tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN November 12, 2021 9:00pm-10:00pm PST
are you a christian author with a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! good evening. there is breaking news tonight in the investigation in the worst attack on democracy by americans since the civil war. the news may turn out to be so significant that if things hadn't gone the way they just did, the house select committee on january 6th might just as well have closed up shop. for a month and a half former senior trump adviser steve bannon had been openly defying the will of congress. first, a committee subpoena.
and then, a house contempt citation, setting the tone for the other acolytes of the former president to do likewise. today a federal grand jury said enough, indicting bannon on two counts and finally giving the select committee a measure of clout against those who would thumb their nose at them. former white house chief of staff mark meadows for one. earlier today, he defied an ultimatum to appear. later today after bannon's indictment, the committee threatened him with the same. it would be tempting to say this may now be a different ball game, but of course it's not a game at all. as a reminder, there was new audio that came to light today of the former president. he is talking to abc's jonathan karl, defending the capitol mob who chanted "hang mike pence." here is the former president talking about his vice president who, as a reminder, was rushed by the secret service out of the house chamber when the mob attacked. >> were you worried about him during that -- that siege? were you worried about his safety? >> no, i thought he was well protected and i -- i had heard that he was in good shape. no. because i had heard he was in very good shape. but -- but -- >> you heard those chants. that was terrible.
i mean, you know, the -- >> he could have -- well, the people were very angry. >> they said hang mike pence. >> because it's common sense, jon. it's common sense that you are supposed to protect -- how can you -- if you know a vote is fraudulent, right? how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to congress? >> they were angry. common sense. this from the guy who once cowered in the white house bunker rather than face protestors. we start things off with cnn senior legal affairs correspondent, paula reid, who joins us now with more on the bannon indictment. so what does this indictment entail and how critical is it for the committee? >> incredibly important for the committee, anderson, this federal grand jury has returned a two-count indictment against bannon. one count for refusing to appear. and the other for refusing to produce documents. now, bannon is 67 years old and each of these counts carries a minimum of one month in jail, up to a maximum of one year. now, sources tell cnn that bannon is expected to self-surrender on monday and
appear in court that afternoon. but this indictment is so critical because so far the committee has not been able to secure meaningful cooperation from the trump associates they have subpoenaed. and i know, in speaking with sources, that some prospective witnesses who have been stonewalling, they were watching this case very closely to see if bannon faced any consequence for his defiance. now, look, this indictment doesn't mean that suddenly all of these witnesses are going to fully cooperate with the committee. they still have the option to negotiate more narrow interviews or to show up and potentially plead the fifth to questions they don't want to answer. but many of these witnesses, they just don't have the resources to defend themselves in a federal criminal process. so it is likely that there will be more engaging with the committee. but full cooperation is far from a guarantee for any of these folks. >> i understand there is some new reporting into kind of the backstory of how the department of justice came to their decision to indict? >> that's right. attorney general merrick garland has been under enormous political pressure to bring
charges. even president biden weighed in in favor of prosecution. now, our colleague, evan perez, reports that the justice department really didn't see this as such a simple, clearcut matter. but the decision was made by career prosecutors and supported by the attorney general. but anderson, cases like this, they are rare. the last one, dating back to the reagan administration. and historically, the justice department's office of legal counsel has -- has supported and defended current and former administration officials from congressional subpoenas when the president asserted privilege. but here? we have a really unique circumstance because you have a former president asserting privilege but the current president declining to assert privilege. and we have seen the biden administration repeatedly note that this is an extraordinary circumstance and not what privilege was meant to protect. and so far one federal judge agreed. but we know this question is currently on appeal. there is ongoing litigation
between former president trump and the committee. and the d.c. court of appeals will hear oral arguments on this very question on november 30th. >> paula, stay with us. i want to bring in our cnn senior political analyst, author, watergate legend, carl bernstein. also, watergate counterpart, former nixon white house counsel and cnn contributor, john dean. carl, in the overall scheme of this investigation, how big a deal is this? >> it's a very big deal. first because the attorney general of the united states has decided to go forth with these prosecutions. and there was grave doubt about whether he would do that or not. so he and his department are committed to going after not just bannon but others who might defy this committee and that sends a message down the line. and we know that there are a fair number of people, particularly around former vice president pence, who are not at all happy with what donald trump did in his absolutely grievous,
horrendous coverup, first of all, of the gravest offense by a president of the united states in our electoral history. absolutely, he tried to shut down the free and fair election of the president of the united states. and these people around pence know that it happened, and they know how it happened. whether they are the ones who are going to talk, or aides to themselves, we don't know yet. but there are a good number of people who have heard that there are people who are willing and want to talk about what happened, including in the so-called war room on january 5th, the day before the insurrection -- in quotes, insurrection -- and bannon was among them, as were these aides to pence who know some things. >> john, what -- to you, what's the importance of this? >> i think it sends a real message to all of the others who have been subpoenaed or likely to be subpoenaed. they know this is now a different game. it's real. they might have been toying with the idea of doing what bannon had done, and just defy the committee.
there's been a lot of that throughout the trump administration. but i think they have to be braced by this because this statute has two parts. one says if you don't show, a willful default, and that's what bannon did, you are going to get indicted. or two, if you go before the committee and refuse to answer pertinent questions, you can also be indicted. so they have got to be considering whether they are going to take the fifth. and i think we might see some of that. or how they are going to figure out whether to come through and tell the truth or not and that is the only option here, anderson. they've got to come tell the truth. >> but john, this doesn't necessarily mean that bannon will be compelled to testify, right? what reason is there to believe that this would push bannon of all people to do that? >> i don't -- he is so defiant, in fact, i suspect bannon is quietly celebrating tonight that this new attention that's been given to him because he's declared outright that he's --
wants to destroy the administrative state. in other words, he wants to attack democracy and all these kinds of democratic operations. so this plays right into that kind of mentality. >> right. for a guy with a podcast, it also -- it also bolsters, you know, his -- his podcast, i guess. that's what he has going on. paula, the january 6th committee pointed out in their statement today that mark meadows failed to answer even the most basic questions, including whether he was using a private cell phone that day. >> that's right. and what they were arguing there is, look, you -- you were only even able to possibly claim privilege to some of the matters that we are asking you about. we have asked you about a lot of things to which even if you had privilege protections you couldn't assert them. so his blanket claim of privilege and total defiance of the committee is why they are now considering criminal contempt. specifically, they pointed to the fact that they are asking him about his personal cell phone and e-mail use. also, raising questions about what happened to some
communications from that time period. now, i remember being in meadows' office a few times. he did have multiple cell phones and that appears to be something the committee is interested in. and they are arguing look, even if you had privilege, it is not going to protect you from these questions. >> carl, this all comes on the heels of the revelation that former president trump told abc's jonathan karl that it was "common sense" for january 6th rioters chanting "hang mike pence" because they were angry and upset about, you know, what -- the lie that -- believing the lie that the president had spread. how critical do you think -- does that impact what the committee' work is, the way committee views this? >> i doubt it in the sense that the committee knows donald trump and they know the outrageous statements that he makes. they know that he has no respect for the constitution or the law through a lifetime of undermining the law. but i think we need to look at a larger picture here, particularly the idea of a
matrix of information. that we have one year in this country to find out what happened in, as you pointed out, the most grievous assault on american democracy since the civil war. and this, by a president -- a conspiracy led by the president of the united states himself. never in our history has this happened. and there is a year until the republicans in all likelihood take over the house, try to shut down this investigation. but there is a year in which we in the press, the committee, and it ought to be the business of the nation above all else in -- in domestic considerations to find out what happened. it is essential for our future in this country. and we have the means to do it. if we in the media, particularly reporters, and some of these people in congress, there is a lot of information that i am hearing, among others. other reporters are hearing what happened and there are republicans who know what
happened, including not just these principals but what are called satellite witnesses. their aides. aids to the -- principal aides to trump and to pence. >> yeah. >> we have got a year to do it, and it's what we need to do. >> john, i mean, you know, the idea that there is only a year to do this, it's not as -- i mean, the deadline is because there is concern that the republicans, if they take the house, will shut this investigation down. i mean, that's -- it just kind of -- when you step back from this, it's kind of nuts that this assault on american democracy, the clock is ticking on it because one of two of the major parties in america, the only parties in america, want to shut it down. >> it's exactly right. they want to pretend it didn't even happen. they call it a tourist visiting the capitol that day. there is a deep denial going on for those who are pushing these lies. but i think that carl is right.
we have a timeframe here and i think the committee is racing against that because everyone knows donald's modus operandi is to stall, stall, stall. he's done it all of his life. all of his proceedings both as a businessman and then as president. so that's what the committee is confronting. i think they'll get to the end of this before the year. >> john dean, carl bernstein, paula reid, appreciate it. thank you. next more on steve bannon how he sees his role and the threat some believe his vision poses for a functioning democracy. we'll talk to possibly the foremost reporter on bannon and his movement, josh greene. later, new developments in the kyle rittenhouse trial as the judge prepares to rule on letting the jury consider lesser charges and the governor puts the national guard on standby.
♪ as someone who resembles someone else, i appreciate that liberty mutual knows everyone's unique. that's why they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. [ ferry horn honks ] i mean just cause you look like someone else doesn't mean you eat off the floor, [ chuckles ] or yell at the vacuum, or need flea medication. oh, yeah. that's the spot.
the last time, last year, he was plucked off a chinese billionaire's yacht on allegations he defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors out of money they thought was going to fund the border wall. former president didn't seem to mind bannon was charged with fleecing his loyal followers out of money and pardoned bannon in his final hours in office. more now on the man who seemingly has never been far from the former president, who always relishes a fight. cnn's tom foreman has this. >> reporter: he is not ready to speak to congress about the violence of january 6th. but steve bannon is talking plenty on his daily podcast, whipping his followers into a frenzy. >> elections have consequences. stolen elections have catastrophic consequences and that's what we are seeing in this country right now. and we need your blood to boil. we need to be in a situation you are not going to back down, okay? >> reporter: he's done it all along. he appeared to confirm reports that just days before the insurrection, he was on the phone with donald trump discussing how to kill the biden presidency in the crib. >> 42% of the american people, 4-2, percent of the american people think that biden did not win the presidency legitimately. we told you from the very beginning, just expose it. just expose it.
never back down. never give up. and this thing will implode. >> reporter: promoting the big lie of election fraud fits bannon's longstanding affection for radical right-wing theories, and his apparent appetite for conflict. >> if you think they are going to give you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. >> reporter: take his fascination with the book "the fourth turning," which argues every 80 years or so cataclysmic upheavals are necessary to political and social realignment. >> turnings are like the seasons. every turning is necessary. >> reporter: bannon was so taken with the idea, he made a movie about it, savaging liberals, blasting traditional government, and as one film critic put it, pushing a clear message. >> bring on the apocalypse. there is an almost fetishistic desire to see everything blow up. it's almost like he's inviting a cleansing fire to just raze the
edifice, raze the institutions. i think it's that dramatic. >> steve bannon is over here. >> reporter: bannon's turns in the spotlight have not always thrilled his most famous boss, who was reportedly annoyed when bannon showed up on the cover of "time," which trump clearly craves. he was pushed out of trump's immediate orbit, but never far away. >> i would love to know what advice you would give to donald trump if he didn't leave even after he lost because i saw hillary clinton -- >> you are obsessed with this. >> i am obsessed with this. >> wait a second. >> why do you think he's not going to leave? >> because he is an insane narcissist. >> reporter: and since the uprising, bannon has been firmly in the losing candidate's corner. trotting out guests to insist the riot was the work of antifa and undercover federal agents. >> 226 antifa members were tasked with making that -- what should have been a peaceful protest a riot. >> reporter: and insisting prosecutors are dead wrong to
say these are trump's and his people. >> either they're totally incompetent or they are lying to you. right? they're either totally incompetent or they're lying to you. they're either totally incompetent or they're lying to you. pick 'em. >> reporter: there are no facts to back that up but listen to bannon's podcast, watch his interviews, and you will see that he has very little use for facts unless they back this notion that america as we know it must end so america as he would have it can begin. anderson? >> tom, appreciate it. tom foreman. joining us now, josh green, national correspondent for bloomberg business week and author of "devil's bargain: steve bannon, donald trump, the storming of the presidency." josh, what does steve bannon get from this? obviously, he gets, you know, publicity and he gets attention and gets to portray himself, i guess, as a leader of something. is that the end game here? >> reporter: i think for bannon
at least in the short term it is. he gets to portray himself as the leader of the loyal trump opposition. and ever since he was fired from the white house in 2017, he's been trying to work his way back into trump's inner circle, and the fact that he was such a key figure around january 6th after the election, the fact that he's kind of re-emerged over the last year as the chief shaper of the trump narrative, i think this indictment gives him an opportunity to publicly flaunt his loyalty to trump in a way that i think will insinuate him or that bannon thinks will insinuate him deeper into trump's favor and that's what he is after. >> you wrote a piece for bloomberg business week tonight. you say this indictment is the fight that both sides want? >> that's right. i think, you know, the key from today's news is that it answers a question about the biden justice department. a lot of democrats were anxious about. they wondered, would attorney general merrick garland pursue these charges?
or in some, you know, misty desire to get back to an era of partisan comity, would the biden administration fall back and not prosecute these cases and i think the indictment today clearly answers that question. the administration is going to fight and do everything it can to bolster the january 6th investigation in congress. so part of that fight entails getting an answer to the question of whether or not trump can claim executive privilege. he is doing that in his efforts to try and prevent records from being released to the committee. and bannon's refusal to subpoena in this case, and the fight that he is going to have over his indictment is about whether or not he can claim executive privilege. so i think the big news today is that that fight is now going to proceed on two parallel legal tracks, trump's and bannon's. >> does he now have to turn over documents? or i mean, he can't be forced to testify, i guess? >> no, and i think part of what bannon is betting on is that he can essentially run out the
clock and that's going to happen in two ways. number one, he and the people around him don't believe that democrats are going to maintain control of the house of representatives after next november's election. and that if republicans take over or when republicans take over they are going to shut down this investigation. on the legal track, i think that he thinks it's very much an open question and won't be decided for a long, long time whether or not trump can claim executive privilege. and i know people around bannon think that this may go as far as the supreme court. so i think in the short term he is not going to be compelled to do anything. and what he can do instead is make a big public display of refusing the subpoena, bring more attention to himself, and again, bring all the attention to his podcast, to, you know, his admirers in trump's inner circle. and first and foremost, trump himself to see what he is doing and see that somebody is, you know, quote/unquote, fighting back. even if the legal basis for a
lot of what bannon is claiming i think most lawyers think is fairly specious. >> it's really interesting, though, because no matter how sleazy somebody is or betrays donald trump in donald -- in, you know, the former president's -- in his mind, he takes them back if they continue to be slavishly loyal to him or at least kowtow. >> absolutely. and one of the things i think that we should look at as sort of the antithesis of this is mike pence. mike pence actually did stand up on january 6th and do the right thing. and he has been ostracized, criticized, you know, was almost assaulted on january 6th. and has been completely written off by donald trump for failing to show loyalty, regardless of the circumstances. i think part of what bannon is doing in refusing this -- in refusing to testify and kind of courting this indictment is showing that no, above all else, i am loyal to donald trump. whether or not that's the right
thing to do, i am going to do that because that's what trump wants me to do and that's what's going to enhance my power most in the maga world and that's what boone cares about. >> josh green, i appreciate it. thank you. coming up next, bracing for the verdict. wisconsin's governor puts the national guard on standby, as the judge considers lesser charges against kyle rittenhouse. we'll talk about that, explain it, ahead. ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪
(vo) wildfires have reached historic levels. as fires keep raging, the need to replant trees keeps growing. so subaru is growing our commitment to protect the environment. in partnership with the national forest foundation, subaru and our retailers are proud to help replant 1 million trees to help restore our forests. subaru. more than a car company. this is elodia. she's a recording artist. 1 of 10 million people that comcast has connected to affordable internet in the last 10 years. and this is emmanuel, a future recording artist,
a lot happening today in and around the kyle rittenhouse trial. judge bruce schroeder meeting with attorneys on jury instructions and getting the defendant's okay on permitting jurors to decide on lesser charges. you can expect a decision tomorrow from him on that. also, as if to underscore the tension surrounding a verdict, wisconsin governor tony evers today putting 500 national guard troops onto standby outside kenosha to be deployed if called on by local law enforcement. joining us now with more, cnn's kyung lah, who is in kenosha for us tonight. so kyung, if the judge allows the jury to consider lesser charges, how does that possibly impact the chances for rittenhouse? >> well, here is how the judge explained it to kyle rittenhouse and he explained this without the jury being there because instructions don't start until monday, but basically he said that it will decrease his chances of a second trial but increase his chances of a conviction. now, why would it increase his chances? because the jury, then, instead
of having just simply a not guilty or guilty of a serious charge, they will have this third option of being guilty of a lesser charge. that's what the -- that's what the judge is going to be informing the lawyers this weekend about his decision. and again, anderson, the closing arguments start on monday. >> and i understand that -- so kenosha is preparing for a possible verdict next week? >> absolutely. with the closing arguments on monday, what we're seeing are the preparations. the real-world preparations of what the impact of this verdict could be. there are going to be, according to wisconsin's governor, 500 guardsmen that are going to station outside of kenosha. they're not going to be utilized, unless local law enforcement requests it. but anderson, you know, this is a national flash point. this is a collision of the courts with what's happening in politics in this country. and so, this city is preparing. >> kyung lah, appreciate it. thank you. joining us now, cnn legal analyst paul callan, who has experience on both criminal defense and prosecution sides.
also harvard law school senior lecturer and former federal judge nancy gertner. judge gertner, what do you make of the jury possibly considering lesser charges? what could that mean? >> well, i mean, it actually -- it could enhance the possibility of a conviction. because the jury may feel that the higher charge is unlikely and they don't want to acquit, and so you give them a third option. a third option, i might add, the most serious charges are life charges. life imprisonment charges. if he's found guilty of the lesser charges, it would be a term of years and this judge would be the sentencer. and from what we have seen, not a particularly harsh sentencer when it comes to rittenhouse but that's a prediction. >> paul, what would the lesser charges possibly be? >> well, you have charges now which are -- that are several first-degree charges. first-degree reckless homicide. first-degree intentional homicide. those can be knocked down one notch to second-degree or lower,
depending upon what the judge decides to do. and that would carry a lesser sentence. and a lot of times, anderson, the jury gets into a heated discussion about whether he's guilty or not guilty of intentional conduct. and they compromise on a lesser charge when they have one available. if they don't have one available, it's either guilty of one of the higher charges or not guilty. so it gives the jurors more options to consider during jury deliberation. >> judge gertner, we've sort of discussed this before, but one of the things that confuses me about this situation is if you go to someplace you have no business being and with a weapon and you're putting yourself into a situation, which is probably just not a wise idea for this young man to have done, and you end up killing somebody you say in self-defense, is the fact that you have put yourself in this situation, brought a weapon there, does that matter? or is all that matters what the
person feels in the moment that they are feeling threatened? >> no. the judge is going to give a provocation instruction, which means it -- the way it works is a person who engages in unlawful conduct, likely to provoke, and does provoke, cannot claim self-defense. there is an exception to that, which is if the attack you've provoked reasonably puts you in imminent danger of harm or death. so the fact that the judge is going to give a provocation instruction certainly means -- makes the bar higher for the defense because they have to prove more. they don't have to prove anything. but that is to say, they -- they clearly have to deal with a different kind of instruction. if you provoke, you actually can't claim self-defense unless the attack that you provoked puts your own -- your own life in danger. and so that's an instruction. i think it's an instruction the judge has to give. but that's essentially going to
be the prosecutor's argument. he put himself in a position of danger and then reacted. and that reaction was caused by his actions, as opposed to the victims of this. >> paul, what do you think of that argument? >> well, i think, anderson, what complicates this argument is that in -- i mean, a lot of people say, hey, what was he doing walking around with an ar-15 style gun? and if he wasn't there that night with that gun, nobody would have been killed. all right? because nobody was killed in these demonstrations and protests. but wisconsin is a state that permits open carry of weapons. and so the defense, of course, is going to be, well, everybody there who had a -- an ar-15 or at least most of them were acting in a completely legal way. and he wasn't attacked because he was underage and carrying an ar-15. so -- and that the provocation law really means if you start an attack, for instance, in other states it's called if you are the initial aggressor.
you start the attack on somebody else, then you don't have the right to claim self-defense. but of course, rittenhouse here is claiming i didn't attack anybody. i was -- i was walking along with the ar-15 style rifle but rosenbaum threatened to kill me twice, and then i was jumped. and essentially, i had no choice. so the prosecution will be helped by this provocation charge. but i don't know that they are going to win on it. but they do have one ace in the hole, anderson, and that's he's charged with carrying a dangerous weapon under the age of 18. and i don't know how he is going to get around that. but that's a misdemeanor charge that i think the jury will absolutely have to find him guilty of, regardless of the rest of the charges. >> judge gertner, what do you expect to hear from the prosecution next week? >> well, i mean, i think that they are going to talk about the fact that he was illegally carrying a weapon because he was 17. and the standard is likely to provoke.
and walking around the streets of kenosha with an ar-15 where he was walking when he had no business being there, he was talking about basically protecting property, was likely to provoke. in addition, the prosecutor -- you know, this is for the jury to decide. there was a lot of testimony about reaching for rittenhouse's gun. very interesting. you could reach for someone's gun in the hopes of disarming this young man or for the hope -- you know, in the possibility of actually shooting him. and the prosecutor is going to argue that these people -- perhaps not rosenbaum but certainly the others -- were trying to disarm him and that's when he shot them. so i mean, i think -- i think it's going to be -- it's going to be very interesting and it's also going to be interesting how much, in the closing argument, the prosecutor is going to be allowed, you know, to talk about rittenhouse's proclivities which the judge has kept him from. you know, what -- what rittenhouse thought he was doing when he came to this demonstration. there's been a lot of testimony about what the demonstrators thought they were doing. that's been an unequal aspect of
bipolar depression. it made me feel like i was trapped in a fog. this is art inspired by real stories of people living with bipolar depression. i just couldn't find my way out of it. the lows of bipolar depression can take you to a dark place... ...and be hard to manage. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms. latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms and in clinical studies, had no substantial impact on weight. this is where i want to be. latuda is not for everyone. call your doctor about unusual mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. elderly dementia patients on latuda have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, and confusion, as these may be life threatening... ...or uncontrollable muscle movements,
as these may be permanent. these are not all the serious side effects. now i'm back where i belong. ask your doctor about latuda and pay as little as $0 for your first prescription. ok everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, now introducing ensure complete! with 30 grams of protein.
this is elodia. she's a recording artist. 1 of 10 million people that comcast has connected to affordable internet in the last 10 years. and this is emmanuel, a future recording artist, and one of the millions of students we're connecting throughout the next 10. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students, past... and present, can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities. are you a christian author with a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today!
a defense attorney for one of the white men on trial for the killing of black jogger ahmaud arbery sort of apologized to anyone who may have, quote, inadvertently been offended, unquote, after he said yesterday, "we don't want any more black pastors coming in here." those comments were made after reverend al sharpton attended the proceedings sitting with arbery's family. that trial in brunswick, georgia, and the kyle rittenhouse trial in kenosha, wisconsin are extreme examples perhaps of the potential danger of people taking the law into their own hands. there is certainly a lot of understandable concern about law and order in this country. the mayor-elect of new york city, democrat and former cop, ran on a tough on crime platform and won. eric adams joins us now. mr. mayor-elect, i really appreciate you joining us. thanks so much for being with us. >> thank you, anderson, it is great being on with you. >> so i want to ask you first of all about this idea of
vigilanteism, where armed citizens operate under the guise of self-appointed security personnel. sometimes as we have seen, with violent and deadly consequences. as a former captain of the police force, soon to be mayor, what do you make of it? >> i believe it's unacceptable and there is a clear difference between a block patrol, security patrol, unarmed carrying out public safety in their communities by really understanding their neighborhoods. we have something like that in brooklyn where we have something called the guard squad. a group of pastors that go out and really prevent crime from taking place by interacting with the residents. that's a big difference from those who are carrying weapons, saying they're protecting our borders or carrying weapons protecting they believe their community. we should leave that up to law enforcement. >> on wednesday i understand you met with some leaders from a new york chapter of the black lives matter movement. i'm not sure if it's actually sort of an official black lives matter organization or an offshoot.
but this person threatened, quote, riots and bloodshed in the streets if you move forward with your campaign promise to bring back anti-crime units, which were disbanded in 2020. i'm wondering what -- what you learned or what came out of that? and how worried are you about -- about that? >> not at all. and keep in mind, number one, this group is not a representation of the black lives matter. >> this is -- from my memory, this is a pretty fringe -- this particular person is a pretty fringe person who's made headlines before but doesn't actually have much of an organization. >> exactly. 13 of them protested in front of my office and walked across the bridge. and i marched with black lives matter. in fact, my entire life is marching for black lives matter. you notice it's been a 35-plus-year history of fighting for reform in the police department. i marched two years ago with the organization. and those who have righteous
movements -- and you know my history, anderson, from 100 blacks in law enforcement who care to fighting for reform. so what happened at the meeting and what's very interesting, the meeting is on instagram, facebook live. it was not a contentious meeting. there was no arguing and debating. i was very clear that my city is going to be safe. after leaving the meeting they went out and created just this belief that there was some battle that took place behind closed doors. i really encourage people to look at the facebook live and the instagram video to show i am just clear. we must be safe in our city and in our country. and i ran on that and i'm not going to break my promise. >> you successfully ran as a law-and-order democrat. on that same election day, there was rejection of some of the more left-wing democratic candidates and policies. if democratic voters or voters are sending a message to democrats, do you think the democratic party leadership is listening? >> well, i hope they are. and, you know, when i spoke with
the president several months ago, it was clear that he understood we can't live in a city where 70 people are shot over a fourth of july weekend. we can't live in a city where guns are just really taking over our neighborhoods. that's what i heard on the campaign trail. we want justice and fair policing but we want public safety. i said it over and over again. that's the prerequisite to prosperity, public safety, and justice. and we could have both by rebuilding the trust between police and communities. >> so you are talking about bringing back the plain-clothes unit. is that still the plan? and how do you -- what do you say to those who are concerned about abuses that may have occurred in the past? or the very reason that it was removed in the first place? >> well, let's think about this for a moment. aren't we tired of elected officials running and breaking their promise?
i made a promise to the city. i didn't -- did not have a secret campaign. i was very clear on every aspect of how i am going to educate children and protect our city. and one of them was bringing back a plain-clothes gun unit. this is totally different from the anti-crime unit or the street-crime units that killed adam yue diallo. this is a totally different concept. policing is predictable. those are the blue and white vehicles. the marked vehicles. and then you have to be unpredictable. and those are the plain-clothes officers, well-trained, video cameras. they are going to keep them on. and dealing with conflicts and knowing how to communicate for precision policing. going after gangs and guns. right now the bad guys are saying we no longer have to worry about our narcotics unit. we no longer have narcotic officers out there fighting narcotic dealers. we no longer have to worry about
gang problems in this city. that's how they feel, and i'm not going to allow my city to continue to see the violence that we have experienced, both perceived and actual, because perception of fear is just as real as fear itself. >> mayor-elect eric adams, appreciate it. thank you. up next, new e-mails and documents released by a congressional committee investigating the former administration's handling of the covid pandemic which showed the extent to which top officials interfered in the cdc's efforts to warn americans about the dangers, ahead. hey google. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ is struggling to manage your type 2 diabetes knocking you out of your zone? lowering your a1c with once-weekly ozempic®
can help you get back in it. oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! my zone... lowering my a1c, cv risk, and losing some weight... now, back to the game! ozempic® is proven to lower a1c. most people who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. and you may lose weight. adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. in adults also with known heart disease, ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. ozempic® helped me get back in my type 2 diabetes zone. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis.
tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.
coronavirus crisis showed how cdc officials were pressured to alter the guidance and in some cases prevented communicating directly with the public. one example, a former cdc official says she was told the then-president was angered by a february 2020 briefing, in which she warned the public about the dangers of coronavirus. other cdc officials say how requests to hold briefings were denied. lauren fox joins us from capitol hill. cdc officials say they felt muzzled. what did they tell the committee about that? >> in a series of transcribed interviews, we're getting an image of what was going on behind the scenes, as the covid pandemic was raging across the country. and one of the clearest depictions that we got was cdc officials were decembesperate t communicate with the american public. one of the ways they wanted to do this, were through the telebriefings that was part of
what the officials were used to doing. in terms of a massive pandemic going on across the country. they wanted to do briefings on children and on masking. and they would run them up the flag pole and hear nothing. crickets, essentially. and therefore, they were unable to communicate with the public without the information they thought was critical to get out. there was also an ongoing fight about the weekly morbidity and mortality reports that the cdc typically did. one of the concerns was these were supposed to be agency reports, anderson. these were supposed to be where officials and scientists were able to get to the public directly the latest on the coronavirus. instead, what they were finding was trump administration officials were trying to have an opinion on what was included or edit was included in the reports. one official, the principal deputy director at the cdc, said
there was an ongoing fight every week, where docdc officials wer trying to keep out administration officials' interpretations from the coronavirus from getting in the reports. these are serious allegations, some of which we knew as the coronavirus was unfolding across the country. some of which, were really illustrated by the transcripts that we got, anderson. >> politicizing science and scientific information, with a pandemic. it's shocking. i don't know if it was shocking. it should be. but it's perhaps not. we know covid testing is something that the country was struggling what. what did dr. birx say? >> there was an ongoing feud. the trump administration officials wanted to reduce testing, in part because the more people you had tested in their view, the more coronavirus
cases or positive cases s were coming out. birx said this came to a red in august, where if you're a person who was exposed to someone that you knew was positive, you weren't getting guidance to get tested unless you were symptomatic. that may have led to an increase of cases in or a surge of cases in the fall. these are serious allegations. >> people died. lauren fox, thank you. appreciate it. up next, why former nfl coach jon gruden, who resigned, after homophobic and racist and misogynistic language is suing the league and league president, roger goodell.
nfl and roger goodell. he was accusing them of leaking the private e-mails for a soviet-style character assass assassination. he resigned after it was found that he wrote e-mails with misogynistic and racist language. gr gruden's attorney questions why his were the only e-mails that were made public. the nfl denies the allegations. the news continues. let's hand it over to chris for "cuomo crime time." >> i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." now, we know what the dodg.o.j.s up to for week. a case for the grand jury that just indicted trumpette steve bannon. no