Return to Transcripts main page


Trump Rips Clinton in Tweet, Still Silent on Moore; White House Questioned on Trump's Moore Silence, Franken Attacks, Hypocrisy on Sexual Misconduct Accusations Against Trump; Congressional Investigators Have New Questions for Kushner; Russia Rejects U.N. Resolution on Syrian Chemical Weapons; Report: Taxpayers Footing Private Trump Business Legal Bill; Roy Moore Supporters Not Swayed by 8th Female Accuser; Florida Manhunt for 2 Escaped Inmates; Congressional Investigators Have New Questions for Kushner. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired November 18, 2017 - 13:00   ET



[13:00:14] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me this saturday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

Allegations of sexual assault or harassment still sending shockwaves from Washington to Gadsden, Alabama, to Minnesota, and beyond. Senator Al Franken apologizing for groping and kissing a woman without her consent in 2006 and facing an ethics probe now. An eighth accuser coming forward against Alabama Senate candidate, Roy Moore, and describing an encounter in his office back in 1991 when she was 28 years old.


TINA JOHNSON, ROY MOORE ACCUSER: The moment we walked in, it was full-on assault. I mean, he was very, very flirtatious. And commenting constantly the whole time, and it was not like for five minutes, it was like we were there for a long period of time. It was so uncomfortable. I knew something was up, but I just ignored it. Tried, you know -- just what it was. When it was time for us to leave, my mother had got up to go out the front door. When she was going out the door, I proceed out and he just grabbed me from behind on my buttocks and he just squeezed it really hard. I remember thinking I was so ashamed. I felt humiliated.


WHITFIELD: Meantime, President Trump is not commenting today on Roy Moore. But he is taking aim at Hillary Clinton again and blasting out this tweet: "Crooked Hillary Clinton is the worst and biggest loser of all time. She just can't stop, which is so good for the Republican Party. Hillary, get on with your life and give it another try in three years."

So why did he do this? Well, because last night, in an interview with WABC Radio, Clinton spoke out about the sexual assault or harassment allegations against Roy Moore, Al Franken and President Trump. And she also talked about comparisons being made to her husband's scandals.


HILLARY CLINTON, (D), FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE & FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (voice-over): When creditable allegations come forward, look at the contrast between Al Franken accepting responsibility, apologizing, and Roy Moore and Donald Trump who have done neither.


WHITFIELD: I want to bring in White House correspondent, Boris Sanchez.

The president going after his favorite target.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Fred. There was some infighting among Democrats after earlier this week, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said Bill Clinton should have resigned over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. And there was debate about whether or not lawmakers had the appropriate response to the allegations of sexual misconduct against the former president. An aid later clarified that the Senator, who actually replaced Hillary Clinton, meant to say, if these allegations had been levied against Bill Clinton in the current era, he would have been disqualified. But a lot of Democrats didn't take kindly take kind to that, including a long-time aide to Hillary Clinton, who tweeted that Gillibrand is a hypocrite after taking 20 years of endorsements and money from the Clintons. He said this was potentially a primary strategy for 2020.

Hillary Clinton got personal last night on that radio interview that you played a clip from. She defended her husband, saying that he had been held accountable. Listen to this.


CLINTON (voice-over): This was a painful time, not only in our marriage but in our country, that I've written about. But it was investigated fully. It was addressed at the time. He was held accountable. That is very different than what people seem to be remembering from that period, because you can go back and look at the history.


SANCHEZ: And in that interview, she also said that she didn't -- could not believe that Donald Trump's presidency has turned out as bad as it has. So then you had that response from President Trump this morning.

No public events on the schedule today, Fred. But the president is expected to head to Mar-a-Lago in just a few days for the holiday -- Fred?

WHITFIELD: All right, Boris Sanchez, thank you so much.

The White House faced a slew of questions yesterday regarding President Trump's relative silence on Roy Moore, his attack on Al Franken, and the possible hypocrisy given more than a dozen women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct.


UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Is it also fair to investigate this president and the allegations of sexual misconduct made against him by more than a dozen women?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look, I think that this was covered pretty extensively during the campaign. We addressed it then. The American people I think spoke very loud and clear when they elected this president.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But how is this different?

SANDERS: I think in one case specifically Senator Franken has admitted wrongdoing and the president hasn't.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You said one of the ways that Alabama voters might be able to figure out if these allegations against Roy Moore are true is in the court of law, that's a direct quote from you. There's no criminal means by which that could happen. So are you suggesting that Roy Moore sue the accusers in order to hash this out in court?

[13:05:23] SANDERS: That would be something that I refer to him to make that decision. That's not something I would be able to advise on.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But you said court of law?


SANDERS: I said that's one option, one way to determine that process. But that would be a decision that he would have to make. Certainly not one I'm going to make.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Because during the campaign as you well remember, then Candidate Trump said after the election he would sue all the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct and you from the podium deemed all liars. He hasn't done that. Why hasn't he done that?

SANDERS: I haven't asked him that question. I'd have to ask him and let you know why he hasn't chosen to take that path, essentially stating that's an option that Roy Moore has on the table.


UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: There are some critics who said it was hypocritical of the president to tweet about Al Franken and not weigh in on Roy Moore? SANDERS: He has weighed in on Roy Moore. He did it while he was on a

foreign trip in Asia. I did it repeatedly yesterday. In fact, I took about 15 questions on that topic. And only one on Al Franken. So to suggest that this White House and specifically that this president hasn't weighed in is just inaccurate and wrong. He weighed in. He said, if the allegations are true, he should step aside. He also weighed in when he supported the RNC's decision to withdraw resources from the state of Alabama. It's just simply inaccurate statement to make about the president.


UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Can you tell us whether the president believes these women making allegations against Roy Moore and would he be willing to ask the Alabama governor to delay the election or take a step like that to try to intervene in this electoral process in Alabama?

SANDERS: The president certainly finds the allegations extremely troubling. As I stated yesterday. And he feels like it's up to the governor and the state, the people in the state of Alabama to make a determination on whether or not they'd delay the election or whether or not they support and vote for Roy Moore.


WHITFIELD: All right, the White House peppered with those questions back-to-back yesterday.

Let's bring in my panel now. Amie Parnes is a CNN political analyst, and David Swerdlick is a CNN political commentator.

Good to see you, both.

Amie, you first.

The president has opened himself up to scrutiny by weighing in on Franken, not really weighing in as extensively on Moore, and then also unleashing on Hillary Clinton now today. So can he escape not addressing the issue, the hypocrisy?

AMIE PARNES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think he can escape it. Because, first of all, the Alabama election won't happen for another few weeks. And so he will keep hearing questions from reporters on this I think almost daily. And I think if there is a huge cry of hypocrisy right now and that's what we're experiencing. A lot of Republicans are even saying why did he go there. But I think Trump, President Trump feels like he could because he got away with it. He kind of got through it during the 2016 election. People knew about all of this. They knew about the "Access Hollywood" tape. They knew about a dozen or so accusers. And they still voted for him and elected him president. He feels that he's in the right. That people believe him. The American public believed him. And that's why he continues to do this.

WHITFIELD: This was the ""Access Hollywood"" tape that people saw for the first time just a year ago. Let's look at it.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet.


I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the (EXPLETIVE DELETED).


You can do anything.


WHITFIELD: So, David, the White House wants this to go away, doesn't want people to recall that was just -- almost exactly a year ago that everybody got to see that for the first time. But, you know, like Franken, I mean, the president admits to it. So what's different? How does the White House make a distinction that there is a difference?

DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, Fred, I think there's some differences and a lot of hypocrisy to go around. I agree with Amie that the White House is not going to be able to avoid these questions between now and December 12th when the Alabama Senate election is. At the same time, I don't think the questions is going to move the president or the White House off of their position because President Trump has shown a year ago in the "Access Hollywood" issue throughout the accusations against the president, throughout his comments that we all heard about Megyn Kelly, about other women, that the president is nearly impervious to being shamed about any of his reprehensible or inappropriate behavior. He admitted and apologized to having said those things that we all heard on the tape. He never admitted to and has refused to acknowledge any of the accusations of actions that he's taken from these many accusers and that is what the -- that's a thin nail to hang your hat on but that's what the White House is hanging on, and that's why Sarah Huckabee Sanders is saying all these women, even though the charges against other Democratic supporters are serious. The president is trying to have it both ways.

[13:10:30] WHITFIELD: The president has been bashing Hillary Clinton this morning via Twitter, too. Perhaps he was inspired by Senator Gillibrand's comments as it pertained to, you know, former President Bill Clinton. This was Gillibrand.


UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER (voice-over): Is it your view that the President Clinton should have stepped down at that time, given the allegations?

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, (D), NEW YORK (voice-over): Yes, I think that is the appropriate response. I think things have changed today. In light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump and a very different conversation about allegations against him.


WHITFIELD: Amie, Gillibrand's office has clarified that, you know, it was the context in which she was talking, you know, had something like this been happening today. Because the climate is different now. So the office tried to offer that clarity.

But, you know, politically, has there been any damage done, so to speak, especially since Gillibrand benefited greatly from Clinton's support, taking seat of Hillary Clinton, you know, once Hillary was in the race. What are the political ramifications potentially from Gillibrand's comments?

PARNES: It's highly awkward for her because she did take Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. They know each other very well. I think the Clinton folks feel hurt by what she's said. The one thing it's done, fueled the fire on Republican's side. Republicans love this stuff. The one thing they love is talking about anything Clinton related. Enter Hillary Clinton, that's kind of fun for them. That's kind of a distraction from all the other noise that's happening. I think they'll continue to bring this up and use the Senator's words and say look, even she feels the need to bring this up. And, you know, maybe other Democrats feel the same way so it's kind of harping back to the Clinton days. It's the one foil that Republicans love, bill and Hillary Clinton.

WHITFIELD: Kind of hurtful to the Clintons there but, you know, hurtful in a different way potentially for Gillibrand who's seeking possibly higher office later?

SWERDLICK: Exactly, Fred, that's the thing. Even though there is hypocrisy around Senator Gillibrand's sort of shifting view of the Clintons or at least of former President Clinton, the reality is any Democrat who wants to run for president in 20, Democrats that want to retain their seats in Congress going forward are going to have to grapple with the President Clinton issue and get that out of the way. Whether or not they in the past overlooked President Clinton's allegations against President Clinton, they're not going to be able to in the future. Same with Vice President Biden. If he runs in 2020, he's going to be asked about the way he conducted the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings. The Republicans love to bring them up. If there's any doubt why Gillibrand is bringing it up, it's because they want to talk about it now, not talk about it in 2018, 2020 or beyond.

WHITFIELD: Something tells me it will still be talked about.


WHITFIELD: Can't avoid it at this point, right?

Amie, David, thank you so much. Appreciate it. (CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Still ahead, congressional investigators are raising new questions and concerns about Jared Kushner. Why they're focusing on how forthcoming the president's son-in-law was about questions related to WikiLeaks.


[13:18:12] WHITFIELD: Welcome back. Jared Kushner's testimony to congressional investigators is raising questions about how forthcoming he's been in his testimony. The president's son-in-law and senior advisor is accused of lying under oath about the campaign's communications with WikiLeaks and the Russians. Sources tell CNN Kushner told congressional investigators he did not communicate with WikiLeaks and didn't know anyone on the Trump campaign who had. But a new report shows Kushner did receive an e-mail about WikiLeaks and forwarded it to a campaign official.

This all coming after allegations this week that Kushner withheld Russia-related documents from a Senate committee where he failed to provide Senate investigators e-mails about an invitation to contact Russia through a, quote, back door overture.

We have a team of reporters and analysts joining us right now. Samantha Vinograd is CNN's national security analyst. And also we have CNN's Shimon Prokupecz with us.

Shimon, let me begin with you.

Tell us more about the e-mails, you know, trying to set up this backdoor meeting with Candidate Trump and the Russians and people on his campaign.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME & JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Fred, so this comes after the Senate Judiciary Committee release add letter that they sent to Kushner's lawyer, asking questions about an e-mail titled Russian back door overture and dinner invite. This e-mail was, a cording to the Senate Judiciary Committee, forwarded to Jared Kushner. It was then sent around the campaign. And just to explain what it was, it was a Russian bank official named Alexander Torshin (ph) who presumably was acting on behalf of the Russian government, reached out to a member of a Christian organization, a man by the name of Rick Clay, asking, saying that Torshin (ph) wanted to meet with then Candidate Trump while he was in Kentucky in May 2016, and asked if Trump would attend a dinner with him for military members, and perhaps Clay could set up some kind of a meeting, perhaps get him to come to the dinner. What then happened was Clay apparently forwarded an e-mail, sent an e-mail to Trump campaign officials asking all this. It was also suggested in the e-mail, from Clay to members of the Trump campaign, we believe it was Rick Dearborn, who was a Trump campaign aide, basically asking for this meeting. And then we also believe that there was a suggestion that Torshin (ph) could set up a meeting between then candidate Donald Trump and Russia President Vladimir Putin. Now this e-mail and what some of the controversy has been this week

was then forwarded to Jared Kushner who turned it down basically. He turned the offer down, saying that, you know, there are people who sometimes claim to be certain people with government. And here's exactly what he said. He basically said, quote, "Pass on this. A lot of people come claiming to carry messages. Few we are able to verify. For now, I think we decline such meetings."

And all of this obviously coming to light this week. More of this coming to light because the Senate Judiciary Committee is saying that Kushner should have turned over these e-mails and he did not. And now they're saying, you know, we want those e-mails in a letter to his attorney.

[13:21:35] WHITFIELD: OK, lot to chew on here.

Thank you so much, Shimon.

Let me bring in CNN national security analyst, Samantha Vinograd.

Samantha, does that assist Kushner that he said pass it on, in other words saying I don't really want part of it?

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think there are two related issues here. One is whether Jared Kushner and campaign officials did anything illegal. And the special counsel's looking into that. The second related issue, however, is the sophistication of the Russian intelligence operation against the United States during the election. I've worked with the Russians. They have one of the most advanced intelligence services in the world. And what's clear from all these threads, whether it be the WikiLeaks content or the Russian dinner overture is that the Russian government was orchestrating an operation to infiltrate the campaign at every point possible. Now, it's nothing new that the Russian government was launching an operation against the United States. Think back to the Russian spy ring that the FBI infiltrated in 2010. What is new, however, and what's very disturbing is how easy it was for the Russian government to target campaign officials.

WHITFIELD: And, you know, I wonder, Samantha, what's notable here, are investigators looking at a couple things here, in that appears as though the Trump campaign accepts there are threads. But the investigators are looking into, you know, what would have been the motivation behind the threads and how the campaign handled it. Almost seemed as though some of the Trump folks are saying there's nothing unusual about having the threads and, you know, it's just how you handle the threads, you know, is that problematic from the problem of the special investigators?

VINOGRAD: I think it is problematic and I think we're seeing it may be problematic as well when it comes to Jared Kushner's security clearance. It is not unusual for national security professionals or individuals to have contacts with foreign governments. For example, when you fill out a security clearance form, and I've been through the process twice, you have to list every foreign contact that you have, everywhere that you've lived, any debts that you may have, so that there's no information that can be used against you to blackmail you or to have undue influence. So, for example, if a senior campaign official like Jared Kushner failed to disclose a meeting with a Russian official, adjudicators may think that the Russian government may know something that they don't, and it looks like adjudicators are not willing to overlook those inconsistencies in Jared Kushner's application process.

WHITFIELD: All right, Samantha Vinograd, we'll leave it there. Thank you so much.

Russia has rejected another U.N. resolution to extend an investigation into Syria's use of chemical weapons. It's Russia's third such veto in the last month against the joint investigative mechanism to inspect for chemical weapons, this time citing flaws in the investigation. Ambassadors from the U.S. and the U.K. tore in to Russia's decision for protecting the Syrian regime. Listen.


NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Russia's veto, its second in 24 hours, show us Russia has no interest in finding common ground with the rest of this council. Russia will not agree to any mechanism that might shine a spotlight on the use of chemical weapons by its ally, the Syrian regime. It's as simple and shameful as that.

[13:25:13] MATTHEW RYCROFT, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: This third veto in a month clearly exposes if it wasn't already obvious Russia's determination to protect their Syrian ally, whatever the harm that causes, to the ban on the use of chemical weapons, to the wider international system of rules, to Russia's own reputation.


WHITFIELD: All right, let me bring in CNN global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott.

So, Elise, how much of an impact does Russia's veto have?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I think you heard Nikki Haley say it pretty well there, Fred, it's going to make it all the more difficult for the international community to hold the Assad regime accountable if it's using chemical weapons. You know, this whole J.I.M., this joint investigative mechanism, was set up in April after the joint weapons sarin attack in which Trump saw enough evidence that he launched strikes against the Syrian regime. Not only is this the third veto against the J.I.M. itself but it's the 11th veto of a Security Council resolution by Russia since the outbreak of the Syrian conflict more than six years ago. And of course, the Russians cite flaws with the investigator's work. But there's really not a lot of doubt who is responsible, Fred, because everyone has pretty much acknowledged that neither ISIS nor the rebels themselves have the air capacity to launch an attack like that. So I'm not necessarily sure who the Russians could really feel is responsible. They've blamed it on ISIS. They blamed it on the rebels. But the Syrians were really the only ones who had that air capacity. This is going to make it much more difficult for Russia to say that it

supports any kind of peaceful resolution in which the Assad regime is held accountable for these kinds of crimes against humanity, which many in the international community have called those chemical weapons attack attacks.

WHITFIELD: Elise Labott, thank you.

Straight ahead in the CNN NEWSROOM, a new report says taxpayers may be picking up the tab to pay for government lawyers who are protecting Donald Trump's business profits. We'll break that down, next.


[13:31:56] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: All right, hello again, and welcome. Thanks so much for being with me this Saturday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

Taxpayers are footing the bill for legal fees to protect President Trump's business profits. That's according to "USA Today." The report says the White House, nor the Justice Department, would confirm exactly how much it is costing Americans, but salaries for the legal team range from $133,000 to $185,000.

What exactly are these lawyers defending? "USA Today" claims that none of the cases involve policy actions made by the president since he took office. Taxpayers are arguing that it is constitutional for Trump's private companies to earn profits from foreign governments and officials while he is in office.

Let's talk about all of this with our legal guys. Avery Friedman, a civil rights attorney and law professor, right here next to me in Atlanta. And Richard Herman, in New York, criminal defense attorney and law professor, joining us from Las Vegas.

It was about a month ago, Richard, you were here.


WHITFIELD: One of these days, we'll all three get together in the studio.

HERMAN: Eventually.

WHITFIELD: It's going to happen.

All right, so Richard, you first.

You know, so is there anything illegal here, something that sniffs very peculiar to you about payments to attorneys representing the business interests of the president?

HERMAN: Well, they're making a determination for whether or not they're representing Donald Trump the individual businessman or Donald Trump the president of the United States. Their rationale is they're representing Donald Trump the president of the United States. And there are at least four lawsuits pending right now for violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution which says presidents should not be a position to be influenced by foreign countries by receiving gifts or titles and what they're equating is Trump has these hotels, he has real estate deals, he has banking going on overseas and he shouldn't be doing that as president of the United States, because it's a violation of the Constitution. Of course, Trump's internal counsel says it's not a violation, it can't be a conflict and although the president said early on I will divest myself and make a trust and my children will run it, I'll have nothing to do with it, that's just one of the other lies that he's told. It will be about 2,000 lies. They're fact checking him on the one-year anniversary of his presidency. At least one judge in New York has taken a look at it and said, look, this is not to be determined in the courts, it should be determined by Congress. Only Congress has the duty and ability to fix this.

WHITFIELD: And so, Avery, how is it that Congress was not engaged here?

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY & LAW PROFESSOR: Well, Congress should have been engaged. Under this provision, Congress has to give consent. And the bottom line on it is that they have not. So the question becomes, is the Justice Department strict on this or are they kind of loose?


WHITFIELD: So does that mean the A.G., Jeff Sessions, is who lighted this?

[13:35:00] FRIEDMAN: Exactly right. Significant here is this provision of the Constitution came about when the king of France gave Ben Franklin 408 diamonds in a snuff box. Now it's really serious. In fact, it even banned President Kennedy, the Justice Department, from accepting certain benefits. The bottom line, I believe, is because of this very broad interpretation of the Constitution -- I think it's wrong frankly -- the federal district judge in New York will make a decision on whether or not the president can use the Justice Department to make a profit and, believe me, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on taxpayers by taxpayers for the president.

WHITFIELD: And so now, Richard, you know, there are requests for time sheets, but apparently the Justice Department is refusing to hand over these time sheets?

HERMAN: Yes, I mean, the lawyers are billing out anywhere between like $130,000 to $185,000. There's 10 lawyers. There's parallels. And they'll put their time sheets in. And they're putting the time in. I'm sure everything is going to be done proper there. And the bottom line is, the U.S. taxpayers are paying for Trump's legal fees. And the bottom line right now is there's nothing you can do about it. This is going to continue. If you listen carefully to the judge in New York, he is not inclined to take this case. He's going to dismiss it. He's going to say, Congress, your obligation, your duty, you fix it.

WHITFIELD: So, Avery, that's it, no way to challenge?


FRIEDMAN: Well, there is a way to challenge. First of all, the federal district judge is handling this case is asking very tough questions of the Department of Justice. And, you know, something, those legal fees that are being expended should be public record. You want the tax records to pay for it, you should understand how much money's being spent of taxpayer's money. So that should be turned over. And I think if "USA Today" didn't get it at this level, they're going to get it at the next level.

WHITFIELD: Avery Friedman, good to see you.

FRIEDMAN: Good to see you.

WHITFIELD: Richard, good to see you as well, even though it's so far away.


HERMAN: I'm moving to Atlanta.


HERMAN: How's that? There you go, that will solve the problem.

WHITFIELD: All right, thanks so much, guys. Always good to see you.

HERMAN: Take care.

WHITFIELD: All right, this year's political landscape has transformed late-night comedy television. Have you noticed? It's the subject of a new CNN special report, "Late Night in the Age of Trump," hosted by Brian Stelter.


UNIDENTIFIED COMEDIAN: This is going to be crazy.

JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE: Every day, there's something nuts.

STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, THE LATE SHOW: Bring out the POTUS. You're the bloatest.

UNIDENTIFIED COMEDIAN: Wait, how long does this wall have to be?


UNIDENTIFIED COMEDIAN: That is the problem with the media.

STELTER: Monopolizing late night. UNIDENTIFIED COMEDIAN: It's hard not to feel like you're being



KIMMEL: Kim Jong-Un, Rocketman.

UNIDENTIFIED COMEDIAN: Kim Jong-Un as Rocketman.

STELTER: Dominating "SNL."


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's like a mime producing raw material.

STELTER: He's blowing up scripts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a really great show.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The pace of the news.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So much faster.


STELTER: Making and breaking careers.

UNIDENTIFIED COMEDIAN: It's like a little kind of Churchill.


STELTER (on camera): Would you say you're on a mission to take him down?

CHELSEA HANDLER, COMEDIAN: I would like to see him brought down to the ground preferably in handcuffs.

COLBERT: You're turning into a real (EXPLETIVE DELETED) dictator.

STELTER (voice-over): Has late night gone too far?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Disrespectful of the office of the presidency? I think so.

BALDWIN: Let's roll.


WHITFIELD: Both funny and profound.

Don't miss our special report, "Late Night in the Age of Trump," Monday, 9:00 p.m. eastern time.

We've got so much more straight ahead in the NEWSROOM. But first, smart homes have been the next big thing for a few years.

Now tech companies have been working on devices to actually impact us on the most personal of levels.


UNIDENTIFIED CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the future, getting dressed may involve a lot more tech than you ever expected.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Really realistic quality.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I see the fur, like, moving.


UNIDENTIFIED CNN CORRESPONDENT: First up, Amazon's Echo Look. They call it a style assistant. So we put it to the test against an actual stylist.

(on camera): Let's pretend that I'm going to a friend's party, OK, but which one would you prefer then?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The lace is like a nice nighttime detail touch to the dress that I think would work better.

UNIDENTIFIED CNN CORRESPONDENT: This seems more nighttime, for sure.

Let's do a style check.

(voice-over): Its review takes some time but when it's done, it ranks which one it likes the best.

(on camera): According to Alexa, I am supposed to wear the light blue day time outfit. They say the color's good for you, the outfit shape works better for you.

(voice-over): Amazon's algorithm doesn't stop at telling you what looks good, it also tries to sell you clothes.

While the Echo look may help you decide between two looks, it can take into account the nuance of where you're going.

Some tech companies are trying to enhance the digital shopping experience by introducing A.R. and V.R.

[13:40:09] (on camera): How do you see A.R. and V.R. changing the shopping experience?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We see it changing completely. Like if you think about e-commerce, every brand and every product essentially looks the same online. You're getting closer and closer to the real world. Eventually, this will be used because that's the holy grail for fashion is I want to see how I look in this.



WHITFIELD: Despite an eighth woman now coming forward with allegations against Alabama Senate candidate, Roy Moore, many of his supporters are still not swayed and digging in to cast their ballot for the Republican candidate on December 12th.

Jonathan Barbee is one of those supporters, and he's joining me right now from Birmingham, Alabama.

Jonathan, good to see you.


WHITFIELD: So eight accusers. What would it take for you to withdraw your support if eight allegations -- allegations from eight people is not enough to do that?

BARBEE: First of all, I will support the Republican ticket and that's what it's about for me. Second of all, I've been in the news and media business for 20 years now. And the problem we have is in our country right now the news has become the judge, the jury, and with social media, the executioner. We're talking about when alleged accusations happen that destroys lives, families, careers. I'm a true believer in justice and finding the truth. As you are, you're a reporter, you want to seek that truth. But I trust seasoned investigators. And I believe innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And I'm very serious about those feelings.

WHITFIELD: Lately though, if you look at just the past couple of months and the wave of allegations as it relates to allegations of sexual assault, inappropriate behavior, and when on the entertainment stage, we have seen the consequences have been fast, allegations, and very soon after, you know, people have lost, you know, their position in those industries. But it seems like it is different right now as it pertains to politics. What in your view is different?

[13:45:00] BARBEE: It is different. When you're talking about the political spectrum, things move very fast. You're coming u on an election date. There's no time to really refute the allegations. There's no time for investigations or judge or jury or lawsuits --


WHITFIELD: But what if there a willingness to believe allegations and, you know, people have lost their careers, their positions, you know, status, particularly entertainment industry from Weinstein and, you know, the list goes on, but then for someone who is running office, there are voters such as yourself who are saying, I want to wait, the allegations are not either believable enough or not serious enough.

BARBEE: Well, right. Any allegations of this amount, they're heinous, especially involving children. Those of us who have a heart, we want to look out for people like that. We want to believe their stories. But it's hard --

WHITFIELD: Do you believe these women's stories?

BARBEE: It's hard to believe their story. We want to believe their story. You're talking something 40 years later. You don't have any true physical evidence. You don't have real witnesses. You have small-town gossip. People coming forward. If they want to prove their case, I know they've been through a lot, but take a lie detector test and then we will believe you if that lie detector test comes back. I think that's what people want. They want to see more proof. They don't want to see small-town gossip.

WHITFIELD: So what is it about the policies, the issues that come with Roy Moore, that you uphold, that you believe, that you -- that win your support of him?

BARBEE: Well, I'm a Republican. I know Roy Moore believes in the Constitution. He's run four or five major races in the state. None of these allegations have ever come out before. We have great reporters in this state. I'm sure some of them would have found this before now.

Roy Moore has some good policies. I don't agree with all of them. Not everybody does. But he has proven herself to the voters. He's held some high positions. He stands for the Constitution. He's conservative. I'm a Republican. I want to support that ticket. And, you know, I want to know more facts. And there are so many thousands of voters in Alabama that want to know more facts. We want to see this through. We want to know our candidate better. We also want to understand allegations better. We want to hear more of the story. Some of the things are already being refuted, like the things with the yearbook. There's investigators on the ground right now who are looking into this.


WHITFIELD: The attorney for Roy Moore has refuted it, saying he wants to get handwriting specialist, but that hasn't happened yet, so it's an allegation, as you say, you know, questioning the veracity of the signature, but it hasn't proven to be a fraud at all yet.

BARBEE: That's right, not yet, but I believe that's coming.

WHITFIELD: Jonathan Barbee, thank you so much.

BARBEE: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Special election December 12th.

All right, still ahead in the CNN NEWSROOM, police try to track down three inmates who escaped from a jail in northern Florida. How they got out and where they might be.


[13:52:48] WHITFIELD: Welcome back. A massive manhunt going on in Florida for three escaped inmates, one of whom is a registered sex offender. The three escaped from a county jail near Tallahassee. CNN's Kaylee Hartung is following the developments for us.

What more can you tell us about the search?

KAYLEE HARTUNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Fred, I just spoke to the sheriff's department. They've now transitioned from a massive area search into more of an intelligence-based search. Yesterday, they had a tremendous amount of manpower across multiple agencies, combing the heavily wooded area near this jail and across the county. They had K9 teams, helicopters in the air. But now focusing on investigating who these men are, who their known associates were, where they like to hang out. In the last 36 hours, they have interviewed more than 80 people.

Here's what we do know. Donald Cotterman, the one on the left, is the registered sex offender. He has gone by other aliases. Casey Martina, the middle there, he's the youngest and most physically imposing of the three. Just 25 years old. Martina and Cotterman, these two are repeat offenders facing life in prison if convicted of the most recent charges, which include burglary and criminal mischief, among others. And Joel Cooper, on the right, he is serving a 30-year sentence after he was found guilty in 2011 of burglary. All three suspects were last seen wearing gray or white sweat pants and long johns.

The sheriff's department telling me they have the assistance of U.S. Marshalls of the neighboring Leon County, Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Department of law enforcement. This is an all-hands-on-deck situation, Fred. But as I mentioned, more intelligence-based now, in the investigation.

[13:54:28] WHITFIELD: Keep us posted on that.

Kaylee, thank you so much.

We've got so much more straight ahead in the NEWSROOM, right after this.


WHITFIELD: Hello, again. Thank you so much for being with me this Saturday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

Jared Kushner's testimony to congressional investigators is raising questions about how forthcoming he has been in his testimony. The president's son-in-law and senior advisor is under scrutiny for withholding information about the campaign's communications with WikiLeaks and the Russians. Sources tell CNN Kushner told congressional investigators he did not communicate with WikiLeaks and didn't know anyone on the Trump campaign who had. But a new report shows Kushner did receive an e-mail about WikiLeaks and forwarded it to a campaign official.

This all coming after accusations this week that Kushner withheld Russia-related documents from a Senate committee where he failed to provide Senate investigators e-mails about an invitation to contact Russia through a, quote, "backdoor overture."

Joining me now for more on this is CNN crime and justice reporter, Shimon Prokupecz.

Shimon, what more can you tell us about these e-mails, trying to --