. But, John, I mean there is a huge backlash in the offing for this if they get this issue of pre-existing conditions wrong.
THOMAS: I mean it is, but if you keep the pre-existing conditions protections in, you can't let a free market solution reign because you've got all these people paying for higher risks so the premiums aren't going to come down. At the end of the day the Trump administration, if they want to win here, premiums have to come down for the masses so they have to separate it. But you're going to hear from conservative commentators that it is like welfare. I mean it is a subsidy.
VAUSE: But that's how insurance works isn't. I mean they have insurance subsidies for all the people who've got you know health issues.
JACOBSON: Right, and that's one of the issues that the why pre- existing conditioning coverage is so widely popular. Look, I think Republicans are going to live or die by this law ultimately in 2018.
THOMAS: But they have to get something done. I mean action is more dangerous than action.
JACOBSON: I think the big challenge is you're going to have House Republicans in vulnerable seats vote for this very tough bill. Ultimately it's not going to be the reconciliation bill that the Senate is going to come back with. And so you're going to have this tough vote and you're going to have that on your legislative record the Democrats can use against you.
SESAY: Indeed they're going to have it on the targets on their back. It goes to the Senate; it's going to be radically different when it comes back from the Senate. And what do they got to shove it? Never going to pass through the House again where the freedom caucus. So this is also law?
THOMAS: I think Trump shifts blame.
SESAY: At least you know what.
THOMAS: And then he tries to shame the Senate into getting something done. Right now the blame rests on the White House, not the Senate.
JACOBSON: I think it's a political blessing in disguise for Democrats ultimately.
SESAY: Famous last words.
VAUSE: Today's blessing is tomorrow.
SEAY: Indeed. Gentlemen, thank you. All right, quick break here and Madeleine McCann disappearance made headlines right around the world. Coming up what her parents and investigators say about the case ten years later.
[01:30:38] VAUSE: Welcome back, everybody. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles. I'm John Vause.
SESAY: And I'm Isha Sesay.
The headlines this hour --
VAUSE: 10 years ago, a little girl vanished from a holiday apartment her parents rented in southern Portugal. She was four years old.
SESAY: There's no answers to what happened to Madeleine McCann. A team of London investigators is dedicated to her case. Her parents are still hoping for answers.
ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): She's the little girl with the sparkling blue-green eyes. Her disappearance, every parent's worst nightmare, and the subject of seemingly endless media speculation. Still, Kate and Jerry McCann had hope their Maddy will be found alive.
JERRY MCCANN, FATHER OF MADELEINE MCCANN: No parent is going to give up on their child unless they know for certain their child is dead. And we just don't have any evidence.
MCLAUGHLIN: The mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann is far from solved.
MARK RUNDY (ph), METEROPOLITICAN POLICE DEPARTMENT: When you deal with families in situations it always hurts that you can't guarantee success. But we'll do everything we reasonably can to get there.
MCLAUGHLIN: The exhaustive global investigation continues, including multiple appeals to the public for help. Over 600 individuals scrutinized. Four suspects identified, then discounted. Portuguese wasteland excavated, and images what Maddy might look like at 6 and 9 years old. Still no sign of the girl.
They don't know exactly what happened that tragic night in Portugal when Maddy, almost four, vanished from her family's holiday apartment. Her parents dined at a nearby tappas restaurant. Her twin siblings asleep in the same room.
In the days following her disappearance, Kate and Jerry McCann were investigated as suspects. Portuguese authorities and the press skeptical of their story.
MCLAUGHLIN: They've been cleared of any wrongdoing but the accusations still stand.
JERRY MCCANN: The prosecutor said there is no evidence we were involved in any kind and, really, that's saying anything opposite is injustice. It's not justice.
KATE MCCANN, MOTHER OF MADELEINE MCCANN: It's incomprehensible, upsetting, and caused a lot of frustration and anger.
MCLAUGHLIN: 10 years later, not much has changed.
KATE MCCANN: That hope of Madeleine being out there is no less than it was almost 10 years ago when we departed the first 40 hours, nothing has changed since then. I think the difficult thing has always been how will we find her, you know, she relied on the police to do everything they can, and you relied on somebody with information coming forward.
MCLAUGHLIN: Erin McLaughlin, CNN.
SESAY: Well, for more perspective, we're joined in L.A. by Laura Richards, a former criminal behavioral analyst from Scotland Yard.
Thank you for coming in.
LAURA RICHARDS, FORMER CRIMINAL BEHAVIORAL ANALYST, SCOTLAND YARD: My pleasure.
SESAY: This investigation has spanned the globe and cost millions and still we don't really know what happened to little Madeleine McCann. Was this investigation bungled right in the beginning?
RICHARDS: You're right, it's cost 11 million pounds to date, which is about $14 million, which an expensive public purse. Scotland Yard did take over the investigation in 2011 and their real challenge is the ground was never cleared from under their feet. The Portuguese police had a number of challenges and problems with the initial investigation.
SESAY: Talk to me about that. What seems to have been something of a disconnect between Scotland Yard and the Portuguese authorities.
[01:35:07] RICHARDS: Yes, well, initially it was a Portuguese police investigation. But the challenge was when Kate raised the alarm, there wasn't a search that evening and, in fact, it was word was put in the next day at 10:00. Searches were conducted the next day. Interpol put out the global alarm and alert five days later. And it being --
SESAY: A huge amount of time.
RICAHRDS: It's a long delay. And the time window is critical in a case like this. Particularly when we know that 44 percent of children are abducted are killed within the first hour. 73 percent are killed within the first three hours, and then 99 percent are killed within the first 24 hours. So, that time critical element was lost here. There was no amber alert or equivalent, and the House where she went or the apartment -- sorry, where she went missing from wasn't treated as a crime scene. In fact, over 20 people had trampled through it. So, the forensic side was a huge problem right from the start as well.
SESAY: So, as you mention forensics and how that was contaminated and lost with that amount of traffic, anything today in terms of new technology to your mind that could be brought to bear on this case 10 years later?
RICHARDS: You would think about the basic first of all and the basics was even with the telecom data, that was never even looked at although it was seized at the time. Who was in the area, what friends were being used if it were a potential kidnap, are there a number of people talking to each other, for example. That data has original been gone through at the moment by New Scotland Yard. It is a live investigation. (CROSSTAKL)
RICHARDS: So, of course, there are forensic techniques and they did have the cadaver dogs in and various other things.
SESAY: Those sometimes, the findings are cadaver dogs are disputed quite often in terms of liability.
RICHARDS: They are. They are. That was one of the key challenges. That window of time and not being treated as a priority or as a crime scene, those critical windows of time, that's what presents the new Scotland Yard and Metropolitan Police with the biggest challenge. That having been said, they have a 90 percent clear-up rate, 90 percent detection rate in serious crime.
SESAY: Talk to me about your thought on all these theories that are out here. There are too many, but some of the principal ones. The parents were implicated but they have been cleared of any wrongdoing. Let's be clear on that. Then there is talk about this was a burglary gone wrong and they talked about Madeleine McCann may have been abducted as part of sex trafficking ring. Of the theories that are out there, do any of them stand out to you as the most plausible, credible from what we know?
RICHARDS: I mean, yes. There are lots of people speculating about what went on. To oversee a case like this you have to deal with the evidence. That's what Scotland Yard is trying to get to. As you just rightly said, the bungled burglary is that highly probable. No, it's not because if it's a burglary, then individuals would go into the apartment or the House and they're looking for items to take away. And that are light and easy to take, but nothing was taken by a 3- year-old girl. So, the bungled burglary highly unlikely. Was there a kidnap or ransom? There was never a demand. That can be ruled out. Is there trafficking as in she's blonde and is a very specific thing she's being targeted. It's possible, but it's very high-risk if that's the case.
SESAY: She's so readily identifiable with the eyes.
RICHARDS: So identifiable and striking. Why not take one of the twins who are younger and do not have that memory. So, that's a question mark. Is it potentially the fact that she wandered off in the night, you know, at around 10:00? The real challenge with that theory, her cuddle cat, her beloved toy, was still there. She would have taken that. The behavior is key and she knew her way around. Why didn't she go down to find the parents if she did get up? So, that's unlikely.
But then you have a predatory stalker, is it a predatory sex offender. What we know about those cases they don't tend to take preschool children. They tend to be slightly older. And it's a high-risk location, but it's possible. And then, of course, you've got the theory was it someone that is known to her. So, and if it was someone that was known, was it an intentional act or an accident. So, these are all theories, you know, that need to be tested and an open mind has to be kept and that's what new Scotland Yard are doing and that is exactly right to do.
SESAY: We are almost out of time. Very quickly, what are the chances at this stage that she will be found and be found alive?
RICHARDS: Well, we like to think -- one would hope she is still alive. They're calling it a missing person inquiry and an abduction. Elizabeth Smart was found nine months later. Steven Stainer (ph) --
SESAY: J.C. Dugguard (ph), right here in the United States.
RICHARDS: -- two years later. You have cases like Natasha Putash (ph), 10 years later. It's possible. It's a 1 percent chance, but once there is a question mark there is hope. It has to be thorough and the pursuit for the truth and justice for Madeleine McCann and hope she is recovered.
[01:40:20] SESAY: Laura, thank you so much for coming in and sharing your insights. Thank you.
RICHARDS: Thank you.
VAUSE: OK. And with that, we will take a short break. When we come back, how did a country where women are not even allowed to drive get elected to the U.N.'s Commission on Women's Rights?
VAUSE: Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia convened the so-called Trusted Girls Council, part of an effort to promote women's rights in the kingdom. There was some outcry because right there on the stage, not a girl, not a woman, to be found. They were reportedly kept away in another room. That is not entirely surprising given the strict gender segregation rules. Saudi women are not allowed to drive to work, marry, travel.
What is surprising is Saudi Arabia has been voted onto the United Nation's Commission on the Status of Women for a four-year term starting next year.
Joining me in Los Angeles, Justin Connolly, the director of Human Rights Watch in L.A.
Justin, good to see you.
Let's go tort stated goal for the Commission on the Status of Women. This is on their website. "The CSW is instrumental in promoting women's rights, documenting their lives throughout the world and shaping global standards on gender equality and empowerment of women."
That says Saudi Arabia to me. What is Saudi Arabia doing, how do they fit into this? JUSTIN CONNOLLY, DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, L.A.: It's a head
scratcher. No question about it. When you have a country that's devoted to gender inequality and women's disempowerment, how they land there, you have to ask yourself what's going on.
VAUSE: This actually happened. 47 countries voted for Saudi Arabia to be part of this. Normally it's just on a verbal vote. This time it was actually -- they had to cast a ballot. Not one country voted no, seven abstained. No one voted no because it's considered diplomatically impolite.
CONNOLLY: They ran unopposed. That is what it means to run unopposed for one of these bodies. And I, you know, strange things happen at the U.N. You hope that it doesn't tank the mission of this commission.
CONNOLLY: It should be able to withstand this kind of hiccough. And as long as all of us who care pay attention to making sure that that commission lives up to its mission for Saudi women and girls, it doesn't actually matter what the Saudi representative is.
VAUSE: Does it hope that maybe having Saudi Arabia on this commission that it may improve Women's Rights in the kingdom? They may learn something?
CONNOLLY: I don't think that was the purpose. But it could be an outcome. Maybe that guy, the representative will learn something.
[01:45:02] VAUSE: The only thing to this happening is Saudi Arabia has actually kept its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council.
VAUSE: So, again, this is another example of just how odd the United Nations can be.
CONNOLLY: Yeah. I mean, again, in the human rights commission, you have the situation where you see rights abusers elected. In the case of Saudi Arabia again, unopposed. So, they land there and it's aggravating because they can get up to some mischief. But by the same token, as you pointed out, these bodies have been around for a long time and we should be able to withstand this.
VAUSE: One of the problems the U.N. has right now, a lot of critics believe it simply does not have any credibility. And when stuff like this happens, how much damage does it do to essentially dee legitimatizing what for the most part is a group, a body which is trying to do a lot of good around the world, but then stuff like this happens and it seems to detract?
CONNOLLY: Yes, certainly in the hands of its critics it does. But for people who are committed to getting together and talking through their differences, you're going to have people there who have di42erences. And, so, the real plan is to gather your arguments and gather your information and go there and hope that your point of view, for instance, our ability to advance Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia, that it carries the day despite anything that a government has to say.
VAUSE: What we often hear from, especially I guess from Israel, is that, you know, they are the constant target of resolutions condemning them for human rights abuses and, sure, there are problems in Israel, but it's nothing like comparable to what is happening in many other countries around the world which get elected to the Human Rights Council and the panel on spreading women's rights around the world.
CONNOLLY: This is true. It's aggravating in the extreme to Israel. Once again, you can't dismiss everything that a body does just because you don't like some of the things that it does. And its ability to take action in North Korea, its ability to call Saudi Arabia on the carpet, its ability to accomplish some of the significant human rights advances, well, you know, we have to put up with some stuff we don't like to get there.
VAUSE: OK. Justin, good to see you. Thanks so much.
CONNOLLY: Thank you so much.
VAUSE: We'll leave it with that.
SESAY: Time for a break now. And Facebook is hiring thousands of people specifically to keep violent videos off the social media site. More on that reaction to the move coming up next.
[01:51:27] SESAY: Hello, everyone. Facebook plans to hire 3,000 more people to help keep violent videos off the social media site. There have been several recent incidents where people posted videos of murders and suicides on Facebook that stayed up for hours before getting removed.
VAUSE: CEO Mark Zuckerberg says it is heart breaking and Facebook will now make it easier to flag inappropriate videos and contact the authorities if needed.
SESAY: Well, Alex Kantrowitz joins us now from San Francisco. He's a senior tech reporter with Buzzfeed News.
Alex, good to have you with us.
Facebook hiring 3,000 more people but the point has been made with close to two billion users posting so much content as they do, this is a drop in the bucket, you know, how much difference will it make is the question?
ALEX KANTROWITZ, SENIOR TECH REPORTER, BUZZFEED NEWS: Right. So, Facebook's motto has always been move fast and break things. In this situation, it moved fast and it broke the thing now it's trying to fix it. Something everyone should know Facebook already has 4500 people working on this problem so it's not like this is a new initiative but it will put more manpower behind the effort in an attempt to make their team a little bit better at responding.
VAUSE: Alex, we don't know if these new employees are going to be full-time, will they be contractors? Will they be based in call center like operations in India or the Philippines? Will they be receiving full benefits? The answers to those questions will indicate just how serious Facebook is about this, right?
KANTROWITZ: That is a great question. And, in fact, we asked Facebook whether these employees would be full time or contractors. And we didn't get an answer. But I did do a cursory check of Facebook's job page today and after spending about five or ten minutes there looking at all the jobs they had listed, I couldn't find any openings for these 3,000 contractors. So, I would say it's a good bet that they're going to be contractor, not full-time.
SESAY: For Facebook, this is the ultimate challenge, right? Facebook looking to police its content while at the same time putting themselves out as a site where at least when it comes to their live stream, where you can get raw unfiltered experience, if you will?
KANTROWITZ: Absolutely. And I think what's interesting about this situation is that Facebook isn't really trying to take down all the content that could be violent on the site. In fact, if somebody is looking like they're suicidal, Facebook's first instinct isn't going to be to take it down, but to keep that video up and alert authorities there might be a case if they want to step in on. If people think this is going to be a moment where all violent content is going to come down on Facebook they're mistaken. It is a way to prevent violence itself.
VAUSE: To that point, by hiring real human beings with flesh and blood and a brain, all this kind of stuff, it is an admission in a way artificial intelligence isn't up to this job, at least not yet, right?
KANTROWITZ: Absolutely. Mark Zuckerberg today in Facebook's earnings call said artificial intelligence isn't at the point where it can flag videos to its team. I checked with Facebook's team. They said no, there is no artificial intelligence on it now. Down the line, they're going to see the advances artificial intelligence is making today. It can already figure out what's in photos. It can figure out what's in videos and that technology eventually is going to be used by these teams as well.
SESAY: Alex, is this going to be enough to keep the advertisers happy?
KANTROWITZ: Well, today Facebook announced earnings and it should be noted that they made $8 billion in the first quarter of 2017. That's up from 5.3 in the first quarter of 2016. So, all this violence, all this carnage doesn't seem to be scaring advertisers away one bit.
[01:54:57] VAUSE: And the point that Facebook has made is that, yes, they are making this move to try and police violent videos, you know, a lot better, get it off a website a lot faster. They say it is not up to the company, it's up to the users as well. How do they get that message will you?
KANTROWITZ: That's a great question. I think by coming out and doing what Mark Zuckerberg did today, by making a big splash about it, by telling people it was looking to make the platform more safe and following up with education. It does have the news feed. 1.94 billion people use Facebook every month. So, it can always put educational material on the news feed and say if you see something bad happening, why don't you let us know?
VAUSE: OK, Alex, thank you.
Any good jobs on that website? Just curious.
Thank you, Alex.
SESAY: Alex, thank you.
KANTROWITZ: Thanks for having me.
SESAY: And you've been watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles. I'm Isha Sesay.
VAUSE: I'm John Vause. We'll be back with more news after a short break.
[01:59:54] VAUSE: This is CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles.
SESAY: Ahead this hour --