Return to Transcripts main page


Rex Tillerson Still Won't Say If He Called Trump a Moron; Interview with Representative John Faso; Trump Campaign Subpoenaed Over Sexual Assault Accusations; Actress Rose McGowan Takes on Harvey Weinstein; White House Declares Public Health Emergency in California Wildfires; The Many Sides of Lagos; Aired 8-9p ET

Aired October 15, 2017 - 20:00   ET


[20:00:05] ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Great to have you with us on this Sunday. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. We begin tonight with a wide ranging and pretty remarkable interview with the nation's top diplomat, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

You'll recall it was less than two weeks ago that Tillerson called a news conference to declare his commitment to President Trump. He also said the president loved his country and called him smart. But the one thing Tillerson didn't do was specifically deny the reports that he had called the president a, quote, "moron." And today in a one-on- one interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Tillerson again would not say if he called the president that name.


JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: This is literally one of the most important relationships in the world, the one between you and President Trump. Is it true? Did you call him a moron?

REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE: Jake, as I indicated earlier, I was asked about that. I'm not going to deal with that kind of petty stuff.

TAPPER: Ever since you called it petty, I have been thinking a lot about it because I'm -- I'm a reflective guy and I understand the media makes mistakes, and the media always could improve. But here's the thing. Either you didn't say it, in which case there are a whole bunch of administration officials telling the press and telling the president that you did, and that's a serious problem. Or you did say it and, look, you're a serious guy. For you to say something like that suggests a real frustration with the commander-in-chief.

So when you don't answer the question, it makes people think that you probably did say it. But either way whatever happened, it is serious. So can you please clear it up?

TILLERSON: As I said, Jake, I'm not playing. These are the games of Washington. These are the destructive games of this town. They're not helpful to anyone. And so my position on it is I'm not playing.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CABRERA: On a lighter moment, Tillerson did address an accusation from a top Republican senator that President Trump's tweets, the ones where he said Tillerson was wasting his time talking to North Korea, were intended to castrate the secretary of state.


TRUMP: You don't want to say anything about the senator calling -- suggesting you've before gelded before the world? That's not anything that bothers you?

TILLERSON: I checked. I'm fully intact.


CABRERA: Want to get straight to CNN's Ryan Nobles live at the White House.

Ryan, what is the president to make of this interview?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, you would think, Ana, that this was at the president's bidding. That he sent a number of his administration officials out to the Sunday talk shows today to try and explain and talk about the approach when it comes to Iran, but the way Secretary Tillerson talked about this deal is much different than the heated rhetoric that the president has used over the past several weeks.

Take a listen to what Tillerson said this morning.


TAPPER: Not long ago, your counterpart at the Pentagon, Secretary Mattis, was asked if he thought staying in the agreement was in the best interests of the United States, not a question about whether or not he wanted to improve upon the deal or add a secondary deal, as you just discussed, but whether or not the U.S. should stay in it or leave. And he said staying in it was his course. It sounds like you agree with that as well, that you would not want Congress to immediately impose sanctions that would end this deal.

TILLERSON: No, I do agree with that. And I think the president does as well. That's why he took the decision he took that, look, let's -- let's see if we cannot address the flaws in the agreement by staying within the agreement, working with the other signatories, working with our European friends and allies within the agreement.

TAPPER: You were in China. We were just talking about the North Korean problem. You were in China trying to resolve the dispute with North Korea in a diplomatic way. President Trump tweeted, "I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful secretary of state, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man." And then he sent a second tweet saying, "Save your energy, Rex. We'll do what has to be done."

TILLERSON: But be clear. The president has also made clear to me that he wants this solved diplomatically. He's not seeking to go to war.

TAPPER: So he doesn't think it's a waste of time?

TILLERSON: But I -- no, sir. He has made it clear to me to continue my diplomatic efforts, which we are, and we will -- as I have told others, those diplomatic efforts will continue until the first bomb drops.


NOBLES: So ultimately the argument that the secretary of state is making today is that this is really just a tone question, that ultimately the goals of the administration are the same, the president comes at it with a bit more of a heavy hand while the nation's top diplomatic comes at it a bit softer.

CABRERA: Ryan Nobles at the White House. Thank you.

I want to talk more now about the relationship between President Trump and his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, with CNN presidential historian Douglas Brinkley.

Douglas, always great to have you with us. Tillerson is still refusing to say whether the president -- whether he called the president a moron. What does he hope to achieve, do you think, by leaving that question unanswered?

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, I thought it was a failed appearance by Rex Tillerson. Jake Tapper did a great job. He gave him ample opportunity to put that behind him. Instead the secretary of state was very mealy mouthed about it.

I mean, could you imagine -- we have to assume that he called him a moron. I mean, can you imagine George C. Marshall calling President Truman a moron or George Schultz, you know, calling Ronald Reagan a moron and then go on TV shows and not really answer the question?

[20:05:12] It was just an overall bad performance. I think Tillerson would have been better served just not going on the Sunday shows. So he just added another layer of confusion to things. Nothing got resolved in that regard. He keeps scoring to blame Washington for asking the question when he's the one who called his boss a moron.

CABRERA: So there is Tillerson and that issue. Meantime, a top Republican senator has accused President Trump of trying to castrate Tillerson when he tweeted that he was wasting him time negotiating with North Korea. Is that how you see it?

BRINKLEY: I see that we have a president who throws a lot of insults out. And now every kind of outrageous words is being used. I don't know if we needed castration dumped into the national arena on --


BRINKLEY: You know? I mean, these guys have to all start acting a little more professional. Everybody is going kind of Twitter mad. People are saying outrageous things. You don't get hurt if you don't kind of snap a whip of some kind.

I thought incidentally Tillerson responded to the castration comment pretty well with Jake Tapper. I thought it was one of the better moments in the interview.

CABRERA: Showed a little wit.

BRINKLEY: But I think we've got to -- we've got a near war going on here with North Korea right now, we have deep problems in the Middle East, we have soldiers abroad and we're doing, you know, name calling games.

CABRERA: And that's the reason we're talking about it because it is so unusual to hear this among a presidential Cabinet and the senior senators. Can the secretary of state do his job effectively if foreign countries don't think he speaks or has the respect of the president?

BRINKLEY: Almost impossible to do it well. I mean, Rex Tillerson's main job is to run the State Department and run it well, meaning make sure that people that work on our embassies, that work in the bureaucracy are doing well. When you undercut your own president by calling him a moron and then try to go abroad and negotiate, meanwhile, your difference of opinion with the president. I mean, there have been secretaries of state that have differences of opinion. Cy Vance had one. And he quit the Jimmy Carter administration.

Rex Tillerson has all these problems with his boss, then step down and tell us what they are instead of kind of muddying the waters, confusing people with what is America's foreign policy.

CABRERA: Can you think of another time when a president has had such public feuds with members of his own Cabinet?

BRINKLEY: They happen. But usually a president flushes them out. I mean, you don't want your own Cabinet working kind of trying to assassinate you, meaning rhetorically. And yet, this is what's going on here.

I mean, we've seen, you know, problems. Richard Nixon, for example, didn't like Secretary of State William Rogers and just cut Rogers out of all meetings and went one-on-one with Henry Kissinger's national security adviser trying to make the State Department irrelevant. Perhaps that's what Donald Trump is really doing is trying to just cut the budget of the State Department and rendered them kind of a minor player in the world stage.

CABRERA: Douglas Brinkley, thank you.


CABRERA: Now one of the pressing international issues facing the administration and now Congress is that Iran deal. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says the president does want to stay in the deal but that's not exactly what the president said just a couple of days ago when asked what changes he wants Congress to make. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to see what happens. We're going to see what they come back with. They may come back with something very satisfactory to me. And if they don't within a very short period of time, I'll terminate the deal.


CABRERA: So he was pretty clear there, if Congress doesn't act and the Iran deal is done. I want to talk to one of the lawmakers now tasked with strengthening this deal to the president's liking, Republican Congressman John Faso of New York is with us now.

Congressman, thank you for your time. Do you think President Trump will really terminate this deal if he doesn't like what Congress comes up with or is he just bluffing?

REP. JOHN FASO (R), NEW YORK: Well, I don't know if he is bluffing or not, but let's face it. President Obama entered this deal and -- he didn't submit this as a treaty to the Senate. So I think that the president would be within his power to end the deal.

The deal is flawed and the Iranian behavior is very suspect. I mean, the Iranians by some accounts are abiding by the deal but on many other fronts the Iranians are a malignant force in the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf area. And we've seen that time and again, so I do think that Congress is going to have to look carefully at sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards in Iran and those that facilitate and aid them and finance them because their behavior and their actions in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf area are very damaging to security in that region.

[20:10:07] CABRERA: This week Senate majority -- minority leader, I should say, Chuck Schumer, Democrat, tweeted this. "POTUS MO? Failure to lead. Throws destructive bones to his base and then tell Congress to fix it. Iran, health care, Puerto Rico."

What's your assessment?

FASO: Well, I think that, again, it's very difficult to analyze all of Senator Schumer's tweet there. But the fact is that the Iranian deal was flawed from the start. The inspections regime is one that's very questionable. And the Iranians for instance --

CABRERA: But do you feel like the president has put all of this in Congress's lap, has just punted to Congress?

FASO: Well, I mean, I think the president could have unilaterally said the U.S. was going to withdraw from the deal. He did not do that. But I think what he wants the Congress to do, and what we'll see what exactly the specific messages he sends. I think he's looking for us to really take a hard look at other sanctions that we could employ against the Iranian regime because of the actions.

As I noted, they're building rocket factories in Syria. The Israelis within the last six or eight weeks have actually bombed some of those sites in Syria.


FASO: So I think that the Iranian activity is very maligned and malignant in that entire region.

CABRERA: OK. Not just Iran, though, but health care is the other big issue that you guys I know are going to have to do something about because President Trump stopped paying those subsidies to Obamacare insurers. As you know, these subsidies help low-income Americans afford health care.

FASO: Right.

CABRERA: The CBO now estimates this move is going to raise premiums by 20 percent, increase the federal deficit and cause people to lose insurance. Some Republicans have said this move will hurt people in their state. I know your wife is a nurse.

FASO: Well, I --

CABRERA: Do you support the president's decision to end these subsidies?

FASO: Well, the fact is that the president is within his right to end the subsidies because Congress hasn't appropriated the funds and this has been already upheld in the court. So the fact that Congress needs to appropriate --

CABRERA: But do you agree with his decision to do that?

FASO: Well, here is what I think we should do. The Congress should appropriate the funds for these so-called CSRs to subsidize the premiums and deductibles for low-income people. At the same time we should adopt some other measures which can fix some of the real things that are flaws in the Affordable Care Act. So, for instance, I'm part of the problem solvers group in the House, 22 Democrats and 22 Republicans, and we've already put forth a suggestion, a proposal that would fund these CSRs, these premium supports, but also make some needed reforms so that insurance could be more affordable for small businesses.

CABRERA: All right. Let me also ask you about taxes because I know it's at the top of the agenda especially with the GOP.

FASO: Yes.

CABRERA: Are you going to support a tax plan that removes the local and state tax reductions? Because I know New York has some of the highest in the country. A lot of the middle class depends on that deduction to lower their tax burden.

FASO: Well, I want to see a lower tax burden for middle class New Yorkers and middle class Americans. I also want to see the details that would be flushed out in order to accomplish that. Finally important that we get more economic growth in the country. That's why we need to do tax reform. But we have to make sure it's not going to harm constituents in places like upstate New York.

CABRERA: So will you support a tax plan that removes the deduction for local and state tax?

FASO: I'll only support a tax plan that will reduce taxes for middle class New Yorkers and middle class Americans. And how we get to that point and what the exact numbers are, those are blanks that still need to be filled in.

CABRERA: You know there was an analysis the governor of New York did on what we know of the tax proposal that was presented from the Trump campaign. And just that local and state taxes, that deduction, if it were to be removed, the governor's analysis shows that that would cost 3.3 million New York taxpayers $17.5 billion more. And on average that means New York taxpayers would be paying an additional $5300 in federal income tax.

FASO: Yes. Well, Governor Cuomo's numbers are wrong. There is no way he can make that assumption because he doesn't even know where the tax brackets are going to fall. And that's one of the critical pieces of information that you need in order to make that kind of assessment. So the governor is not -- he's playing a little fast and loose with the facts there, but he's right in the sense that this state and local tax deduction is an important thing.

It's something I have supported for many years. And like I said, the bottom line here is show us how taxpayers in New York and other states are going to be affected by these proposals and only then can you know whether or not it's something that I could support.

[20:15:02] CABRERA: All right, Congressman John Faso. Thank you very much for offering your thoughts and ideas.

FASO: Thank you.

CABRERA: Coming up, a news story tonight on CNN. The Trump campaign being subpoenaed over sexual assault allegations. The president's lawyers now firing back at Gloria Allred who represents the accuser. What exactly does she hope to uncover with the subpoena? Mrs. Allred is here live next in the CNN NEWSROOM.


CABRERA: A woman who says President Trump sexually assaulted her 10 years ago formerly subpoenaed his campaign and wants to see any documents he may have related to her or any woman who asserted that Donald Trump touched them inappropriately.

Summer Zervos was a former contestant on the reality TV show "The Apprentice." Zervos made her accusations last year before the election. She claims Trump kissed her twice on the lips during a lunch meeting in his New York City office and on a separate occasion in Beverly Hills. She alleges he kissed her aggressively and touched her breast. Again these allegations are from 2007 and she came forward last year during the campaign. [20:20:07] Now Trump has flatly denied he was inappropriate toward

Zervos, calling her story total fiction aimed at derailing his run for the White House.

I want to bring in Attorney Gloria Allred. She is part of Summer Zervos' legal team.

And Gloria, I guess the first question is why are you now subpoenaing the Trump presidential campaign?

GLORIA ALLRED, VICTIMS RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, actually, Ana, we subpoenaed them earlier in April, but it is just now being discovered by reporters in the court file. This is the copy of our subpoena, which is in the court file. We filed it in New York. It's a defamation lawsuit. Our complaint is in New York Supreme Court, which is the trial court. And we filed it and we want to discover and preserve many documents that are relevant to our lawsuit on behalf of Summer Zervos.

So, for example, what we did was we filed -- it's called a subpoena duces tecum and we wanted the campaign to preserve and maintain and not destroy any documents from the campaign that would be relevant to our lawsuit. For example, any documents that they have pertaining to Summer Zervos, or to a number of the other women who allege that Mr. Trump, now President Trump, touched them inappropriately.

I'm sure that you all remember that he called all of the women who made public statements about him and made accusations of sexual misconduct against him, he called them all liars. He said it was a fabrication, fiction. And that he would sue them all after the election.


ALLRED: I of course called on him to retract those statements after he was elected and retract his threat to sue. I gave him two months. He did not do so. We filed the defamation case on behalf of Summer Zervos in January and we are litigating it very, very heavily. And we think that the documents in the campaign are going to be relevant to our lawsuit.

CABRERA: OK. So now there is a response from the White House across the board, denial, in fact. The president's attorney is now calling you out. I quote, "Miss Allred has served a far-reaching subpoena on the Trump campaign that seeks wholly irrelevant information intended solely to harass the president. Indeed Miss Allred herself has questioned how the president could run the country if faced with broad discovery." What is your reaction to that?

ALLRED: Well, I mean, any attacks on me, this is not new. People who oppose me often will attack me personally, which is usually a sign that they don't have a good argument against the merits of my argument and so if I have to name call, I usually feel that that's a sign that they're on the losing side. But we'll have to see what the court decides. What has happened here is that we -- that the president has filed a

motion to dismiss our lawsuit, Ana. We filed had our opposition. Their reply is due on October 31st. And after that reply comes in, in other words, the case is fully briefed, the court will then set a hearing in New York to hear the arguments.

Part of their argument is that the president is legally immune from being sued because he is president. We respond with the case of Paula Jones versus President Clinton which went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court indicated no man is above the law, even the president of the United States is not above the law. And then that would apply to everything except not official acts.

He is -- he cannot be sued for official acts. But we allege that we if we can prove defamation and that act occurred before he was elected president, which it did.


ALLRED: Then in fact he is not immune and we can proceed with the lawsuit. That's our argument.

CABRERA: So let me ask you a little bit more about the timing because as you mentioned, you issued the subpoena earlier this year. But now it's just emerging at the same time another high profile sex assault case is expanding around Harvey Weinstein. And you also represent some of Harvey Weinstein's accusers.


CABRERA: So the timing of the media getting a hold of this now have anything to do with capitalizing on the publicity generated by this ongoing Harvey Weinstein scandal?

ALLRED: Well, how it came out was I got a call yesterday from BuzzFeed who said I just saw the subpoena in the court file of Summer Zervos versus Donald J. Trump, your case, and has anybody noticed it there before? Has anybody covered this? And I said no.

[20:25:04] Certainly we haven't talked about it. But it is in the court file. It's a lengthy subpoena. And obviously the president would not like to have to have his campaign turn over many documents. What we have done has been quite reasonable. We have said, look, just maintain everything. Do not destroy anything and we will agree that you don't have to produce all of the many, many pages of items that we have requested from the campaign until after the court has decided the motion to dismiss.

If we prevail and are allowed to continue with our lawsuit and we're hopeful that that will be the case, then you can produce everything. And so that's the agreement that we have.

CABRERA: OK. So we'll see where this goes. Meantime I want to get your reaction to new comments from Woody Allen, given the BBC -- he was giving this interview to the BBC after the Harvey Weinstein information came out, these accusations and the fallout from that. And as I mentioned you represent numerous accusers of Weinstein.

So Woody Allen said this, he said he was sad for both Weinstein and the women involved, adding, quote, "You also don't want it to lead to a witch hunt atmosphere, a Salem atmosphere where every guy in an office who winks at a woman is suddenly having to call a lawyer to defend himself. That's not right either."

So what is your concern to Woody Allen's concern that the Weinstein scandal has the potential to lead to a witch hunt?

ALLRED: Well, I'm sure that Woody Allen has his own reasons for being rather sensitive to women speaking out against rich and powerful and famous men since he was accused of a serious act of child sexual abuse in his own family.


ALLRED: But having said that, let's not minimize, Mr. Allen, any act of sexual misconduct. First of all, the law does not say that a kiss on the cheek in the office or anywhere else constitutes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment has to be severe or pervasive. Certainly if Mr. Weinstein did, in fact, expose himself or, you know, seek to do other sexual misconduct, that would as a matter of law constitute sexual harassment.

But lawyers do not take cases where there is minimal actions like one kiss on the cheek one time. We're talking -- there are actually not enough lawyers to take all of the many, many accusations of sexual harassment throughout the country for many employers. So I would like him to be on the side of the women. Like apparently Ronan Farrow is.

CABRERA: His other son, estranged son.

ALLRED: And I don't like the characterization of women as engaging in a witch hunt. Women have been called witches for far too long. Some of them got burned at the stake because they were thought they were witches. Women are just standing up for respect and dignity for women and especially for our daughters and they deserve it.

CABRERA: Gloria Allred, always great to get you and your thoughts and learn more about your legal cases. Thank you for coming on.

ALLRED: Thank you.

CABRERA: Coming up, she is the actress taking on her biggest role to date. A closer look at Rose McGowan's fight against Harvey Weinstein and a culture of complicity in Hollywood.


[20:32:53] CABRERA: For years actress Rose McGowan was known for her hit TV series "Charmed." And some of her movies. But now the actress is in the spotlight for accusing movie mogul Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault. The "New York Times" reports that in 1997 after McGowan appeared in the movie "Scream" she reached a settlement with Weinstein after an alleged incident involving him in a hotel room. Weinstein denies any wrongdoing.

Now over the years McGowan has been vocal about the alleged assault but she never named Weinstein until Thursday. That changed in a tweet with McGowan's outrage coming to a head. She took to Twitter to openly accuse Weinstein of raping her.

Please note Rose McGowan declined to comment to "The New York Times" about any settlement with Weinstein and many speculate she kept quiet because that settlement may have included a nondisclosure agreement.

I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Paul Callan.

Paul, you just wrote an opinion piece for about these nondisclosure agreements impacting sexual assault cases. First a quick question about Rose McGowan's case. I mean, if she did have this nondisclosure agreement and now she's named him, she's speaking out, what does that mean for her?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, she's breached the nondisclosure agreement and now they can come after her, say they settled for a large amount of money with her, they can demand the money back, or, you know, these nondisclosure agreements include penalty provisions. So it's kind of a dangerous thing that she's done this.

Now whether this will happen given all the things that are going on with Harvey Weinstein now I kind of have my doubts. I think he's got bigger troubles than her to deal with.

But you know, I was disturbed about this because as a practicing lawyer I have seen it going on for years where you go into court and there is a big lawsuit where someone has been accused of serious misconduct in a professional setting and then a secret agreement is negotiated and it's confidential and somebody gets paid off and guess what, future victims, future potential victims don't hear about the fact that the guy -- that this guy has three other women who have said he abused them and they put themselves in harm's way.

[20:35:01] CABRERA: So you believe that these nondisclosure agreements in effect protect the potential predator?

CALLAN: Well, yes. But there is also a flipside to it. I have also seen cases where women bring false sexual harassment cases against one company. They get a quick $50,000 settlement, get a new job at another company and then they accuse somebody else of sexual harassment, get another $50,000 and move on. They're serial suers and their cases are never reported either. So for a lot of reasons I think this should be public. You're using public courtrooms to start these cases and I think the public has a right to know about what's going on in court concerning these cases.

CABRERA: What is the upside to have a nondisclosure agreement for a victim?

CALLAN: Well, there is no upside for a victim except the victim in a particular case. OK? Because she's going to be publicly embarrassed maybe by the existence of the complaint being revealed and the amount of money that she settled for is being revealed.

CABRERA: So if she feels shamed or just doesn't want people to know about what she's been through.

CALLAN: Well -- but it's more than that. It's the company saying, hey, if you want us to settle, we're not paying you a dime unless you sign the nondisclosure agreement. And so usually they collapse and sign and the people put in peril are future potential victims who don't know that there is this bad guy working at this company that maybe they should stay clear of. So it doesn't really affect the individual victim involved in the lawsuit, but future victims.

And there is another little thing that we may be hearing about in the next couple of days called indemnification agreements and those are agreements where the company gets sued and the individual who did the sexual abuse gets sued and there is a big verdict against the company and the individual.

Well, there are agreements that get negotiated where the company has to be reimbursed. All right? So this is sort of a get-out-of-jail- free card for somebody who maybe should have been fired instead of just being able to pay the company because they abused somebody. That's called an indemnification agreement and that's something that I think we have to take a careful look at as well.

CABRERA: Because at this point I don't think it's known for sure whether that was the case in Weinstein. We don't have that confirmed. But you are saying, if I'm understanding you correctly, that the Weinstein Company could be in trouble here.

CALLAN: Well, they could be in trouble because a corporation, when it becomes aware of misconduct by a top ranking official, owes an obligation to its shareholders, that's called their fiduciary responsibility, because let's face it, Harvey Weinstein, hypothetically being, you know, forced out of the company, may lead to the collapse of the company, at least there have been reports of that.

What about the shareholders? They are going to turn to the Board of Directors and say, if you knew that he had a long history of this kind of conduct, why didn't you go public with it? Why didn't you fire him 10 years ago?

These -- two dozen women reaching back to 1984 have made complaints according to publicized reports concerning Harvey Weinstein. The Board of Directors didn't know about this? So you watch what is going to happen here. There is going to be a big lawsuit against the Weinstein Company, a big lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein and I don't know where it's going in terms of criminal cases.


CALLAN: That's my next column. I'm going to talk about what his criminal exposure is going to be and he could wind up in jail in the end when this is all said and done.

CABRERA: And I'd like to have you come back and talk more about that as well. Real quick, though, he wants a second chance. He said that multiple times. What do you think? Any chance he gets a second chance again from that legal perspective of where things are right now?

CALLAN: Well, it is a little premature to talk about a second chance given the fact that his alleged victims are still coming out of the woodwork.

CABRERA: Is his company going to give him a second chance?

CALLAN: So -- no, his company is not giving him a second chance. But ironically depending upon this agreement that we're hearing about, if that agreement is in place, he might in fact sue his company, the Weinstein Company, for firing him.

CABRERA: Oh my goodness.

CALLAN: Saying that I had the right to pay you whatever the amount was, $500,000 or $750,000, and then you didn't have the right to fire me. So you can see him relying on this agreement to try to get his job back.

CABRERA: Oh boy.

CALLAN: I don't think he'll get his job back, but this is -- I like to call this the full employment act for lawyers. There are going to be so many lawsuits and so many attorneys handling so many aspects of this it's going to make your head spin.

CABRERA: Well, there is a lot more to uncover clearly. Thank you, Paul Callan.

CALLAN: Thank you.

CABRERA: All right. Coming up. The death toll has jumped again in those raging wild fires in California. The White House now declaring a public health emergency. Is there any relief in sight?

We've got a live report next.


[20:43:53] CABRERA: The Trump administration has just declared a public health emergency in California where the massive wild fires have now destroyed more than 200,000 acres. The human toll is horrible. Officials now say at least 40 people are confirmed dead. And that's not all. The whereabouts and condition of 200 other people are unknown and these are live pictures showing you just how intense the flames still are. California's governor said this may be the deadliest outbreak of wildfires in the state's history.

Let's bring in CNN's Dan Simon in Kenwood, California. That's in Sonoma County.

Dan, we're still seeing the smoke behind you. We're seeing images of flames burning very intensely. I know there are some zones where the danger has lessened, but is there still cause for concern? Are new fires still popping up?

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, firefighters definitely keeping an eye on this fire. This is the Oakmont Fire. You can see these big plumes of smoke behind me. We've been watching this fire all day long. Fortunately the fire is not burning towards any populated areas, so they don't seem too concerned with it at the moment, Ana, but I'll tell you what, if this were, say, Friday or Saturday when we had those intense winds, they would be very nervous about this particular fire.

[20:45:10] Since the winds have died down, they are just kind of letting it burn for the most part. We have seen some airplanes douse the flames a little bit. But for the most part, this is just burning unabated -- Ana.

CABRERA: And just letting our viewers know both of these images we're showing, we have a split screen, live pictures of the fire burning right now.

Dan, real quick. About 75,000 people we know had to evacuate their homes and their towns. What is the latest on the number of the houses that are lost and when people may be able to go back home.

SIMON: Well, we know in some of the areas like Calistoga, some parts of Napa where we did not see any damage, some evacuation orders have been lifted. So people have been staying in shelters for all these days for the past week. They can now go home and for the most part electricity is restored in those areas.

In some of the burned out areas, Ana, that's going to be some time. It's going to take a while for firefighters to render that area safe before people can get back in -- Ana.

CABRERA: All right, Dan Simon. We do want you to stay safe out there and keep us updated on the latest situation. Still developing. Thank you.

Coming up, Anthony Bourdain heads to the largest city in Africa to take in the food, the music and the do-it-yourself spirit. A preview of tonight's brand new "PARTS UNKNOWN" next.


[20:50:53] CABRERA: He's been everywhere. Right? But Anthony Bourdain says he has never seen a city like the one he's taking you tonight in "PARTS UNKNOWN." Here's a preview.


ANTHONY BOURDAIN, HOST, "PARTS UNKNOWN": Buy, sell, trade, hustle and claw. Make your own way, any way you can.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nobody does any one job in this country.

BOURDAIN: Is that what they say? You have to have three hustles? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. You see people making watches from

scratch. There are people who make shoes. I'm wearing something that's made by Niger.

I provide my own water. I provide my own power because I have a generator, I have an inverter. There's an energy in Lagos, the hustle and the bustle.

BOURDAIN: With a ridiculously overburdened infrastructure and history of egregiously bad leadership, they long ago learned that ain't nobody going to help you in this world. Pick up a broom, a hammer, buy a taxi or a truck, and build a bank or a billion-dollar company and get to work.


CABRERA: I recently sat down with Anthony Bourdain to get his take on the city that he calls a mad, bad, delicious yet confusing place.


CABRERA: Everyone you meet in Lagos seems like they are hustling. They work un multiple jobs.


CABRERA: Always looking for that next big opportunity. What's that all about?

BOURDAIN: It's an extraordinary and it's a very difficult place to shoot. It's a city of 20 million people. Most of whom have arrived only in recent years from the countryside. Many arrived with little to no education and yet like every Nigerian we met, particularly in Lagos, everyone has a boundless optimism, an absolute belief that if they work hard enough, often at multiple things, simultaneously that they will succeed.

That they alone among, you know, 20 million others striving, they'll be the one who gets the big break and whether you have money and measure of success already or you're a kid with no known skills, you find a way to do things. Cut hair in the streets, repair cell phones, you know, act as a messenger. Often all three of those who it would not be unusual.

CABRERA: What an entrepreneurial spirit.

BOURDAIN: It is the purest, most entrepreneurial place I have ever been. You know, the government is fairly dysfunctional there. So just about everyone we met supplies their own water, provides their own power through generators because they can't rely on the city for any of those things.

CABRERA: And yet it's an oil-rich country which --


CABRERA: -- seems that there would be more of an economic boost.

BOURDAIN: It's one of the wealthiest economies in Africa. There's a lot of oil money to be had. It does not trickle down from a relatively small, elite group. And there's not a lot of social mobility. So if you want things, any things, I think Nigerians or Lagosians are used to having to provide for themselves.

The government ain't going to do it for you. Nobody is going to do it for you. It's very much do-it-yourself place that inspires a real innovative spirit that's quite extraordinary particularly in the tech sector. You know, you see kids from the countryside who never finished high school. Who with their own tools in the street will pull apart your iPhone and put it back together. In fact we (INAUDIBLE), it's extraordinary thing.

Billion-dollar business of basically street entrepreneurs, you know, doing programming, repairing computers, selling electronic equipment. It's an amazing self-built society.

CABRERA: Now a lot of the women are moving into the workforce, which obviously impacts some of the traditional food that they have because it takes hours to cook some of these meals.


[20:55:04] CABRERA: So how is that confluence working out?

BOURDAIN: Well, I mean, I think, you know, women have entered and are entering the workforce in large numbers with the same ferocity and drive as men. They are not content with the traditional model. You know, and -- you know, when people work, as in a, you know, family where both the husband and wife are working all of the time, not a lot of home cooked meals. You don't have time. Everybody is working.

CABRERA: Food good?

BOURDAIN: The food is very good. Nigerians take their food very, very seriously. Spicy and delicious.


CABRERA: It's all about the hustle, struggle and success in Nigeria. A brand new "PARTS UNKNOWN" airs next right here on CNN.

And that's going to do it for me on this Sunday. I'm Ana Cabrera, thanks for being here. Have a great night.