Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
A.G. Bondi Names US Attorney To Lead Epstein Probe Ordered By Trump; Interview With Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL); Trump Again Does Not Rule Out Maxwell Pardon; Sources: Epstein Accomplice Maxwell Gets Special Privileges In Prison; New Prosecutor For GA Election Interference Case Vs. Trump, Allies; Documentary Follows War Photographer Lynsey Addario; Cheetos And Doritos Ditch Dyes, Artificial Flavors In Some New Products. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired November 14, 2025 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AUDIE CORNISH, CNN HOST, "THE ASSIGNMENT WITH AUDIE CORNISH PODCAST": And as a result, you can either play on that grievance and that be your politics, or you can try and address the issues that they are struggling with. and she sees voters looking to outside the mainstream parties because they want to hear someone who's focused on the solution. But it's tough, right? She's out of office and President is back in and I think one of the things she's trying to do is talk to a new, young generation of leaders. We were at Oxford University about what it would mean to do something different from the kind of strong men approach that we're seeing around the world.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: All right, Audie, thank you so much and of course, there's Audie's full interview and the CNN film "Prime Minister" that airs Sunday night at nine. And thanks so much to all of you for being with us on this Friday. AC360 starts now.
[20:00:47]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: All right, tonight on 360. Look at them, not me. The President just said it again only hours after ordering the Justice Department to launch an Epstein investigation into Democrats, including Bill Clinton, among other things, is this a way to keep the Epstein files from being released?
Also tonight, just moments ago, the President yet again did not rule out freeing Ghislaine Maxwell from prison, cushy as her club fed camp may be. The author of "Orange is the New Black" on Maxwell's cozy life behind bars and how that may have happened.
And later, new developments in the Georgia racketeering case, which just got a second wind and still has Donald President as a defendant.
All right, good evening John Berman here, in for Anderson and tonight, just moments ago, the President of the United States asked Americans in so many words to look at them, not at me when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein. Listen to his answer aboard Air Force One to this question about one of the many e-mails and messages released this week by the House Oversight Committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: What did Jeffrey Epstein mean in his e-mails when you said you knew about the girls?
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I know nothing about that, they would have announced that a long time ago. It's really what did he mean when he spent all the time with Bill Clinton, with the President of Harvard, who, you know, that is Summers, Larry Summers, whatever his name is, and all of the other people that he spent time with. Jeffrey Epstein and I had a very bad relationship for many years. But he also saw strength because I was President. So he dictated a couple of memos to himself? Give me a break. You're going to find out what did he know with respect to Bill Clinton, with respect to the head of Harvard, with respect to all of those people that he knew, including JPMorgan Chase.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Look at them, not me, the President tonight, earlier today, he put that theme into action. He rolled it out on his social network this morning, quoting now from the post, "I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's involvement in relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, JPMorgan Chase and many other people and institutions to determine what was going on with them and him.
Attorney General Pam Bondi quickly reposted that, adding, thank you, Mr. President in naming Jay Clayton, U.S. attorney for the New York Southern District, to head up the probe. He is, she said, one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country. As for his designated target, CNN has reached out to all three men for comment. Reid Hoffman just did, and CNN's Kaitlan Collins joins us shortly with more on that and other information.
A spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase says the bank ended its relationship with Epstein years before his sex trafficking arrest in 2019. And yes, Clinton, his former treasury secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers and entrepreneur Reid Hoffman are all prominent Democrats. And yes, in addition to that, and his remarks tonight, the President underscored his partisan focus with an earlier post which reads in part, "Epstein was a Democrat, and he is the democrat's problem, not the Republican's problem".
And even that wasn't the first time he has said that, Look at them, not me. Here he is in July.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You should focus on Clinton. You should focus on the President of Harvard, the former President of Harvard. You should focus on some of the hedge fund guys. I'll give you a list. These guys lived with Jeffrey Epstein. I sure as hell didn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Whatever you might make of that, the President today essentially made it official, which, again, makes this an active investigation and again, gives the Justice Department a new reason, maybe not to release the Epstein files, which, just to underscore, could contain answers to questions like, who actually did spend time with Jeffrey Epstein, when and where and under what circumstances?
Which goes for Democrats, Republicans and others alike. The files could also provide a coherent picture, which we still do not have of Donald Trump's relationship with Epstein, or when it ended.
Remember the initial story about their falling out involved competition over a real estate purchase but then, in late July, just a few days after that clip, we just played, the President said something different. The breakup, he said, was over Epstein poaching female employees from Mar-a-Lago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Trump: He took people and because he took people, I said, don't do it anymore, you know, they work for me. and he took -- beyond that, he took some others and once he did that, that was the end of him. so that was explanation r me. and he took beyond that. he took some others and once he did that, that was the end of him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:05:18]
BERMAN: So that was explanation number two. It was a question of business ethics, let that sink in. But here's explanation number three from his own press secretary, which flat out says her boss split with Epstein because of what he was doing to young girls.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Can you address their substance? Did the President ever spend hours at Jeffrey Epstein's house with a victim?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, UNITED STATES PRESS SECRETARY: These e-mails prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump. And what President trump has always said is that he was from Palm Beach, and so was Jeffrey Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago until President Trump kicked him out, because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile and he was a creep.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: So there are three explanations for the split, which the DOJ files might be able to clarify. and now possibly more than one timeline. Remember this week's batch of e-mails contains one from 2016, just days after the election, in which Epstein says he was in New York at Trump tower, that we have no independent confirmation that he was actually there, or who he saw or didn't see if he was.
At a minimum, though, that e-mail raises questions about the President's claim, their relationship ended in the mid 2000s, something the Epstein files could clear up. But even if they have nothing to say on the subject, if the President is right and he has done nothing wrong here, won't the files confirm that, won't they confirm as he claims that only Democrats are culpable? Never mind transparency or concern for survivors or even simple justice. One plain old self-interest, argue. He does the opposite of what he's been doing all along.
So, there is a lot going on tonight. Starting us off, chief White House correspondent and anchor of "The Source", Kaitlan Collins. Kaitlan, the President on Air Force One, speaking just moments ago. What else what else has he been saying?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, essentially, he was trying to make this argument, John, that he had nothing to do with Jay Clayton being picked as the person who was going to head up this investigation. But of course, that is something that came just about four hours after he posted this morning that he was directing and asking the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to conduct this investigation only into the high profile Democrats who were named in those e-mails that we got from the House Oversight Committee this week, even though Donald Trump, of course, was also named personally by Jeffrey Epstein in multiple of those e-mails more times than Bill Clinton was actually named in the tranche that we got this week.
And so, the President is arguing that he does have the right to ask the Justice Department to conduct investigations. Obviously, this is a complete bypass of a traditional line of independence between the west wing and the department of justice, with Pam Bondi coming out and saying, yes, we will conduct this investigation that the President was asking for and here's who's going to do it.
But I think the other thing that stood out to me, John, is just listening to the President there, as he was arguing that Republicans who are supporting the discharge petition on Capitol Hill, that they're dumb and that they are buying into a Democratic plot here basically is what he's saying to distract from his success and Republican success. But of course, by announcing this investigation, they are only prolonging the Epstein story line even further. and of course, you have to highlight, it comes four months after the Justice Department said there was nothing else to investigate here.
BERMAN: There's nothing else to investigate. Now, he's launching an investigation. What are sources behind the scenes telling you about this shift in strategy?
COLLINS: I think the White House just -- this has totally gotten out of their control and out of their hands. I remember the day after the -- it was maybe two days after the DOJ put that statement out in July 2025, Trump had a cabinet meeting, and it was when MAGA was blowing up and everyone was so upset about the DOJ coming out and saying no other people were going to be charged as a result of this investigation. And the President kind of exploded when a reporter asked him about it inside the cabinet meeting that followed after, saying, are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? And of course, that has led to where we are now, where it has dominated as a story line in a way that completely has surprised people that I've spoken to inside this administration, inside this White House. And now, with the announcement of this investigation and Reid Hoffman saying, well, this is a ploy to just not release the e- mails, just to say there's an investigation ongoing. He's saying, just release all the e-mails.
BERMAN: Look, this is a White House that is largely driving the story line here. Kaitlan Collins, great to see you, you're going to have a few things to talk about at the top of the hour on "The Source". Thank you very much.
Now, just before air, I spoke with Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi about the President's call to investigate Epstein's connection to other high profile people.
All right, Congressman Krishnamoorthi, just a reminder, the President could order or call for the release of all DOJ files on Jeffrey Epstein, right now. But that aside, what do you think the point is of this new investigation?
REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): I think the point is to deflect. The point is to somehow deter, discourage the further investigation of what happened with this child sex trafficking ring by Jeffrey Epstein. But I don't think he's going to do that. I think it's going to do the opposite. I think it stiffens peoples resolve to do right by the survivors.
We met with them for hours. Their stories are credible and specific. There are more than a thousand victims of this child sex trafficking ring. And for the sake of doing justice for them, we have to get to the bottom of what happened, but also to prevent this from ever happening again to anybody. I think there's increased resolve on a bipartisan basis to get all these files.
[20:10:40]
BERMAN: If there is an ongoing investigation, how do you think that could impact the release of the so-called Epstein files?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I don't see how that should prevent our investigation from going forward. They may attempt, but I don't think that that will have an impact. I believe that we should continue to press for all these files on a bipartisan basis through our subpoena power. But in addition to that, the Jeffrey Epstein estate is going to continue to produce these documents on a rolling basis, regardless of what the administration does.
BERMAN: Even if this discharge petition, even if you put this bill up for a vote on the floor next week and it passes, which it looks like it will, it has to pass the Senate, then President Trump would need to sign it, right? How likely do you think that is to happen? In other words, how likely is it that these files just remain unreleased?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, it depends. If we are able to pass it with a veto proof majority in the house, which is increasingly looking likely, then I think there will be a lot of pressure in the Senate to potentially do the same. In addition, there are more documents that are coming out every single day. As I said, from the Jeffrey Epstein estate. So we may end up with a situation where we have a veto proof majority in both the House and the Senate, so that even if he vetoes it or refuses to sign, we are still able to get this signed or make this legislation law.
BERMAN: And just lastly, "The Washington Post" is reporting tonight that in 2019, when President Trump's former attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen was testifying in Congress, according to text messages, Jeffrey Epstein was watching and appeared to be texting with a Democratic lawmaker during the hearing and further, his text may have influenced the lawmakers questions to Cohen. You were at this hearing but what's your reaction to this news? And do you think it's appropriate for a lawmaker to be going back and forth, taking guidance from a convicted sex offender?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, I wouldn't be taking any guidance from Jeffrey Epstein. I don't know all the details of what's occurred. I'd be -- I want to know what this report says and what the lawmaker says in return. But I, for one, I remember that hearing very distinctly. I was not texting with Jeffrey Epstein during that hearing.
BERMAN: If there are Democrats who were in the Jeffrey Epstein orbit, should they be investigators? Should questions be raised about them just as questions are raised about anyone else?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Sure, I don't think anybody should be spared any scrutiny with regard to Jeffrey Epstein and their ties to him. You know, this is something where you know, again, meeting with the victims or the survivors, it's shocking the conscience, what occurred and the fact that it's been more than 20 years and no justice has been served. And one last thing. I just feel, given that the President has now said certain things and they're contradicted by what's in the e- mails, I believe that he knows more than what he's letting on. And, you know, we don't want him or anybody in the White House to engage in any form of a cover up, which unfortunately, a lot of people are starting to believe is happening, given that they're blocking production of these files.
BERMAN: Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, thanks so much for being with us.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.
BERMAN: Next, more on what the President had to say tonight, namely about Ghislaine Maxwell, who he again did not rule out pardoning.
Later, your health science and the existential question at the heart of it. Is it physically, humanly possible to create a healthy Cheeto?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:19:05] BERMAN: Speaking tonight on Air Force One, the President did more than just try to deflect attention from any connections he has had with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. He also said something, again, that puts the spotlight squarely back on it, specifically about Maxwell.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Have you ruled out a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell?
TRUMP: I haven't even thought about it. I haven't thought about it for months and maybe I haven't thought about it at all, you're just asking me a question.
REPORTER: Why can't you rule that out?
TRUMP: But I don't talk about that. I don't rule it in or out, I don't I don't even think about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: I don't rule it in or rule it out. With us now, former Trump campaign adviser David Urban, investigative reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick and Jeffrey Toobin, bestselling author of "The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy".
David, let me start with you. Why can't the President just rule out pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker?
DAVID URBAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, John, I think the President wants to move on from this. As you've heard in the previous reporting, he just wants to get it past him and says, I think if he talks about -- he thinks he talks about pardoning her one way or the other, it's going to continue the news cycle.
Listen, John, I think your earlier segment there with the congressman asking about what Democrats -- the Democrat member of Congress who was texting with Jeffrey Epstein while Michael Cohen was being, you know, was being questioned by the panel, the amount of time that the Biden administration had, if there was some salacious material here that Jeffrey Epstein had, or if it's in these files, it would have been relayed to that Democratic member of Congress, I assure you, or would have been leaked by the Biden administration, I assure you.
And so, I don't know that my first advice to the Trump administration would be, you know, bad news doesn't get better with age, just get it out, get this whole thing out and move on. Start talking about things that people want to talk about.
[20:20:52]
BERMAN: Yes, okay. But it's sort of been the opposite of what they've done. They haven't released it and they fought the release of it, every step of the way, which we'll come back to in just a second.
Jeffrey, just very quickly, you literally wrote the book on pardons. What do you make of the President continuing not to rule out a pardon to Ghislaine Maxwell?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: But look at the context. First, they send the deputy attorney general of the United States, who never does any investigating down to give a softball interview to Ghislaine Maxwell. Then, they move her from the appropriate level of security prison into a much cushier prison. Now, they don't rule out a pardon. All of it points to the fact that they want to keep her on team Trump, as opposed to team truth. That's the problem with all of this.
BERMAN: All right, moving on to the now, what about this new investigation the President ordered a very selective investigation.
BERMAN: I mean, you have to recognize what a departure this is from the norms of how American justice is supposed to work. You're supposed to investigate crimes, not people. And the President, historically, certainly ever since Watergate has been insulated from making decisions about whom to investigate, to avoid precisely what's going on now, which is a Republican President ordering an investigation of his political enemies.
It is a distortion and an appalling misuse of the Justice Department and Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in Southern District, is now destroying one of the jewels of American law enforcement, that office, by participating in this appalling act.
BERMAN: In the face of all this, Sarah, there is this vote on Capitol Hill in the House next week to release all the so-called Epstein files. What are you hearing from your sources about that vote?
SARAH FITZPATRICK, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: So I think what I would say is it's a very live ball situation. It's a very frantic situation. People on the Hill, specifically, Republicans are so angry that they have been put in this position. They are angry that they are being forced to be in a position to either support the White House or support their constituents, support these calls for transparency and the understanding at least the state of play right now is that most sources that I spoke to believe that this discharge has the votes, and it will go forward, that White House, all of their frantic last minute behind the scenes efforts to try and contain this stall, this pressure, people, it's just not working.
And if anything, it's had the opposite effect. So, I think that we are going towards some really explosive developments next week.
BERMAN: And, David, this new investigation, the President ordered in a specific people, if that is covered, because the Justice Department say, hey, you know what, we can't release the files because there's an active investigation. What do you think then it's worth it?
URBAN: Yes no, listen, I think you know, all these files should be released. Look, again, bad news doesn't get better with age. Let's just get that -- get everything out there. Let the chips fall where they may. There's, look, Larry Summers, if you read some of the reporting "The New York Times" had it's pretty explosive ask. You know, Bill Gate's wife, what she thinks about what happened. I mean, there's a lot of interesting things are going to be in there. We know that one of the victims, the late Miss Giuffre, who had nothing, you know, nothing, no punches to pull with Donald Trump said she never experienced or witnessed him acting in any manner that would be questionable. And so, you know, I think that they should just let this all go. It doesnt matter what the House, the House is going to vote. They're going to vote to discharge. It's going to happen. The Senate will never touch this. I will sooner grow hair on my head than the Senate votes on this and that Donald Trump -- that this gets to the President's desk, it's never going to happen.
TOOBIN: That much. I agree with brother Urban about, that I think the Senate is going to hide from this and they are -- but I disagree about the reason. I mean, the reason you keep something secret is you don't want something in it to be disclosed. I mean, isn't that the obvious reason, David?
URBAN: Yes, you know, Jeff, I don't know what's in -- I don't know what's there. But don't you agree, do you agree that if the Democrats tried so hard, we had four trials, I sat with you and John and others on this network as we watched trial after trial, effort after effort, they threw the kitchen sink at Donald Trump. I would take a different position on weaponization of the Department of Justice and the Biden administration and just say many President supporters would say that's what happened exactly for four years. And so, if there was something salacious in these documents, you know the old saying, Jeff, if there's a secret in Washington, two people know about it, it's no longer a secret.
If there's something in these documents, there's something in these files that makes Donald President look, if it made him look bad, it would have been leaked years ago. So, I think Jeffrey Epstein would have told that Democratic lawmaker, I want to know who's texting back and forth of this.
[20:25:43]
TOOBIN: David, that's just not true. That's not how the Justice Department worked. There were not leaks of those kinds under Merrick Garland. I mean, you can laugh, but it's just simply not true. and the fact that it's not out now --
URBAN: I just like -- what did Bill Clinton talk about on the runway, I wonder?
BERMAN: Well, I will say this, I will say this. We can find out a lot more about what's in the Jeffrey Epstein files if the President or attorney general decided today, which they could to release them. David Urban, Sarah Fitzpatrick, Jeff Toobin, thank you all so much.
We'll have much more on Ghislaine Maxwell and the revelations about her now cushy life at a club fed prison camp. We're going to ask former prison inmate Piper Kerman, who wrote the book "Orange Is The New Black" that led to the hit show. And later, Anderson, speaks about the stark realities of war with a photojournalist at the center of a remarkable new documentary on the subject.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LYNSEY ADDARIO, AMERICAN PHOTOJOURNALIST: This is Lynsey Addario in the village of Novoluhansk, we're being shelled.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:31:29]
BERMAN: In addition to our breaking news that the President once again has not ruled out pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell, there is news about the prison camp where she is reportedly enjoying special privileges, specifically about the people who work there losing their jobs.
CNN's Annie Grayer is part of the team that broke this story and joins us now. Annie, great to see you tonight. What's Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer claiming?
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Maxwell's attorneys are supporting the firings of these prison workers because they say that the whistleblower who shared information and documents and emails with Democrats in Congress broke attorney-client privilege.
But Democrats in Congress who received this information argue that no attorney-client privilege was broken because anyone who operates on these prison systems has to consent to being monitored. In fact, the Democrats who received this information put everything they learned in a letter directly for the President to respond to, and they've also asked the Bureau of Prisons to weigh in, which we have not heard back from.
BERMAN: So you have your own extensive reporting on these special privileges that Ghislaine Maxwell is receiving from sources familiar with her life in prison. What can you tell us about that?
GRAYER: So the whistleblower has a lot to say about how Maxwell is being treated in prison. Apparently, she's able to have her meals delivered directly to her. She has her own service dog that she's able to play with. She's able to exercise after hours by herself in a special area.
The warden even is apparently serving as sort of a go-between between Maxwell and the outside world, quickly being able to deliver information for Maxwell. And the whistleblower claims that none of this is normal treatment for other prisoners at this facility.
And Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in the sex trafficking ring with Jeffrey Epstein. And there's a lot of questions about Maxwell, renewed scrutiny especially because the Justice Department interviewed her over the summer, and shortly after that, Maxwell was moved into this lower-security prison.
BERMAN: Great work, great reporting as always, Annie Grayer. Thank you so much.
So 20 years ago, Piper Kerman spent 13 months in federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut. She turned that experience into a best-selling book, "Orange is the New Black: My Year in a Women's Prison," which itself became an Emmy-winning Netflix series of the same name, which you might remember the main character is named Piper.
She's spoken widely on behalf of the incarcerated as an advocate for reforms in the criminal justice system, and she joins us now. Thanks so much for being with us.
When you hear these reports about special privileges, what are called special privileges according to Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex offender, what stands out to you?
PIPER KERMAN, CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM ACTIVIST: You know -- hi, John. I think two things stand out to me. The first is some of the characterization of the facility where she's being held as cushy, which, you know, there are no cushy facilities that incarcerate women in the federal system. They are anything but cushy.
But special treatment is a different story, and I can definitely say that the things that are being reported are very unusual or largely unheard of. So, you know --
BERMAN: What jumped out to you specifically? Yes.
KERMAN -- people do not gain -- so, you know --
BERMAN: Specifically, what was unusual, yes.
KERMAN: Individual prisoners do not usually have direct access or frequent access to wardens, for example. There are many, many staff at a prison facility, and there's a chain of command. You know, prisons are highly regimented organizations, and prisoners are expected to follow the rules and the protocols.
Every prison has very clearly written policies governing all of these, you know, issues, like public communication or something like, you know, a legal call.
[20:35:09]
So, for example, legal communications, like a phone call with your lawyer or mail from your lawyer, are protected. And, in fact, staff are not allowed to read them or listen to them. So these things are very clear-cut in the federal system and, you know, privileges are not frequently granted.
BERMAN: Yes, you know, one of the perks that I think that people may be surprised that is a perk is the idea of unlimited toilet paper, unlimited toilet paper that Maxwell is being accorded here. How important --
KERMAN: Yes.
BERMAN: -- would something like that be to the average inmate?
KERMAN: When I was incarcerated, we were issued five rolls of toilet paper per month. So, you know, we can all think about, you know, that if we choose to. You know, I find it kind of grotesque when we think about how many people are incarcerated in this country for, you know, offenses that are much less serious than the ones that we're talking about here.
When we think about that, and if you have to have, you know, intimate access, knowledge, and acquaintance with the President of the United States in order to get sufficient toilet paper, I frankly think that that's more worthy of some attention from the -- from Congress than all of the issues associated with the Epstein case.
The Epstein case is really outrageous. I mean, I'm horrified by what has happened to so many women and girls, and there's a really painful irony here when we think about, you know, the Epstein case broadly and Ms. Maxwell specifically. And that's the -- the majority of women and girls who end up in our prisons and jails, the majority of them are the victims of physical violence, and the rates of sexual assault survival are sky high.
So the victims of Epstein and his powerful friends are much more likely to have something in common with the average incarcerated woman than they are to have something in common with Ghislaine Maxwell.
BERMAN: How unusual was her move from the Florida facility to this Texas facility?
KERMAN: That's unusual because she has a very lengthy sentence. So your security designation has a lot to do with, you know, your crime of conviction, but also the length of your sentence. So, obviously, someone who's been convicted of childhood sex trafficking and has a 20-year sentence is much more likely to be held in a high-security facility.
I think one of the things that I hope, you know, everyone who's concerned about the Epstein case and outraged by, you know, all of the shocking things that are related to Ms. Maxwell's case, but also all of the other hidden stories here, is that, you know, the vast majority of people who end up in these systems have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell or any of Jeffrey Epstein's friends.
Eighty percent of the people who are accused of crimes in this country are too poor to afford a lawyer, you know. So, people become very --
BERMAN: Right.
KERMAN: -- angry and upset about the conditions that people are experiencing in prison because they think they're too cushy, but they're anything but cushy. And the allegations in terms of special privileges that are happening are really unheard of.
And, of course, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which is part of the Department of Justice, has incarcerated a lot of high-profile female and male prisoners. But some of the things that are being alleged about this case and this situation are highly unusual.
BERMAN: Piper Kerman, you've done so much work on this subject. We really appreciate your time tonight in this discussion. Thank you so much.
Up next, the Georgia election interference case against the President and several of his allies is still alive with a new prosecutor to replace Fani Willis.
Plus, Anderson's conversation with Pulitzer Prize winning war photographer Lynsey Addario, who's the focus of a new documentary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's frustrating. I'm constantly tortured like I'm not in the right place. But I come back. I'm supposed to be really happy. I feel like I should be there. And I feel like a bad journalist because I'm not. My head is always where I'm not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:44:12]
BERMAN: The sprawling criminal case connected to the President's effort to overturn his 2020 Georgia election defeat has gained new life, maybe, in the form of a new prosecutor. Peter Skandalakis, director of the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia, has selected himself to oversee the prosecution after being assigned the case back in September.
With us now is Former U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, Michael Moore. Counselor, great to see you. How do you read this? Because I think some people are seeing it as, oh, breathes new life into the trial, into the investigation. But does it really? Does this make it more likely it goes to trial?
MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I'm glad to be with you, John.
This -- if there's any life being breathed into this thing, it's because it's on CPR. And I'll just tell you, this case is probably circling the drain, if you ask me. Remember that Mr. Skandalakis looked for some other prosecutor to take the case and was not able to find anybody willing to do it. And that speaks volumes, I think, as well. I mean, nobody wants to necessarily come in and clean up the mess that was left there.
[20:45:12]
But Mr. Skandalakis also was involved in an investigation related to the case as it related to the current lieutenant governor and whether or not there was something that went on there, dealing with election interference. And, you know, he decided that there was nothing to be done and he did not move forward on any charges at that point. So I think this case and where we are now is probably likely to meet the same fate, and that is to find its way to a dismissal, you know, fairly quickly.
BERMAN: Before it even gets before a judge again?
MOORE: Well, the judge has set a pretty quick hearing for the first week of December to have a status conference and to sort of find out where things are. I don't know that if I were prosecuting the case, if I'd want to have to stand up and answer questions from the court about where we were and what was going on and what my plans were, if in fact I thought I might be looking at a dismissal.
I think we'll probably hear and we may hear it in some press conference right before the hearing or something. We'll hear a recitation of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. We'll hear about the constitutional rights and the Sixth Amendment rights that other defendants may have to call witnesses who may be unavailable.
Perhaps they want to call Trump, and he's not available because he's the sitting President of the United States, so he's not subject to a subpoena to come testify in court. But I think you'll hear those things said, and ultimately the case may not see the light of day.
BERMAN: Is the President in a different boat than some of the co- defendants?
MOORE: He's in a different boat because he's the sitting President, and he also has the immunity decision behind him. But if I were arguing on behalf of the co-defendants, I would say, look, he was named in the indictment. He's somebody that you said was involved in our conspiracy. He's somebody that was involved in this RICO case.
And if you're going to try me, I've got a right under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to subpoena witnesses on my behalf. And I want him to come testify on my behalf. And, frankly, since that's now impossible, they'll argue that they're being denied their constitutional right to a fair trial.
So I just think that there are so many hurdles. It's hard for me to imagine that we get anywhere with the case right now.
BERMAN: You know, after Fani Willis was removed again and this guy started searching for other prosecutors, is it surprising to you that there were none who were jumping at a chance to take it?
MOORE: No. The -- DAs are elected here in Georgia, so they're political animals. And so nobody really wants to be saddled with this thing, you know. And it's not really just because of the mess that Ms. Willis's conduct created. It's also because of the way the case was handled, the way it was indicted.
It was brought in on charges that were too expansive. They tried to make a RICO case out of it instead of a simple, readily provable offense. They brought in charges that were related to the time that Trump was in office as opposed to the time that he after he was out of office, and that gets tangled up in the immunity ruling.
So you've got the conduct, you've got the complexity and you've got now just the mess. And so it just doesn't surprise me to see that no prosecutor wanted to sort of dirty themselves, their reputation, maybe the rest of their career with the case.
BERMAN: Michael Moore, Counselor, always great to see you. Have a great weekend.
MOORE: Great to be with you. Same to you.
BERMAN: All right. Our next guest has escaped shelling in Ukraine, survived a car accident in Pakistan. She's been kidnapped twice. That she says raising kids is so much harder than war.
I'm talking about Pulitzer Prize Winning Photojournalist Lynsey Addario. She's the subject of a new documentary, "Love and War." Anderson spoke with her earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: First of all, did you always want to be a photographer, a photojournalist in war zones?
ADDARIO: No. No, I never wanted to be a war photographer. I -- my father gave me a camera when I was 12, 13. My parents were hairdressers.
So we grew up in a house with no newspapers, not a very intellectual upbringing. And so I actually wasn't even aware of photojournalism as like a possibility.
COOPER: I want to play a clip from this documentary because it's from Ukraine. This was civilians being targeted by Russian forces. I mean, I remember this so well when it happened. Let's take a look.
ADDARIO: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): They were evacuating 200 children, peaceful vicilians.
(BOMBING)
ADDARIO: Am I bleeding? Am I bleeding?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no.
ADDARIO: All right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stay there.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right.
(SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a person.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's great.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Of fuck. Killing civilians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: I mean, I think I spoke to you from -- I was in Lviv and you were in a hotel and having witnessed that that day.
ADDARIO: Yes.
COOPER: In that moment, do you know what you're getting through the lens?
ADDARIO: Not really. I mean, clearly, I was in that attack. So I was a bit in shock. I was trying to figure out if I was bleeding --
COOPER: Yes, I mean --
ADDARIO: Yes.
COOPER: -- you're very commonly saying, am I bleeding?
[20:50:05]
ADDARIO: Well, I mean, you know how it is. I mean, it's when you're in these things, you're -- you don't know if your mind is sort of playing tricks on you, if it was as close as I thought it was and --
COOPER: Well, also your adrenaline is pumping --
ADDARIO: Exactly.
COOPER: -- and that has its own power.
ADDARIO: Exactly. And so once I realized we were OK, and then when I went to take photographs, there were still incoming rounds. And I knew I had to take a photo. I mean my instinct was to run, was to get out of there.
But when I looked and I saw the shoes of a child, I thought, no, I mean, I need to stay and I need to photograph this because I knew what happened. I mean I knew it was the intentional targeting because they had kind of walked the mortars on to that position.
COOPER: In the documentary, it also focuses on your family life and the inevitable conflict that exists. You have two children. You're married I want to play just this other scene, it's about something we all go through which is trying to figure out how long should we do this in balancing your family life.
ADDARIO: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's the length of assignments that's always been the challenge in our relationship. If it's one week, two weeks, it's not really a big deal. But when it gets longer, over three weeks, is always things tend to unravel at home.
ADDARIO: It's frustrating I'm constantly tortured like I'm not in the right place, but I come back. I'm supposed to be really happy. I feel like I should be there and I feel like a bad journalist because I'm not. My head is always where I'm not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: That I think of your head always being where you're not is it -- I mean, I -- familiar.
ADDARIO: Exactly.
COOPER: I mean you do far more extreme incredible things than I ever have but that desire to be, you know, you hear about, oh, there's been an attack somewhere far off and there's a yearning to be there --
ADDARIO: Exactly.
COOPER: -- and yet there's this yearning with these beautiful children. Yes.
ADDARIO: Yes, I mean, any parent will struggle with this. It doesn't matter what you do. I mean you do this as well and I think it's that guilt, it's the constant sort of tug of where to be.
And when I'm home, I'm constantly watching TV, I'm looking at what's happening in the world if something big is happening. You know, inevitably around Christmas, New Years, the times I want to take off, there's, you know, some sort of huge news story it seems that I'm always torn by, do I go or do I leave, you know, or do I stay with my children.
And they, unfortunately, a lot of these stories come at the expense of course a time that I'm supposed to be spending with my kids and it's impossible. I do have to say to myself, OK, don't just run off to every single assignment. You know, it's important for me to sort of think about what is the story I'm going to tell there, what are the risks and what can I contribute, you know? It's not just about sort of reacting to news all the time.
COOPER: Lynsey Addario, thank you so much.
ADDARIO: Thank you, Anderson.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: That's such an elegant way of putting something that so many journalists deal with every day.
All right, next, the major makeover for some versions of Cheetos and Doritos. Will bright orange fingers after snacking on them be a thing of the past? Oh no. Find out when 360 continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:57:59]
BERMAN: So nearly 70 percent of the American diet is made up of ultra- processed foods made with additives like artificial flavors and dyes. H.A. Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. has ordered the FDA to phase out several such items by the end of next year. Some companies are already doing that, including PepsiCo, which introduced simply naked Doritos and Cheetos.
So our chief data analyst, our cheese data analyst, Harry Enten is with us now. Great to see you, sir. So like, how do people feel about removing dyes and stuff?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: This is actually a pretty popular move, Mr. John Berman. I mean, you know, there was a poll question that was asked earlier this year. You want to restrict, you know, artificial dyes and added sugars to your, you know, your foods. And what do you see is the vast majority of Americans favorite.
Look at that. 66 percent favorite. Just 12 percent opposed. So I think that, you know, RFK Jr. has some controversial stances. But this idea definitely is a popular one. And it's no wonder that food companies are following through.
BERMAN: If it tastes the same, which is the big question here. And we have the goods.
ENTEN: We have the goods.
BERMAN: The reason you're here is to eat.
ENTEN: The reason I'm here is to eat. And Bruce is going to bring out the goods. And I also want you to put on these glasses.
BERMAN: Oh, OK.
ENTEN: It's like Star Trek like glasses because I don't want it to give away because --
BERMAN: Is this 3D now?
ENTEN: Yes.
BERMAN: It feels like your hands going to right off -- OK.
ENTEN: I'm right here. I'm right here. Bruce?
All right. Here we go. We have. --
BERMAN: Oh, I really can't tell.
ENTEN: You can't tell. We have the original Doritos. We have the Cheetos. And John, I want you to try each of them right here. Let's start. Just take a pick and you let me know.
BERMAN: All right, all right.
ENTEN: So that's one of the Doritos. You tell me how that is.
BERMAN: I mean, it's good.
ENTEN: Very good?
BERMAN: The Dorito.
ENTEN: OK. Now try the other Dorito and let's see if you can taste the difference.
BERMAN: Got on my pants.
ENTEN: I'm going to have one too.
BERMAN: I really can't taste the difference. I think maybe, I can't taste the difference.
ENTEN: You can't taste the difference?
BERMAN: No.
ENTEN: Do you even have a guess?
BERMAN: I think maybe this is the original.
ENTEN: That is the original. That is right.
BERMAN: But I can't tell the difference --
ENTEN: You can't tell the difference.
BERMAN: Right.
ENTEN: All right, let's try the Cheetos.
BERMAN: All right. That's good. Good TV, by the way.
ENTEN: This is fantastic.
BERMAN: They're both very good. This one's spicier. That one's spicier.
ENTEN: The spicier one, this was the artificial, this was the original. But the bottom line is you can't taste the difference. And therefore, I think this will actually work out. And they both do leave the residue, which I think is most important on your hands.
BERMAN: That's the important thing, right? You have -- you can get it on your fingers --
ENTEN: The Cheetos.
BERMAN: It's good.
ENTEN: The Cheetos stays on your hand.
BERMAN: All right. Harry Enten, thank you very much.
ENTEN: Thank you.
BERMAN: The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.
