Return to Transcripts main page
President Trump And Associates To Spend The Whole Unmasking Of Someone; President Is Accusing Susan Rice Of A Crime; Convicted Russian Spy Been Released Back To Moscow; Advertisers Are Deserting Bill O'reilly; Kendell Jenner Unveiled Her New Ad For Pepsi. Aired 11:00-12:00mn ET
Aired April 5, 2017 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00] DON LEMON, CNN HOST: And Bill O'Reilly dozens of sponsors leaving his top-rated show. Can he survive allegations of sexual harassment?
But first there's been a lot of discussion about masking and unmasking, leaking and spying. So let's talk tonight this, a little bit, about how this actually works before we get started with our conversation.
Every day around the world intelligence agents monitor foreign agents and officials. Sometimes as a part of this, they pick up communications between those officials and Americans. This is called incidental surveillance. And according to experts of all political stripes, it is completely routine. The identity of Americans are masked or hidden in the intelligence reports. Former director of the CIA and NSA describe what happens next with those reports.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN (RET.), CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: One thing to importantly keep in mind that report doesn't get to her desk unless someone at NSA already thinks it has significant foreign intelligence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So what General Hayden is saying that for a report of incident with collection piecing in America to make it to the desk of the national security advisor, it would have been flagged as something of significance by intelligence agents at the NSA. So what happens then at the White House? Could Susan Rice unmask it on her own for political purposes? Again, let the expert explain.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAYDEN: What you do is you got in the report and say I really need to know who U.S. person number one is, you fill out the request in her case, a staff member would fill out the request, it would go to NSA and it literally, Wolf, be adjudicated by the analyst, a lawyer and then someone who is an expert in unmasking a minimization. They make adjudication, they make a decision and then Wolf, if it yes, that identity is revealed only to the requester, not to everyone on the original distribution. So this is very careful and very well- documented. It should be easy to find out how often she asked, why, who was revealed and under what circumstances.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Got that? It goes back to the NSA where the intelligence experts decide the unmasking and it creates an extensive paper trail. How hard is that to trace?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAYDEN: Frankly, you put half dozen folks whose judgment you trust on a bus, you send it up to Fort Lee. This is unlimited universe. I think they can do it. They could do it in the morning. Wolf, if you want answers this is easily arrived at.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Now, there's an idea, a paper trail, answers, facts. We didn't get any of that today. Just an accusation of criminal activity lab from the oval office with no proof to offer.
Now I want to bring in CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem, a former department of homeland security official, national security analyst Steve Hall, retired chief of CIA Russian operations and legal analyst Laura Coates, a former federal prosecutor.
I think it's important to explain, by the way, welcome all of you, to the viewer, to the American people exactly how this works and try to remove as much of the politics from this as possible so people can know before they come up with an idea or judge for themselves.
So Juliette, it's easy for President Trump and associates to spend the whole unmasking of someone when it not something that Americans are not familiar with but it's not an easy nor is a frivolous process correct?
JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: That's exactly right because at the very beginning before the unmasking is even called for, for most foreign intelligence wire taps it actually goes through the court. And called the foreign intelligence surveillance court specialized judges who ask questions of the prosecutors who are seeking the wiretap and sort of an interactive process in which they insure that there is actually enough information so that the FBI is not putting a bunch of wire taps on a bunch of people.
So not only masking is highly unregulated the very act of the foreign intelligence is. So you are talking about dozens of barriers to the notion compared to the notion Trump tweeted out so many weeks ago now about Obama decided one day to wiretap me therefore I was wire tapped.
LEMON: Steve, how often are Americans names unmasked in the course of unmask potential spies in the U.S.
STEVE HALL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: First of all, Don, my compliments. That lead in was a great explanation I hadn't heard a better one, it nails it, especially general Hayden's comments.
LEMON: Thank you.
HALL: Look. It happens pretty frequently. Perhaps, more frequently than you would imagine. I mean, Juliette is right. The (INAUDIBLE) warrants are looking at foreign nationals all over the world but also in the United States. And of course here in the United States, you know, these folks that you are monitoring, they are talking to, you know, the people who they are running their homes from. But they are also talking to people of much more significance.
And you know when I was in my old job there are all sorts of times when I would report and say, well, look we really do need to find out who, you know, American person number one or number two is. Why, because it was very pertinent to what the Russian or whoever the other foreign national, you know, was up to when we suspected that there's no good espionage or other things going on.
So it happens pretty frequently. But it's also really obvious when you need to know who the American was. It is not as though somebody is coming through looking for, you know, people to unmask. It is - people have too much work to do. It's an extremely well-documented process and it does happen quite frequently when you have Americans come up in this type of election.
[23:05:41] LEMON: So Laura, just so our audience understands, the names are only given to the person asking. Are those names spread around?
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No. Unmasking is not the equivalent of leaking or the equivalent of any illegal activity. What it does is provides context in ongoing investigation to figure out if the information is relevant and is pertinent to many to know about.
When people think about looking at this issue, you think about democracy. But there's also a huge bureaucracy and that has checks and bounds in each agency to insure that our liberties are actually protected. And part of that means a paper trail and part of that means the unmasking of information to provide information to the people who need to know it to make further determinations.
But to jump to conclusion that this is somehow unlawful because it gives a particular name is really misapprehending the actual process of the bureaucratic institution and the reason why they have the unmasking in the first place.
LEMON: Juliette, the President is accusing Susan Rice of a crime. She was a national security advisor. Isn't it her job to seek more information or is it possible she committed a crime? What do you think?
KAYYEM: Not from the evidence that we have seen. And this is clearly Susan Rice's sort of favorite target of many since Benghazi days. She has said she did not leak it. And she did not leak it, I should just say that clearly. There's plenty of evidence to suggest others had access to the name that we all know that was reported on in "the Washington Post." But what I will say is just how dangerous it is to have a sitting
President accuse the former national security advisor with no proof whatsoever and 'The New York Times" made that clear in the interview with him, of an illegal act, a criminal act with no proof.
Meanwhile, not to remind everyone, we have Syria and North Korea and China and actually real issues of which it's not entirely clear what the President's means or what his policy is in that regard. And so, it is just -- to me, this was more of a sad, pathetic interview. It really was because she didn't do anything illegal. It's not leaking. And I hope that the national security advisor, HR McMaster has the same capacity to do the same thing, to unmask a name if he determines through all the checks and balances that an American name needs to be known to him to understand the context to protect this country.
LEMON: OK. Can you standby, panel? I'm going to bring you back. But I want to bring in now our CNN correspondent Jessica Schneider because we have news tonight about the release of the convicted Russian spy.
Jessica, good evening to you. There is this tonight what convicted Russian spy been released back to Moscow. That spy part of the same spy ring that we heard about earlier this week because they tried to recruit former Trump policy advisor Carter Page back in 2013. What can you tell us about that?
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, this spy's name is Evgeny Buryakov. He is 42 years old. He was released from prison on Friday after serving 26 months of his 30-month sentence. Now, immigration and customs enforcement took him into custody immediately upon his release from prison in Ohio five days ago and then escorted him back to Moscow today where he was turned over to Moscow authorities.
But here is the thing. All of this happened in the very same week it was revealed that Carter Page was one of the target of a spy ring that Buryakov was a part of back in 2013. In fact, Buryakov associates were operating in New York City in an effort to make Carter Page an intelligence source. Page admitted this week that he did correspond with the number of that spy ring that he was only revealing information about his research into energy policy and that there was nothing more nefarious or illegal about that communication.
But, you know, again, Don, this Russian spy who is reported today, he was never implicated by the feds as dealing directly with Carter Page but he was working with at least one Russian who did meet with Page. So a very interesting development today, Don.
LEMON: Jessica, so why was this Russian spy released nearly four months short of his full sentence.
SCHNEIDER: Yes. You know, it does seem a bit odd. There are questions why was Buryakov released, you know, a few days before the Carter Page story came out and then deported just today while all of the details of Carter Page's Russian connections were garnering a lot of renewed attention. I talk to lawyer about this associated with the case. They do tell me
there's nothing unusual about a federal inmate being released a few months early in fact saying it is under the purview of the bureau of prisons. They have uniform calculations about inmates typically being released after serving about 85 percent of their time. And in this case, Don, Buryakov did serve 86.6 percent of his time. So perhaps not too questionable after all. It might just be routine -- Don.
[23:10:34] LEMON: Jessica Schneider, much appreciated, as usual. As always, thank you so much.
I want to bring back my panel now.
So Juliette, I will start with you. Buryakov supposed to serve 30 months for spying and trying to recruit American to spy. He got out a few months early. Is that suspicious?
KAYYEM: I don't know if this is necessarily suspicious. But the statistic I would like it for people accused of espionage do they get out earlier. I'm all for criminal justice reform. Espionage is the golden egg. I mean, it is, you know, if you get someone for espionage, remember, he pled. So that's the comparable statistic to determine whether this is routine or not.
LEMON: Steve, thing is, given all the intrigue, right, and the investigation surrounding the Trump administration, connections are possible collusion whatever is happening here, isn't it odd that the U.S. would release a spy who would try to recruit someone who was tied to the administration.
HALL: It really - that really does turn into more of a law enforcement and corrections issue. I mean, you know, I will take (INAUDIBLE) when they say, you know, 85 percent of his time seems about right.
If memory serves he was convicted of not reporting his status as agent of foreign power which is often how FBI gets short of full espionage conviction. I'm not sure about that. I could might be wrong, but that's typically a lighter sentence.
But I can you that this is sort of typical operating procedure for Russian intelligence services. They are going to look in a very long, you know, they are looking at a very long time horizon. So they see somebody like Page or somebody else who, you know, in 2013 might not have been obvious target but they are looking for people who, you know, sort of swimming in the important illusion that in the United States power structures --.
LEMON: Didn't he work for the bank that Jared Kushner met with?
HALL: That to me is the most interesting part of this whole story because he was working for VEB bank, the head of which, you know, trained or was at the FSB school, the internal Russian intelligence service school and clearly has ties to intelligence. So the Kushner- VEB ties is actually one that interests me more than Mr. Buryakov.
LEMON: So Laura go ahead.
COATES: This reminds me, like I said I'm watching episode from "the Americans" here. And it feel is though - it sound like a conspiracy. It almost like it has been written somehow.
But the real thing for me as the process, you are looking at this as while you have a congressional investigation going on and an FBI investigation going on in to the possible ties between Russia and people among the Trump campaign and/or administration, you have somebody is no longer under the subpoena power of United States to provide any testimony whatsoever. Either corroborate or in the gates what we already known to be perhaps fact. And when you have taken somebody and deported them to Russia with whom we do not have an extradition treaty, (INAUDIBLE) that person to Edward Snowden and Julian Asage (ph). You can no longer testify and has no incentive to do so.
And so either by creating a dead end either because this person has no relevance in this initial investigation or because not they can't have an impact on the investigation. We are left with a dead we can't undo because of our ongoing relationship with Russia and failure to have extradition.
LEMON: All right. Thank you, Juliette. Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Laura. I appreciate it.
When we come back, President Trump facing international crisis, not to mention a big change inside the White House among his advisors. More on that next.
[23:18:14] LEMON: Another busy day for President Trump dealing with big personnel moves in the White House throwing out more allegations against the Obama administration, all while juggling two major international crisis.
I want to bring now CNN global affairs analyst David Rohde, national security investigations editor for "Reuters" and Sally Quinn, the "Washington Post" contributor and founding editor of "On Faith."
So good to have both of you on.
So David, it seems to be more turmoil in the White House tonight. "New York Times" reporting that Steve Bannon threatened to quit over being demoted today taken off the National Security Council.
Here is what the Times is reporting. It said Mr. Bannon resisted the move, even threatening at one point to quit if it went forward" according to a White House official who like others insisted on anonymity to discuss international deliberation. Mr. Bannon's camp deny that he had threaten to resigned and spent the day spreading the word that the shift was a natural evolution, not a signal of any diminution of his outside influence.
What do you think of all this intrigue? Do you buy that? DAVID ROHDE, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I do. And I think this, you
know, we have heard this before. There's a lot of fighting going on in this white. House. This is another sign of it. And I think this is just one chapter. I don't think this means that Bannon is somehow out now and lost his influence he step forward for McMaster.
And in the end, look. You know, as all of those folks who is around the President, the President makes these decisions. Donald Trump is deciding what to talk about every day, what to say about Syria. It same way with Barack Obama. There can be a bubble but Presidents drive, they are Presidents.
LEMON: But he is influenced by the people around him, no doubt.
ROHDE: Yes. But I just wouldn't, you know, over read this that somehow Bannon has lost all influence.
LEMON: And that Bannon is possibly --.
LEMON: But Sally, I want you, both of you, I want you to take a look at this picture. And this is, you know, it shows Bannon in (INAUDIBLE) the press conference. You see Jared, Ivanka, you can see Reince Priebus you can see Rex Tillerson, standing up as vice President Pence. Noticeably absent, though, from the front row is Steve Bannon, and Kellyanne Conway. Do you think is an indication of who is winning the White House power struggle or at least when it comes to who has direct line to the president or his ear?
[23:20:18] SALLY QUINN, FOUNDING EDITOR, ON FAITH: Well, I think that Bannon's theory of deconstruction is being deconstructed. And you know, he came in and basically wanted to throw a grenade in the NSC. And you know, it just like, let's make a lot of noise, and let's turn everything upside down and redo everything. And I think what is happening now is that McMaster is basically trying to put pieces back together again the way they once were by bringing back, you know, the DNI and the Pentagon people into the meetings.
And I think I'm reading a little bit more into Bannon's demise then a lot of people are. But I just think that he is becoming sort of an embarrassment to the President. He is becoming a joke. And you know, the whole Darth Vader thing and President Bannon. And I think at some point Trump is not going to like that. And I think Ivanka and Jared are really not going to like that.
So my feeling is his star is that Bannon's star is falling. And so I'm going to read a little bit more into it than others might.
LEMON: So let's talk about some of the things that happened from the president --.
QUINN: But I just want to say about you asked me about Kellyanne. She has been AWOL for about three weeks. And there are a lot of journalists who don't want to deal with her and don't want to have her on their show and don't want to interview her because they don't think she is truthful. And so that could be a problem as well for the White House to have that kind of perception in one of their spokespeople. So I think that, you know, I don't know about the photograph today and what it all means. Maybe she was babysitting with her children at home instead of tweeting in the oval office. But I think both of their stars are falling a little bit.
LEMON: OK. So let me ask you this, David. Because you said, you know, the President makes these decisions. He makes up his own mind. But I mean, he has a history of making statement that's are not true including calling the former President saying that he, you know, wiretapped Trump tower and then he said the former national security advisor Susan Rice is guilty under President Obama is guilty of a crime. All of this without providing any proof, not one shred of evidence. What do you think of that?
ROHDE: I mean, this is why -- you can have the greatest NSC process, you know, every hint of best experts from across the government. Is the President going to listen to them? And he doesn't always listen. I mean, I was in Washington today. He stood the briefings are shorter. He doesn't always engage before he makes calls to foreign leaders. He doesn't, you know, absorb as much information as I guess other Presidents have. I heard this from a sort of career person. So I'm not saying it's all about, Trump but he should be held accountable for what he is saying and what he is doing.
LEMON: Well, the interesting - Sally, I mean, do you think he understands the impact of making such serious charges when it comes to one the most powerful person in the country and then, you know, the former President and then the national security advisor. Does he understand as the most powerful person in the country now, the impact that those words have?
QUINN: I don't think he understands it. But more importantly I don't think he cares. It doesn't matter. I mean, he can say that Obama was spying on him. And he doesn't care. Doesn't make any difference to him. He can say that Susan Rice is guilty of a crime. He doesn't say what the crime is. But it doesn't matter it all goes up in the ether.
LEMON: You think he is deflecting from Russia?
QUINN: Well, I think clearly that's a problem. And by the way, speaking of Russia, he talked about Syria today and how terrible and all these babies. You doesn't her a word out of his mouth about Russians being behind this. Because the Russians are behind Assad, wouldn't dare do this of the Russians it. And where does he get the gas.
Russian know that Assad had all this gas. In fact, they prevented the United States from getting rid of it all. So they knew he had it and they knew he was unable to use it. And so, I mean, I think he is trying to blame Obama for what happened today but it seems to me this is his red line. And the one thing he could do is to bomb Syrian planes, just ground the Syrian airports to stop this. And you know, this is his moment to put up or shut up because he has been complaining about Obama for last couple years. LEMON: Well, David, as Sally said, he blamed the former President for
the Syrian problem but last week was asked about the regimen and will be decided by the Syrian people. And then you have Senators Marco Rubio, you have McCain, you have Graham, that deep experience with foreign policy and they said that effectively gave Assad the green light that he wanted.
[23:25:07] ROHDE: Well, throughout the campaign, there was dozen tweets where Donald Trump said Barack Obama do not go into Syria. It's a waste of time. He ran essentially as an isolationist.
LEMON: Is this President responsible for what happened here?
ROHDE: Yes. I mean, he has been office long enough. And I also think that this again the moment he, as Sally said, he has to put up or shut up, you know. He has got to respond. I think he is being tested by Assad and he is being tested by Kim in North Korea, you know.
It's not a coincidence that a ballistic missile, you know, launch goes off a day before he is meeting with the President of China. And I think, you know, these countries are testing Donald Trump. He is promising not, you know, to get us engage militarily but now he says he might do that. And you can't have it both ways. You got to take risks, maybe engage militarily or just stay out and he keeps trying to have both things possible.
LEMON: Thank you, David. Thank you, Sally. I got to run unfortunately. Thank you so much.
And don't miss the premiere of CNN Films "Unseen Enemy, the story of how a deadly disease could turn to the next global pandemic." That's Friday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific.
We will be right back.
[23:30:22] LEMON: O'Reilly advertisers bolting for the exits more than 40 companies pulling their ads over allegations of sexual harassment. So could Bill O'Reilly days on the FOX News channel be numbered. President Trump defending him today saying he doesn't think O'Reilly did anything wrong.
Let's discuss now. Dylan Byers is here, CNN senior reporter for media and politics.
Good evening, Dylan. Thanks for joining us. The president also defended the FOX News host and he defended FOX News chief Roger Ailes last year when he was facing sexual allegations. Is the President's support to Bill O'Reilly indicative to the relationship he still holds with this network?
DYLAN BYERS, CNN SENIOR REPORTER FOR MEDIA AND POLITICS: Well, I think that is absolutely right. I mean, it would be very hard to watch FOX News programming especially in prime time and not come to the conclusion that, you know, that those hosts and this president are kindred spirits and that one defends the other. And in fact, we have seen that relationship work both ways.
Look. I think the President knows where his bread is butter. I think he likes the fact that guys like O'Reilly and Hannity and Tucker Carlson go out and defend him every night. I also think we should acknowledge here that the President has his own history of being accused of sexual harassment. During the campaign, he was accused - you know, there was the "Access Hollywood" tape in which he talked about grabbing women by their genitals.
And so, look. He is as much on the defensive here on this issue as Ailes was and as O'Reilly is now. But you will remember when Trump came out and defended Ailes, that was just a week before Ailes was ousted from the company. So I'm not necessarily sure that Trump's endorsement is good news for Bill O'Reilly.
LEMON: Well, that's what I said at the beginning of the program. I'm not sure of it helps either of them especially when you actually listen to that "Access Hollywood" tape that we played at the beginning of the program.
So Dylan, FOX News came out and said that they stand behind Bill O'Reilly. But as of tonight, as I said, over 40 advertisers, I mean, they do not stand behind him. Is there any sign FOX is going to rethink keeping him on air? Look at that. I mean, look at those advertisers.
BYERS: No. It's truly amazing. And you know, 48 hours ago, it was one or two, 24 hours it was about 20, 21. Now we are dealing with more than at 40. I mean, the list keeps growing and growing and growing.
There is a little bit -- FOX News is a little bit inoculated from any sort of economic pressure from these advertisers because most of those ads are being reassigned to other shows on the networks. So those ads you used to see on Bill O'Reilly's program now, you may see them on Hannity's program, on FOX and Friends, what have you.
There is also - you know, we should remember so much of the revenue in cable news comes from not from advertising but from affiliate fees. So the question here about Bill O'Reilly's future is not so much about the economic dent that is going to made from this advertiser boycott. It is really a question about public pressure. It is really a question about how much 21st century FOX sort of feels the pain from this public pressure and then deciding what kind of company they want to be.
And I think a lot of people including a lot of the sources I spoke with inside of FOX News would say if this weren't Bill O'Reilly, if this weren't the, you know, the so-called king of cable news with highest rated show in television, he would have been out long time ago. The problem is that FOX News can't afford to lose him because he brings in over $100 million a year in revenue for a company that makes over a billion-dollars a year in advertising revenue for 21st century FOX. LEMON: Yes, interesting. And I glad you said it. I try to explain
to people for the last couple days that it's not necessarily, you know, the advertisers, as much as they are important, but subscription rates bring in more money than advertising to cable.
BYERS: Right. And so, we should just note there if you look at Bill O'Reilly's ratings he continues to be very strong. He has a loyal audience. That audience is sticking with him.
LEMON: That means they will subscribe to FOX News channel when they are trying to figure out which cable services they want.
Thank you, Dylan. I appreciate that.
I want to bring CNN political commentator Kayleigh McEnany, contributor at "the Hill," also "Daily Beast" columnist Sally Kohn, political analyst Kirsten Powers, a columnist at "USA Today" and political commentator Angela Rye.
Why were you shaking your head when he talked about the amount of money and all that?
SALLY KOHN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, you know, kudos to O'Reilly for the ratings. It's just sort of sad that I think Dylan's point is exactly correct. If he were a lesser success or frankly not a television star anyone else where these kind of allegations were made public so repeatedly we can hope he would be out then again honestly I don't know. The truth is this happens all the time. And the men survive their jobs. And we don't need more proof of that than the fact we had, these are just allegations that were settled. We are talking about when I man who boasted not about sexual hare amount but sexual assault gets elected by half the country to be Presidents, to be promoted. What do I tell my daughter then? This isn't OK. But you still get to be TV star and you still get to be President. That's a problem.
[23:35:19] LEMON: Well, that's the point.
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Here is what you tell your daughter. You tell your daughter we are a country that believes in redemption. And Donald Trump apologized. No, you can stalk but Donald Trump apologized. And not only that, Ben Carson said, you know, he prayed the night before he went on the debate and had to address this. He prayed and asked God for forgiveness. We can roll our eyes. We can laugh at that whatever you may. But we are a country that believes in redemption. And Donald Trump, he is not a misogynist. We cab demonize him. We can vilify him. He is not that. He asked for forgiveness and half the country gave it to him.
LEMON: Kayleigh, listen. I think - hold on. Hold on. We do believe in redemption. And I believe the redemption more than anybody else. But I don't think someone who says those words, I think people around the country would think that they possibly do they deserve to be the President of the United States. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's called promotion.
LEMON: Right. When you say things like that. There's certain standards, there is a certain bar that one must meet in order to be the leader of the free world.
MCENANY: Did Bill Clinton meet it? I mean, in the oval office and actually committed an act.
LEMON: And he faced the music for those. Listen. I'm not condoning what Bill Clinton. What he did was horrible. And if he had been taken out of office I think that's what the American people would have decided but they decided. So the American people decided, they wanted him, Donald Trump, to be President of the United States. I'm just saying I that someone should meet a certain bar before they become President of the United States.
ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Yes. The Electoral College did decide that. Thank God for the American people writ-large who did not. But I do think that it's important for us to make distinctions. I'm a Christian too. I believe in forgiveness and redemption. But I don't think that when you do something so egregious should be promoted for your behavior. I think instead he should be reprimanded perhaps disciplined and definitely not given the highest office in the land.
LEMON: So let's bring this back then to Bill O'Reilly.
LEMON: Which is we are talking about this. Does someone deserve to be in the position they are in if they are accusations of if they committed, possibly committed horrible acts.
You have worked at FOX News. You have worked there. You have worked there. So I am interested in hearing your perspective.
KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I haven't. That would be interesting.
Look I think you have to remember we don't really know what happened. He settled, right. So settling is not necessarily admission of guilt. So you know, I can't say whether this happened or didn't happen. I don't know. I think that it's obviously very problematic when you have this many allegations against one person. And I think that, you know, looking at the advertisers pulling away they are clearly uncomfortable with it. And I think that we have seen our culture shift somewhat on this issue question, the question is has it shifted as much as maybe you think it has shifted.
LEMON: I think it's changed. The culture has changed when you look at what happened with Bill Cosby because the same arguments were made by Bill Cosby in his shows, one of the first shows to start covering the allegations of Bill Cosby to the extent that we did.
LEMON: But I do have to say, when someone says that we don't know and we don't know. Sean Hannity works there, gets paid a lot of money. I haven't heard anything about that. Tucker Carlson works there, makes a lot of money, haven't heard anybody say anything. Megyn Kelly, work there, made a lot of money. Didn't hear anybody saying or women or whatever saying, you know, because we want to be fair. Bill Hammer works there. I'm sure makes a lot of money. But to my - you understand the point. (INAUDIBLE) works there. He makes a lot of money and on and on.
POWERS: Look. I think the other thing it's knowable, I'm just saying I don't know. You know what I mean? But I think that FOX probably does know, right. I mean, I think the people who have - had access to the, you know - and so, I think that they know what happened and then they have to make a decision about what they want to do. It's hard for me sitting here having not - having access with those --.
LEMON: So, listen. Kayleigh has, you know, Kayleigh says redemptions, right. Is it hypocritical though when you are the family values channel to allow someone who possibly did this to stay on the air and not question it?
We will talk about then when we come back.
[23:43:42] LEMON: Bill O'Reilly under fire. Will FOX News keep him on the air? Back now with my panel.
This is what you say, Sally. You talk about hypocrisy here, right. And the conservative media outlet keeping someone like Bill O'Reilly as their star through all this. Again, he settled. He has not been proven, the presumption of innocence. But you say FOX needs to show people that they are serious about changing the culture at their network and the best way that they can to do that is by firing O'Reilly. Why do you say that?
KOHN: Again, look. The truth is, FOX does know. It is accusations from the public but truth is FOX probably does in fact know the truth, right. So we can assume that there is a truth and assuming that they paid out $13 million in settlements to multiple accusations, by the way, and including pending, there are additional pending lawsuits, that assuming that they are in fact true, and frankly, one of them, they are pretty bad, is valid, they should take action and do something.
Let's also be clear. At least according to one study. One in three women in this country has experienced some form of sexual harassment. And most of those women aren't like me to folks at the civil (ph) who have the means, the opportunity to go and get a lawyer and to take this and make this public. They are in restrooms or work rooms at Wallmarts and dive restaurants and they don't have the opportunity to bring it to public the way that these accusers do.
FOX needs to do this not only for their network but frankly they have a leadership role in the country that says this isn't OK. And the opposite of that is to give them more power because sexual harassment is when you have power and use that power. For abuse women, at least take this power away.
[23:45:20] LEMON: Kayleigh, go ahead.
MCENANY: Yes. You know, sexual harassment, of course, is inexcusable. That goes without saying. But there's two sets of rights here. There is the right of the women to, you know, level these accusations. There is also the right of the defendant. There is also the right of Bill O'Reilly. We don't know what happened. We can sit here and (INAUDIBLE). We can, you know, pontificate, this might happen. This might happen. But calling for him to lose his job when we don't even the details, we haven't seen one single court document, I think that is extreme. You are completely nullifying his rights.
KOHN: Listen, first of all we are not talking about right. This isn't a court, right. We are talking about what a private company chooses to do and it's their choice.
KOHN: It is obviously their choice. But just like, by the way, I have to point out the irony in this, this is what takes him down after all of the incredibly offensive, you know, racial bias and sexism, and he has said things actually I'm far more worried about the things he has said, the policies he's supported -
LEMON: He does run an opinion show, though.
KOHN: I find his opinion -- some of his opinions have been downright offensive.
MCENANY: You're calling for someone to lose their job and you don't even know if he did what he is accused of.
KOHN: Wait, wait. I'm saying two thing. One, I'm saying I think he should have lost his job long ago for some of the things he said and policies and decisions he supported, number one.
KOHN: No, I'm not calling for Tucker Carlson lose his job. I mean, that's not true. I'm talking about things he said. But the second point is, it is the choice of a business who they are going to get rid of or not. The things he said are offensive in our country.
LEMON: You won't even appear on, you said, you are the only one.
RYE: Now I can't. Under contractual obligation but I was called repeatedly to go on FOX and I wouldn't go on FOX and I wouldn't go on any of the shows.
LEMON: Do you think they need to send a message? That's your message and you think they need to send a message.
RYE: I think that they have an opportunity to really rise above like the mess. It's been a messy election. We heard the President's tape. We know that Roger Ailes had the same issues. We know there are memoirs about these things happening at FOX. I'm not saying that Bill O'Reilly did it. I do agree with Sally that his character is the real problem here and they have the opportunity to say that this is time for somebody to pay for this and it doesn't matter how much advertising or subscription revenue we are getting from a particular show.
LEMON: I will give you the last word.
POWERS: Well, I just don't - and I disagree with the idea that he should have lost his job over the thing that he said. But I have little disagreement over this regularly about sort of I'm a free speech nut which means that I actually think no matter how horrible the things that people are saying, they should be able to say them. He has a perspective I disagree with him. I used to fight with him all the time. You know, I think it depends how much the culture has changed. But my gut is probably yes, he will survive because I think that he makes a lot of money for the network.
LEMON: Thank you all appreciate it joining us in CNN TONIGHT with Don Lemon. But we do it live every single night.
LEMON: Up next Pepsi pulling its controversial Kendall Jenner commercial, but the backlash is just getting bigger.
[23:52:19] LEMON: The controversial Pepsi ad starting Kendall Jenner rubbed so many people the wrong way that Pepsi has yanked it and issued an apology. Let's look at what has so many people up in arms.
(VIDEO CLIP PLAYING)
LEMON: Boy. That's what a protest - that's what it is all about, Kamau. I mean, pretty girls and a good looking cops she hands in the Pepsi.
W. KAMAU BELL, HOST, UNITED SHADES OF AMERICA: Should we are just making clear to all the black youth and brown youth in America, do not give cops Pepsis as a way to stop them from abusing. Let's make that absolutely clear. Do not hand a cop a Pepsi. Maybe a coke. Not a Pepsi.
LEMON: Kamau Bell is here, host of "United Shades of America" right here on CNN.
I mean, listen. This is all the kids are talking about. And they were using protest imagery with Kendall Jenner here. Are you surprised at the backlash on social media? How quickly they yanked it and so on? The apology? BELL: I mean, I am surprise that had they yanked it. I mean, that it
shows the power of social media to get things done. And I think people, we should all take some pleasure from learning, how powerful we can be. But I'm not surprised they knew it was bad because it was immediate. People were live tweeting the ad. It was so bad. I saw people like hold on, let me pause and get on social media so I can finish watching this ad. That's how bad it was. It was a hate tweet event.
LEMON: Every time I watch it, when I watch it last night, I mean, I was just like the response is laughter. So Bernie's King whose mother and father Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated exactly 49 years ago to the day that Pepsi released that ad, tweeted this. If only daddy would have known about the power of Pepsi.
BELL: Don, I had to get up and walk around and hold my head up. Oh, my God. That's so intense. That you basically -- she is invoking her dad from beyond the grave to tell you, don't do that. I think that's when Pepsi was like, we got to pull that ad. Dr. King basically just told us it was a bad ad. I mean, that's - that's what he know, not just the kids, it was the entire social justice movement was like that's not OK.
LEMON: What was the purpose behind this?
BELL: I think --
LEMON: What was the matter? What were they trying get out of it?
BELL: I think it showed the power of the problem like not having representation in corporations. Like clearly there was black or brown person or even super cool white person in the media who was like -what are we doing here? What are we saying? Because millennials who the ad was named at are big into social entrepreneurship. But you have to have the social part to have the entrepreneurships. There was nothing about that ad that was like where you give every poor black kid a can of Pepsi. There was nothing about that ad that said how it was going to help - we are going to give 0.0001 percent of our profits to public schools. There was nothing about that ad.
And if you have a protest sign, it has to actually say something. You can't just have a sign saying protest. It was - there was clearly no -- it is about representation to me. Black lives matter. Black sodas don't matter.
[23:55:43] LEMON: You stupid.
BELL: I got a credit (INAUDIBLE) in San Francisco. That was on you. Thanks for putting that on my Facebook.
LEMON: No. But I was like you get an applause for a camera? I was like what?
BELL: The image of Kendall Jenner like she walks - it the same image of a black woman whose - there is a famous black woman whose name escapes me of.
LEMON: (INAUDIBLE) being arrested 2016. Black lives matter protest in my home town of Baton Rouge.
BELL: Yes. Like it is a powerful image. Like it chills thing and about it. When you messed that up against Kendall Jenner in her tuxedo handed a cop of Pepsi who smiles like guess I won't kill anybody today. What are you doing? It is like it is to me it is about representation. There weren't enough peel in the room who thought empower to go. We are making a big mistake.
I mean, Pepsi, you're already number two. Do you want to be number three or four?
LEMON: That was shade. That was some "United Shade of America" right there.
BELL: That's right.
LEMON: April 30th. 10:00 p.m. Right here. "Unite Shade of America." Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Bell. See you soon.
BELL: Thank you.
LEMON: That's it for us. Thanks for watching. I'll see you right back here tomorrow.