Return to Transcripts main page


Clinton Email Probe to Last Beyond Election Day; FBI Gets Warrant to Search Clinton Aide's Emails; Economic Metrics Help Predict Election Outcome; Carney Sets Date to Leave Bank of England; Fraud Charges Dropped Against Pravin Gordhan, South Africa's Finance Minister; Former Officials Criticize Email Review Announcement; Critics Slam FBI's Decision as Political Move; 42 States Request Election Cyber Help; Impact of Climate Change on Coffee Industry; Illy Collaborating with Columbia Earth Institute

Aired October 31, 2016 - 17:00:00   ET


[17:00:00] RICHARD QUEST, CNN ANCHOR: An hour ago the closing bell rang on Wall Street with the time difference and the clock change in Europe, this

is what happened after 4:00. It is now 5:00 on the eastern seaboard. Oppenheimer Funds ringing. Oh, my goodness gracious, that was not a gavel.

That was pathetic gavel. On Monday. In fact, it wasn't even worthy of gavel. The 31st of October, it's Halloween.

And these are grave times for the Clinton campaign. The FBI's email investigation is set to run beyond election day and much further.

Governor Mark Carney sets the date for his own Bank of England Brexit. And South Africa's finance minister is off the hook. Fraud charges against

Pravin Gordhan are dropped.

I'm Richard Quest. We start a new week together. I'm back in New York and I mean business.

Good evening. A very busy hour ahead and delighted that you are with us. There are new developments in both the race for the White House and the

future of the Bank of England governor. And we'll begin with U.S. politics.

Tonight, Hillary Clinton says her presidential campaign will not be haunted by the ghosts of emails past. FBI officials say they'll not be finished

searching through the emails for classified material before election day. And tonight, Hillary Clinton insists there is no case here, in her words.

A Reuters poll released a few moments ago, shows that Clinton's lead has narrowed. The new CNN poll of polls doesn't yet reflect that. Clinton

still has a five-point lead over Donald Trump.

The candidates are spending the final week on the campaign crisscrossing those swing states where they're each trying to gain an edge over the

other. Hillary Clinton is in Ohio, where the polls show her leading Donald Trump by three points. Donald Trump is next door in Michigan, and that

state, according to CNN, is leaning Democrat. The focus for both is the latest email revelations.


DONALD TRUMP, U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I have to give the FBI credit, that was so bad what happened originally. And it took guts

for Director to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had where they're trying to protect her from criminal

prosecution. You know that. It took a lot of guts. I really disagreed with him. I was not his fan. But I'll tell you what, what he did, he

brought back his reputation. He brought it back. He's got to hang tough, because there's a lot of people want him to do the wrong thing. What he

did was the right thing.



HILLARY CLINTON, U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: For those of you who are concerned about my using personal email. I understand and as I've

said, I'm not making excuses, I've said it was a mistake and I regret it and now they apparently want to look at emails one of my staffers and by

all means, they should look at them. And I am sure they will reach the same conclusion they did when they looked at my emails for the last year.

There is no case here.


QUEST: We have an election season, but obviously with today being the 31st, we want to put it all into the Halloween season. The American people

are being given a choice between two candidates with very long and very public pasts. As November 8th draws ever closer, well, the skeletons are

lurking in the closets of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

First, Hillary Clinton's emails and the scandal concerning that skeleton. She used a private email server that she admits as Secretary of State. But

in July, the FBI cleared her. Now, new emails are emerging which for Donald Trump is fresh fodder. The perception remains that she is

dishonest, secretive, and lack of transparency and she's on the defensive. But the Democrats are furious with the FBI for doing this. She's not alone

with skeletons in her closet.

Donald Trump also has some skeletons in his closet. This time, about his ties to Russia. Now the Democrats are convinced that the FBI's covering up

Trump's dealings with Russia.

[17:05:00] Harry Reid has said that director Comey is sitting on explosive new information, with Clinton mounting new attacks, painting Trump as

intellectually unfit to serve.

Whichever way you look at it, there are scandals and skeletons in the closet. And now let's talk a little bit about this. Joining me now is

Larry Sabato, the director for the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Larry, we couldn't make it up if we tried. If you wrote it in a

book, nobody would believe you. But the remaining question, look, it's just seven days, seven hours, 54 minutes, 15 seconds to election day. Is

the email scandal going to have an effect?

LARRY SABATO, CENTER FOR POLITICS, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Yes, it's going to have some effect on Hillary Clinton, and obviously, it's not going to

help her. You know, it's a mixed bag to a certain degree. Republicans, especially those in the Trump base, have been energized by this. Some

Democrats have been depressed. The few undecideds, and I mean 2 or 3 percent, probably have additional questions about Hillary Clinton. They

may resolve it by voting for Trump or they may resolve it by voting for Clinton or not voting at all.

QUEST: Then you have this extraordinary business, of course, that early voting is under way. Some 20-odd million people if not more, will have

already voted. And some of those people may rightly or wrongly feel cheated because they voted and now new facts have come out.

SABATO: Well, I've said this for years, when you vote early and 17.5 million had voted early by the time this broke on Friday. When you vote

early, basically it's like writing a review of a play during intermission, before you've seen acts three and four. Probably your review isn't going

to be very good. You're not going to get a real read on the play. The same is true in voting.

QUEST: And on this, related, where do you stand, if such you do, on the righteousness of Director Comey's releasing this letter to Congressional

leadership as he did on Friday?

SABATO: I think it was unwise for him, and it was unfair to the voters. People needed more information. If he was going to do this, Richard, he

should have had at least -- done at least a hi-tech search, as they're doing now, for classified materials, in all of these emails. You can do it

relatively quickly. By the way, this means, the fact that they're doing it now, this means that we could see this issue again before Tuesday. And who

knows what the scanners will discover? This could either help Clinton by exonerating her, or it could make her travails more difficult.

QUEST: And related to this, the very question of whether or not the director has himself broken the law as suggested by Harry Reid, the so-

called Hap Chatt, which forbids federal employees from influencing elections.

SABATO: Yes, my personal read on that is that, no, he has not broken the law. But he's certainly broke FBI protocols in speaking about a case under

investigation, that was not completed. And he certainly broke the protocol that I've been told about for decades by FBI agents, that they're not

supposed to take any action during the 60 days before a primary or a general election that would affect the politics, that could affect the

outcome of an election. That's a good rule and he broke it.

QUEST: A quick two final questions, quickly. How many elections have you been involved with or watched or supervised or seen?

SABATO: Well, I started in 1960, the Kennedy/Nixon race. I'm old.

QUEST: But have you ever seen, even Kennedy/Nixon 1960, have you ever seen anything like this?

SABATO: Oh, God no. This is the craziest, most insane election, and it's so appropriate that we're talking on Halloween. It reminds me of some of

the scariest movies I've ever seen.

QUEST: Larry, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

SABATO: Thank you, Richard.

QUEST: You're going to hear a bunch of screams during the course of the program. Hillary Clinton says there's no case here. Jeff Zeleny is with

the Clinton campaign in Kent, Ohio. She's pushing this point hard. Is anyone besides the faithful listening?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Richard, I was struck by the fact that secretary Clinton addressed it at all head on here today.

That's a sign that, one, she knows that she has to. And two, they're trying to move on quickly. So, they're not going out and sort of awaiting

as we saw her over the last year and a half or so.

[17:10:06] Really for one of the first times I can remember, and Richard, I can tell you I've been to a lot of campaign rallies, hundreds probably over

the last year and a half. She's never to my recollection, said from a stage at a campaign rally that she made a mistake on using emails. She has

said it in interviews in things, but she's never said it to a rallying crowd. So, they know that she still needs to acknowledge just a touch of

humility here. But then she quickly pivoted and said, look, there's nothing to see here. Huma Abedin is going to give up her emails and we

don't know that there's anything in them at all. What the Clinton campaign is going to do, is seize on the uncertainty here and all the blowback at

the FBI director and try and turn the page and move on. In the meantime, bank as many early votes as they can.

QUEST: What she's having to do and listening to her speak a moment ago, it's almost the same as Donald Trump with the sex scandal. When they

should be talking about policy, they're having to talk about something they don't want to talk about in the last crucial days of the campaign.

SABATO: Sure. Part of her closing argument has been scripted out, certainly did not include an apology originally. She wanted to be talking

about anything besides emails at this point the campaign. She wanted to be raising questions about Donald Trump at the end, not have questions raised

about her. But I'm not sure I would draw a parallel to the sex scandal. I think it's quite different in terms of the substance of it all. This is

sort of the, yes, she made the decision to use the private email server that had its consequences. It's not exactly apples to apples with the old

sex tape.

QUEST: Good point, Jeff, thanks for joining us. Look forward to talking to you more as the campaign moves into its last few days.

Now the latest revelations, I don't know, they may not have spooked them, but they were flat on Monday. But I mean, look at that. It's bit like the

Himalayas. Up a bit, down a bit, a true Halloween type of day. With a very large fall at 3:00 in the afternoon and a rally back up again to close

off 18 points when all was said and done. The broad S&P with a smaller loss, a quarter of a point. It's up around 2 percent over the past three

months. And the fact that the S&P is off 2 percent over that period is good news for Donald Trump and Heather Long is here.


QUEST: Tell me why a 2 percent fall in the S&P is good for Donald Trump.

LONG: That's right. It sort of means investors are a little on edge, maybe a little bearish right now. And there's an analyst who came up with

this test, looking for August 1st to October 31st. It's been correctly predicted what will happen, almost every election since 1944. And right

now, that predictor is swinging towards Donald Trump. We'll see if it's right this year.

QUEST: So, this is if the S&P is off.

LONG: That's right. If it declines from where it started in August 1st. So, that critical three-month period leading right into the election. And

so usually if the investors are skittish and they send the market down, that means they want change. They don't want the same party in the White


QUEST: To be fair, the analyst concerned describes it as a guide and not a guru.

LONG: That's right.

NEWTON: And it has been wrong?

LONG: It has been wrong a few times, particularly when there's a third- party candidate which we have this year. Some strong third-party. The other thing everybody looks at is the economy. What is the economy telling

us? This year, your folks they did Halloween candy, which is a good proxy for how the economy is doing, right? Because more people are buying even

more Halloween candy in America this year. Jobs are up, incomes are up. We just got a great number on GDP on Friday. All of that points very good

sign for Hillary Clinton.

QUEST: And let's have a quick look at the Mexican peso. That's not really what we'll see, giving us much of --

LONG: Not a strong one. For most of the month, we've been talking about the Mexican peso favoring Clinton because it's been going up, up, up.

QUEST: And the most useless of all investments, gold. It's pointing to Hillary Clinton. This is going to be fascinating. We'll watch this one

very, very carefully. Good to see you.

LONG: Thanks, a lot, Richard.

QUEST: We are going to continue to look at all of this stuff as we continue on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight.

Governor Mark Carney, his term of office is due to end in 2021. He has said he would be thinking of leaving in 2018. And now he says he's going

to extend it to stay until 2019 in the post Brexit Fiora. All that after the break.


QUEST: The Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, announced on Monday that he will stay an extra year to see the British economy through to its

upcoming exit from the European Union. Now, the Governor had sent this news in a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, and he

had to do it because there was so much speculation over whether Mark Carney would stay in the job long-term. Governor Carney said it will allow him to

help secure Britain's future relationship with the EU.

So, these are the crucial dates that you need to be aware of. First of all, you've got, March 31, 2017. The U.K. Prime Minister, Theresa May, has

said that she will trigger the Article 50 by the end of March next year. So, the Brexit process at its maximum or agreed maximum, takes two years.

So, assuming there's no extension, which is a reasonable assumption. That means Brexit takes place on March 31, 2019. And Governor Carney has now

extended his departure date to June 30, 2019. He will stay just a few months after the U.K. has formally left the European Union. The Chief

Executive of WPP, Sir Martin Sorrell, told us earlier he wanted to see Carney stay on.


MARTIN SORRELL, CEO, WPP: I very much hope that Mark Carney will stay as governor of the Bank of England. He's added -- he's a very steady hand at

the monetary tiller. And I hope he will stay. If he was to go, that would add to the uncertainty.


QUEST: So why decide to go in 2019 and not go the full length to 2021, which would be the end of his eight-year term? For that I turn to the U.S.

Managing Editor of the "Financial Times", Gillian Tett, to give me her thoughts on the move.


GILLIAN TETT, U.S. MANAGING EDITOR, FINANCIAL TIMES: Well, he would regard himself as doing his duty to be a steady hand at the helm during the debate

about Brexit. But he's also made it clear once Brexit takes hold, once a new era dawns, it may be for somebody else to actually steer the ship after

that. So, he's not running away, but nor is he giving the kind of commitment that some people would have liked. But he probably recognizes

that politically it would be hard for him to do that given the current tenor and tone of so much of the British political debate.

QUEST: He's taken a huge amount of heat for the stance he took during the referendum debate, even though he said he was non-political. And now of

course people are basically saying he's going to have to moderate his stance if he's staying on.

[17:20:00] TETT: Well, he would argue, as would most of his central bank colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic, that we're living through an era

when independent experts are under attack. Where a lot of politicians and the populous don't want to listen to economic advice, but also central

banks are becoming politicized. You can argue in some way, it was inevitable. Because go back a decade ago, people like Alan Greenspan were

being called maestro and everyone thought central banks walked on water. What he's suffering from is a bigger trend toward attacking central banks.

He as his colleagues would argue, they're the bulwark of independent, non- political, sound guidance for the wider economy, and they have to ensure the independence of the central banks.

QUEST: Thinking back to the press conferences he gave and the evidence he gave to various Westminster committees, do you think he was particularly

bruised or particularly -- not so much put out, but look, I really can't be bothered with all this stuff?

TETT: Well, I think he recognizes that if the political climate turns against you, it's exhausting trying to swim into the cross-currents. He's

made it clear that he had a view drawn from the economics. The public as a whole did not want to vote on the basis of economics. Yet he would regard

his mission having been to lay out the economics as he saw it. Could he have hedged more? Probably yes. But the reality is, he tried to be

independent. He's continuing to try to be independent.

The really bigger question though is, that if you want to understand the scale of political shift under way right now in London, the fact there is

now this row between Theresa May and Mark Carney is very striking. And the key point of stress is that right now the eyes of the world are on London.

People are looking for signs of growing, protectionism, paternalism, little England mentality growing polarization of key institutions. This kind of

row really is not comforting for international investors in any way.


QUEST: Jillian Tett of the Financial Times. European markets fell on Monday with low oil prices weighing down on energy shares. There had been

talks over the weekend by major oil producers in a didn't bring any plans for an output cut. You remember, OPEC has agreed that there should be a

cut, but who will cut and by how much, the devil is always in the details. Largest losses were in Zurich with the market off 1 percent.

South African officials are dropping charges of fraud against the country's finance minister. The rand has rallied. The decision to prosecute Pravin

Gordhan had sparked an outcry among civil society groups, opposition leaders and government officials. Our correspondent in Johannesburg is

David McKenzie. David, on this program, Pravin Gordhan said it was all a load of non-sense, my paraphrase, and that he would be vindicated. So, why

the prosecutorial authorities decided not to proceed?

DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's a very good question, and the question many people are asking, why did they decide to proceed in the

first place, Richard. They have dropped the charges of fraud against Pravin Gordhan, the respected finance minister, and two of his former

colleagues from the revenue service, for giving early retirement to one of those colleagues. Which many thought wasn't exactly a priority, given the

importance of the finance minister's position here in South Africa, trying to safe off a recession. But they did say that there was no real legal

basis to move forward. Pravin Gordhan was due to go to court in two days, and huge protests are still scheduled. It seems like in this case, the

battle has been won by the finance minister, but the war really appears to be ongoing, Richard.

QUEST: So how about our relations, believed to be between the finance minister -- if they still are bad -- and the president and what's behind

it? It's all to do with budgets.

MCKENZIE: Well, it's all to do, say, some, with an attempt to do by the President, Jacob Zuma to capture the treasury, as they put it. Because of

some big pending deals that could go through, including a nuclear deal worth billions. So, it's maybe less about budgets and more about cash or

greed, say some. But on paper at least, the presidency has said they have the full backing of the finance minister. The minister himself as said,

relations are good. But reading the tea leaves, which are swirling right now in South Africa, it would appear that relations are pretty bad indeed.

QUEST: But it is worth mentioning, isn't it, that in the financial community, and generally in South Africa, Pravin Gordhan is very highly

thought of as a finance minister. He was brought back as number three in three weeks or whatever, but he is -- I mean, to lose Pravin Gordhan in

circumstances would have been a blow.

[17:25:00] MCKENZIE: It would have been catastrophic to this economy. That's certainly the view of economists here in South Africa and investors

from abroad. You need that kind of stability in these difficult times, in emerging markets, particularly in South Africa, where there's very sluggish

growth, and signs that there could be a downgrade from ratings agencies. So, if the president and he may still reshuffle the cabinet and drop Pravin

Gordhan at this stage, it would have a catastrophic effect on currency, the rand, which rallied today on the news of these charges being dropped. This

is not the end of the saga by any means. Jacob Zuma and some of his ministers are fighting the release of a report by the public protector,

which could point to large-scale allegations of corruptions with state- owned enterprises and ministerial posts.

So, there is this ongoing battle and the business community in South Africa has become a lot more vocal, Richard, in recent weeks. Standing by the

financial minister, more than 80 CEOs publicly saying that they back him. An important move when government is such an important partner to business.

But at this stage it appears that Pravin Gordhan is safe. And at least for now, the jitters have slowed down maybe in the economy.

QUEST: David McKenzie in Johannesburg, thank you, sir, for staying up late for us tonight. We appreciate it.

As we continue on our nightly conversation on business and economics, of which are most welcome. America's top investigators has found himself

under close scrutiny. Director Comey's decision to notify Congress about the Clinton email probe, now traces back his last job at the world's top



QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. There's more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in just a moment. Dozens of American states ask the government for help in

fighting election day cyber-attacks. And the head if Illy Coffee is going to be here in the C-suite. We'll have a little bit of a cup ourselves.

But before all of that, this is CNN, and on this network the news it always comes first.

[17:30:00] Iraqi troops could enter Mosul in just a matter of hours, according to Iraq's counterterrorism chief telling state run media.

Special forces are now only hundreds of meters away from Mosul as they continue their offensive to reclaim the city from ISIS.

Hillary Clinton's telling her supporters there's no case here. That's after the FBI Director, James Comey, announced the bureau was reviewing

newly discovered emails linked to her private email server. Clinton has accused the FBI of playing politics and the White House appears to be

standing by Director Comey.


EARNEST: WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president is somebody who three years ago nominated Director Comey because he's a man of character. He's a

man of integrity. He's a man of principle. He is somebody who's had a distinguished legal career that's been rooted in making sure that his own

political views don't interfere with his responsibilities as a -- as an attorney, or as a law enforcement officer. So, look, the president thinks

very highly of Director Comey. And yes, you can assert that he continues to have confidence in his ability to do his job.


QUEST: Police in turkey have arrested 13 journalists of an prominent opposition newspaper. The Turkish government is accusing them of

publishing stories to legitimize the coup attempt in July. Is the latest sweeping government crackdown. Over the weekend, 10,000 public servants

were fired.

Three former U.S. Attorneys General have now publicly criticized the head of the FBI for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Director Comey drew fury in July from Republicans as he announced that his office would not recommend any charges against Hillary Clinton, despite

calling her use of her email server and handling of classified information extremely careless.

Comey had been a registered Republican and yet he stood up to the Bush administration over warrantless wire-tapping programs. Before he game the

FBI director he was at the world's biggest hedge fund Bridgewater, the founder insists on radical transparency. All meetings are recorded and

available to any employee. So, he has a long and distinguished history of investigation, of transparency and of openness. It was in that spirit that

Director Comey -- before he was director, when he was having his confirmation hearings -- pledged to bring to the FBI during those hearings.


JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: I went to Bridgewater in part because of that culture of transparency. It's something that's just long been part of me.

I promise you, I will carry that, those values with me and try to spread them as far as I can within the institution.


QUEST: Joining me now, Tom Fuentes, who served as the FBI's assistant director, he's in Washington. Good to see you, Tom, sir, thank you. And

Charles Kaiser is the author of the "Cost of Courage he says, James Comey has violated his duty to do no harm. First with you, Charles. When you

heard what Director Comey said there, transparency, you shouldn't be surprised that he decided he had to release news of his investigation.

CHARLES KAISER, AUTHOR, THE "COST OF COURAGE": Well, as two former deputy attorney generals have said, he's taken transparency to the point of making

it into a reality TV show. There isn't any problem with him wanting to investigate these emails that he's now discovered, the problem is, he

should never have announced it. There's no need to announce it.

QUEST: Except you've seen his letter. He said, I announced it because I had a duty to, having told Congress that there was no -- nothing else

there. If he had told Congress it would have leaked, he was better announcing it. It did leak actually from one of the Congressman.

KAISER: This is a duty that's only apparent to Mr. Comey, it's not apparent to a hundred former Justice Department officials. It's not

apparent former chief ethics lawyer in George Bush's White House, and it's certainly not apparent to me. And I think this is the second time that

he's violated decades of tradition. First time was the press conference in July. He shouldn't have had that press conference. He should have issued

a press release, which said, we've investigated these emails and Hillary Clinton has not committed a crime, full stop. That's where it should've


QUEST: Tom Fuentes, is that where it should have ended?

TOM FUENTES, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I agree that he probably shouldn't have had the press conference in July. What everybody's

leaving out, is the original breach of ethics was actually when Bill Clinton climbed on the plane with Loretta Lynch. That meeting lasted more

than 15 seconds. It's one thing if he'd have just said, hi, good to see you. Because he had appointed her to be Eastern District of New York U.S.

attorney in 1999, in the last year of his presidency. They've known each other and could have said hello, and as I said, 15 seconds. But that was a

more than 30-minute meeting, and that raised a cloud of suspicion because the decision was about to be made any day.

[17:35:00] And the meeting with Hillary Clinton it was any day.

KAISER: The former assistant director isn't suggesting that one breach of ethics means there should be a second breach of ethics by the FBI director.

FUENTES: No, no.

KAISER: That seems to be the implication here, I don't agree with that.

FUENTES: No, no, no. Let me continue. Loretta lynch, after that meeting and the outcry over the meeting with Clinton, she didn't say, I'm recusing

myself personally from the email case and allowing the deputy attorney general or another senior official or collection of senior officials at the

Department of Justice. She said, I'm deferring to the FBI. So, she handed the entire decision to Comey.

KAISER: That is correct, and he made that decision and it was right for him to make that decision, but why was it right for him to then engage in

extended character assassination of a person who he's declared not guilty of any prosecutable crime? Why was that in any way appropriate?

FUENTES: When he announced the closing of the case shortly after Loretta Lynch said the case was being closed against Hillary Clinton and her top

aides that were all subjects. And once it's no longer pending, I think in the transparency realm, he felt that he could go ahead and describe aspects

of the investigation, and you're right, I don't agree with it. Most of my former colleagues in the FBI don't agree that should have happened. But it

did. Now --

QUEST: I'm still here. I'm still here. The thing that's most troubling though, isn't it? I mean, I want to read you from the last part of the

letter that he sent to Congress. "Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant." You know, as other

people have said, and even he admits it in his letter to his own staff, "I don't want to create a misleading impression." In trying to strike the

balance in a brief letter in the middle of an election season, there's significant risk of being misunderstood." Tom Fuentes, isn't that what he

ended up doing, he's made a bad situation worse?

FUENTES: He made a bad situation worse and it would have been made worse if he didn't say anything and then after the election they did find

criminality in those emails that caused the case to go to the next level. So, he was in an absolutely no-win situation. He could be accused of

throwing the election in favor of one side or the other no matter whether he announced now or whether he announced afterward.

KAISER: But the way we are now, he's now the first FBI director, the first Justice Department official in our history to be accused of putting his

finger on the scale. And he had to know the impact of this would be the impact we've had.

QUEST: But I think the difference here is, you're suggesting he's done it for a party-political reason, by saying finger on the scale for a

particular result. Whereas, I think Tom would be saying, that actually he was doing it out of integrity of his office, however misguided.

KAISER: I don't know if he's putting his finger on the scale or not. But we know that he was awfully careful not to get involved in the question of

whether or not the Russian government was putting its finger on the scale of this election. There's a former FBI official who said to CNBC today

that he specifically took the FBI's name off the report, saying the Russians were interfering in our election because it was too close to the

election. Why isn't he being as careful not to influence on the side of the Democrats as he is on the side of the Republicans.

QUEST: So, are you accusing him of being partisan?

KAISER: I'm accusing him of being very careless and irresponsible.

QUEST: Final question to you, Tom. As a life, longer at the FBI, how do you feel about watching an agency that's supposedly the gold standard,

being kicked around in such a fashion?

FUENTES: Well, I feel terrible. And like I said, many of my colleagues, back on July 5th, when that announcement was made, were very upset about

the fact that because Comey didn't send the results of the investigation to the Department of Justice, whether they wanted it or not, that's what

should have happened. And when he made the decision, we're not calling for charges and then laid out so many instances of wrongdoing, let's say, the

extreme carelessness and the handling of classified material. He completely put the FBI in a political situation that it's not able to climb

out of even today.

KAISER: There's a difference between wrongdoing and criminal conduct and that's the distinction that he appropriately made at the time. There was

no criminal conduct, and there is no likelihood that we will discover otherwise.

FUENTES: The distinction was that he couldn't prove intent. That's why he didn't do it.

QUEST: Gentlemen, good to see you both.

KAISER: Thank you very much.

QUEST: Thank you, Tom.

FUENTES: Your welcome.

QUEST: Elections aren't rigged. U.S. authorities want to make sure they're not hacked either. Forty-two states have asked for help to defend

against cyber-attacks. But in what way can a cyber-attack affect an election? Bearing in mind, people are putting crosses and pulling levers.

We'll talk about that after the break.


QUEST: Forty-two of the U.S. states have now asked for help to defend their election system against cyber-attacks. The U.S. has already accused

Russia of trying to influence the election as we talked about a moment ago. Some 20 states have been hit by attacks over voter registration databases

and other systems. Our cyber security correspondent Jose Pagliery is following the story. What exactly -- I mean, since elections are all about

manual, you know, you push a thing in, you pull a lever, you put a cross on.


QUEST: So, where does a cyber-attack come in that could affect an election?

PAGLIERY: What we're talking about are hackers that are probing the registered systems of voting. So, the database of voters, or trying to see

whether or not they can hack into the machines. But for once on your program, I'm happy to be on and bring good news. It's a small likelihood

this is going to happen and here's why. There are three reasons why the election won't be hacked. One, we don't use machines that are connected to

the internet. It's that simple. Any hacker won't be able to get in. Two, 80 percent of voters are going to either going to either vote on paper or a

machine that produces a paper, so there's a paper trail, even if something weird or fishy happened, we'd be able to track it down. And the third

thing is that all these systems are decentralized. A hacker would have to attack one system and hack the entire U.S. election. They'd have to hack

every state or every small district and that's just unlikely.

QUEST: So, the ability to change results by hacking into a polling booth - -

PAGLIERY: It's nearly impossible.

QUEST: -- or accounting area, that then sends the result to the State Capital.

PAGLIERY: It's nearly impossible.

QUEST: But what it does prove is that the nirvana of democracy will be when we can vote online.


QUEST: And then you will see voting numbers go into the 90, 95 percent. That ain't gonna happen as long as there's this sort of thing.

PAGLIERY: That's pretty dangerous. And you know what? The real danger here that people are worried about. The reason why DHS here in the United

States is doing --

QUEST: Department of Homeland Security.

PAGLIERY: -- right -- is looking into this is they're worried that hackers are trying to alter the database of voters. But luckily states actually

print out these lists almost every day. And so, they can always go back to a paper and say, actually you can't add voters. These voters didn't exist.

Or you can't delete voters. These voters are already existing.

QUEST: But you get the feeling there is an entire cadre of baddies out there, waiting for the moment when -- look, I'm not a conspiracy theorist -


No, no, no.

QUEST: You're looking at me suspiciously.

PAGLIERY: What's really wrong here is when one district has one tiny malfunction, a tiny malfunction of a machine, the large groups of Trump

supporters will say, well, you see the whole election has been hacked and rigged. And that's just not likely. That's not going to happen.

QUEST: Halloween scream time, me thinks.

PAGLIERY: Thank you, Richard.

QUEST: This is pretty scary. The president and the first lady. Cause this is thriller in the night.

Look at him. The president's itching to move.

[17:45:00] Let me explain what you're looking at. You're looking at the Halloween party taking place at the White House. Local children are

performing Michael Jackson's Thriller for the president and first lady. And the president is looking like he just can't wait to join in. But he's

not going to give us a YouTube moment. And if he does give us that moment, assure you, we're waiting to record it for you.

There's no reason why humans and technology can't get along. In Germany, factories are hiring robots to help out the workers who are already there.

CNN's Atika Shubert has more as we continue our special look at Europe 2020.


ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Carmen is just one of dozens of kobots, co-worker robots on the production line at

German machine manufacturer SEW. She's now being designed to pick up loads as heavy as 500 kilos and help even a novice like me, gently guide a motor

for assembly.

SHUBERT (on camera): I'm pretty bad at this. It takes some practice, but Carmen does the heavy lifting.

Good job, Carmen.

SHUBERT (voice-over): Since adding Carmen, Tanya, Jesse and other kobots, they all have female names, SEW has seen a 15 percent gain in productivity

and as much as a 40 percent decrease in production time. In this factory alone, they make more than a million different kinds of specialty motors.

The key says SEW's managing director, is to think of all the different ways kobots can assist humans.

JOHANN SODER, SEW MANAGING DIRECTOR (through translator): We created a different way of working, a human-robot cooperation that puts the human

workforce at its center.

SHUBERT: The most popular robots here are the smart work stations that roll across the factory floor alongside employees on bicycle. These kobots

don't just deliver parts. They can spot mistakes and alert their human co-workers. German factories

have long embraced the robot revolution.

This year Adidas announced its newest shoes will be made by so-called speed factory robots and Volkswagen has used them to manufacture its cars.

Earlier this year, The World Economic Forum estimated that as many as five million jobs worldwide could be lost to robots and other technological

changes in the next four years. But SEW insists that the robots' increase in productivity has actually allowed them to expand and create more jobs

not lose employees.

SEW wants robots, not for a fully automated factory line, but as assistants, to help humans, not replace them, explains the supervisor Toto

Valenziano, who's worked here for more than two decades.

TOTO VALENZIANO, SEW SUPERVISOR, (through translator): We used to have 35- meter assembly lines. It was hard work and monotonous. Now the robots give us some relief. And there is greater variety in how we work.

SHUBERT: SEW is developing new robots and carmen will soon have a younger stronger sister, Karina, for new factory lines. For the robots and humans

in this factory, there's no looking back. Atika Shubert, CNN, Stuttgart, Germany.


QUEST: We're going to stay with matters of Europe, at least in relation to European companies and the question of the effect of climate change on

coffee. Joining us after the break, the chief executive of Illy Coffee.


QUEST: Good to see you, sir. Join me in the C-suite after you've enjoyed a moment from make, create, innovate.


QUEST: There are many aspects to climate change, and the question of coffee production and the quality of coffee is of crucial importance for

those countries and those in poverty who actually grow coffee.

Andrea Illy is the chairman of Illy coffee. He joins me now. He's in New York for discussions about the impact of climate change on the industry.

And now his company is collaborating with the Earth Institute. Clearly there's going to be an effect, but what is that effect?

ILLY: There is already. Climate change impacts quality of coffee and productivity as well, in two ways. Too high temperatures and also drought

and too much rain.

QUEST: So, if you accept that it has an effect and we're trying to change climate change, but that's a bit long term for you. So, you have got to

change what?

ILLY: We have to adapt. We have to adapt coffee agriculture by first changing the agronomical practices. Second, develop new plant varieties.

Third, migrate as well the plantation to higher altitude and higher latitudes. So, it's a big, big challenge. Because in the meantime, we

will have to double the production.

So, with Colombia University, there has been a study made that confirms by 2050, there might be as low as 50 percent of the currently suitable land

for coffee agriculture, and we will need to produce twice as much. So, increasing productivity four-fold.

QUEST: Let's go back to basic economics. Are you saying that demand is going up and production could be going down?

ILLY: Could be going down. Let's see. I hope that we will still have time to start and trigger a significant movement towards adaptation. This

is why I'm recommending a global Arabica plant which would be public- private partnership, multi stakeholder, bringing together all those who could ensure three core activities. Knowledge transfer, fundraising,


QUEST: To do what? Is this to shift the growth area, the methods of growing?

ILLY: Whatever is need. First adapting the agronomical practices by irrigation, shadowing the plantation, better precision agriculture and so

on and so forth. Second, very critical, developing new plant varieties, resistant to the effects of climate change. For that Illy coffee, together

with our colleague Lavazza are finalizing the mapping of the genome. The Arabica genome, which would be the critical resource.

QUEST: So, this is an event where you're having to team up with your competitors?

ILLY: With everybody has to team up. There is no way that anybody can do a change by his own. No way, nobody.

QUEST: If we look at the general coffee-buying trend at the moment, and I mean, there are some people, myself included, spending three or four

dollars for a couple of coffee which seems to be outrageously expensive here in New York, but coffee drinking globally is on the way up?

ILLY: Absolutely, coffee is not a commodity any longer, it is an experiential product.

QUEST: Oh, no. It's a drink!

ILLY: It's a fantastic drink, like it would be wine. Very experiential, pleasure, health, and sustainability, which makes coffee much more positive

and well accepted by emerging countries like China.

[17:55:00] Like the Middle East, like the rest of Asia. Asia is now the second largest region in terms of coffee consumption worldwide, before the

United States.

QUEST: Pleasure? What was it?

ILLY: Health and sustainability.

QUEST: I think we can just leave it at those. I'm not sure which I prefer, the pleasure, the health, or the sustainability, but I think if you

put all three together, you're onto a winner. Pleasure, health, sustainability. There's a thought. We'll have a Profitable Moment after

the break.


QUEST: Tonight's Profitable Moment. It is Halloween, a true scary -- thank you very much, a true scary moment. Appropriately for this U.S.

election season. As you heard on this program, nobody could have even written a script that anybody would have believed could have been true.

First of all, you have a reality show TV star who becomes one of the nominees. Then you have all the scandals, then you have the sex scandal,

and then finally this email scandal right at the end. True Halloween type event.

And yet there's a serious underlying thought to all of this, and it is that in just seven days from now, the U.S. election will take place. So many

people have already had early voting, but this time next week it will be just about time for the big election day. That's it QUEST MEANS BUSINESS

for tonight.

I'm Richard Quest, in New York, whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable. Happy Halloween and I will see you tomorrow.