Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Arizona GOP's "Audit" Ends With Biden Gaining More Votes Than Reported, Trump Losing More Votes; Brian Laundrie Manhunt Intensifies After Federal Arrest Warrant; Mystery Of Missing Geologist Daniel Robinson Deepens As More Bizarre Details Emerge. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired September 24, 2021 - 21:00   ET




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For quite some time, he was trying to find out, "Who am I?"

He knew the DNA testing could help him find the answer to his mystery.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the test result said there's no possibility that you're Paul Fronczak. But there's more. What the?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We were in shock.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything that I thought I knew was a lie. This is bigger than what happened to me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now the FBI is revisiting a half-century old case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Be careful what you wish for. You don't know where this leads.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He didn't know who he could trust.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean this is really twisted.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who might be the real Paul?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And who was he?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The truth, it's going to come out.


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: It's an incredible story!

The news continues. Let's hand it over to Chris for "CUOMO PRIME TIME." Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right. Thanks, Anderson.

I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.

Joe Biden has won Arizona, again. And this time, the count was done by people with every reason to want him to lose.

In fact, former president Trump was expecting a different result. "Everybody will be watching Arizona tomorrow to see what the highly respected auditors and the Arizona State Senate found out." He even suggested that there was fraud found. He lied. He said "The Fake News got it wrong." Lied again!

Not only did this Cyber Ninja-led hand count tabulate results close to what Maricopa County had reported, it determined that Biden got 99 more votes than initially reported, Trump, 261 fewer.

So, the fraud was on Trump's count, right? Wrong. Why? Because this isn't about fraud. It's about human error, as is almost always the case.

Also the case, no candidate in history has now lost an election more times than Donald John Trump. We're waiting on Trump to go bad on the same pawns doing the "Fraudit" that he once praised.

While we wait, here's what Arizona's Senate President, who led this, had to say.


KAREN FANN, (R) AZ SENATE PRESIDENT: The ballot counts were close to what Maricopa County reported. And that is a true statement.


CUOMO: 2.1 million ballots processed by hand, the Ninjas say over 1,500 people took part, for a total of 100,000 hours.

They were looking for bamboo, in the ballots, at one point, checking them for secret watermarks, to give credence to conspiracies that fake ballots were flown in from China. It was all BS. No such fraud was found.

So, will this calm the conspiracies? Will it stop the democracy demolition?


FANN: This has never been about overturning an election. This has never been about decertifying. This has never been about anything other than election integrity.

I find it ironic that our Secretary of State and, a few others, have called this a "Sham audit" that you can't trust it, you can't believe it. Well, the interesting fact is, is truth is truth, numbers are numbers.


CUOMO: Yes, you've just decided to accept them only now. This was true, when it was first counted. It was true, when it was checked. It was true, when it was rechecked.

So, the reason that everybody was suspicious that you insisted on this because you kept saying it was wrong. And you brought in a group that didn't know what it was talking about. And wild theories came out. And they wouldn't let people check what they were doing.

The nefarious notions, that's what did it. And the problem is, even though now, this one is right, it's just this one. And the nefarious is still entrenched. 78 percent of Republicans think Biden did not win legitimately, despite no evidence, to back it up.

Will that change? Likely no, because instead of even pausing, to process this epic failure, of finding fraud, the Trumpers just moved on. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, all working on similar recounts, all with similar non bases.

And now, Texas, Trump won Texas. Why would you want to recount there? Governor Abbott caving to Trump's, demands, once again, to keep undermining the vote.

Is that the goal? Do they really want people to never trust an election again? Can they really think that this type of fire and fury won't lead to more people acting on the same?

You don't think that's a big reason that we got to January 6?


CUOMO: You don't fire up your army of supporters, to attack the Capitol, because you lost. Our Intel authorities say the ugly chatter is growing. What might come next?

Let's bring in a better mind, an influential voice, on the Right, conservative radio host, Mike Broomhead, Host of "The Mike Broomhead Show."

Good to see you, brother.


We were talking yesterday, when you were hearing about what was going to be coming down. And you were like, "Yes, it turns out that it's all going to be right." And we were wondering what effect will this have?

What do you think the answer to that is?

MIKE BROOMHEAD, HOST, THE MIKE BROOMHEAD SHOW ON KTAR IN ARIZONA: I'm not sure yet. And we're going to find out in the coming days.

They left a lot of open doors here, a lot of, "You know, we still got to look at the routers, and we're still looking at things. And this is" - Doug Logan actually said, the information he was going to give today might be incomplete, because they had a lot of information the county wouldn't turn over.

So, the battle lines have still been drawn in that regard. But there was an interesting response, from the supervisors, today. So, I don't know if it's going to go to court, or where it goes next.

CUOMO: How do so many, in the right-wing media, seem to see this as a win?

BROOMHEAD: I don't - to be honest, I don't know if anybody sees this as a win. The majority of the people, that, I talk to don't see any of this as a win.

There are so many people that are been supporters of this audit that had said "This has taken way too long. This should have been over a long time ago. It's time to move on." And so, I don't know a lot of people that see this as a win.

CUOMO: They had a whole "Watch Party" set up for this. They were planning a rally, the State Republican Party.


CUOMO: They were obviously expecting a different outcome. They're not celebrating democracy.

BROOMHEAD: No, I agree with you. I think there were a lot of people that in spite of what Karen Fann, the Senate President has said all along, which was "This is not about overturning an election," I think there were still a lot of people that believed that the Cyber Ninjas, and the other subcontractors, were going to say that they found widespread fraud. And that was absolutely opposite of what they said today.

CUOMO: So, how do you get to a better place, if they just keep on recounting votes that have been counted, certified, and recertified, by state officials, who were often Republicans?

BROOMHEAD: All right, let me - let me flip this around, and give you an analogy that I think will work.

CUOMO: Please?

BROOMHEAD: If you remember, I've brought this up on your show before.

From my perspective, as a Republican, I thought the Adam Schiff comments, what he said about investigating Trump, and that they had proof that they never produced, months after that was all over, there are still people that believe that the election was stolen from Hillary and from Stacey Abrams.

But that group of people that is still beating that drum gets smaller and smaller and smaller, the further we get away from that incident.

I think the further we get away from this audit, I think that group of people that say those things, will become smaller and smaller.

CUOMO: I hear you on the analogy. Help me understand this hot take from this process.


CUOMO: No, no, here.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And here's the first topline, Steve. Yes, it was stolen in Arizona.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The numbers aren't adding up to what they originally certified. That is a problem to me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is a lot of indications of fraud. And so that - that's the discrepancy, that's the spin, on the misinformation.


CUOMO: These are all lies.

BROOMHEAD: OK. And I will tell you that today, anecdotally, today, while I was on my show, I got a Facebook message, from someone in the - I brought up the same analogy I gave you.

And this was somebody that was sending me articles, and YouTube videos that was telling me, just how there was Russian collusion, with Trump, and all the other things.

What I'm saying is there is always going to be a segment of people that don't believe it. You are probably a football fan, like I am, probably different teams, but we were fans. When your team, you feel like it's hosed on a call, you're going to hang your hat on that, if you're someone that doesn't want to believe your team lost a game.

And, in this case, I think that's a lot of what's happened, is that years ago, when Hillary lost, the Democrats were shocked that there was any way legally, or justifiably, she could lose to Trump.

And I will tell you that, here in Arizona, anecdotally of watching the support he had, there were a lot of people, here in Arizona that said, there's no way he lost in the state to Biden, honestly. But I think a lot of that goes away, as time moves on, past this audit.

CUOMO: Do you think that there is a better chance that we wind up reminding ourselves that we're on the same team?

Or do you think that we're going to have more violence and protests because people are going to stay 75 percent, 80 percent, convinced in your party that this was robbed?

BROOMHEAD: Now, see, I don't - I don't know if those numbers will stay anywhere near that high. I think that what this audit will do is I think everybody agrees it's time to drop the battle. Once that happens, I think people mend fences.

I mean, if you think about you and I and how different we are sometimes and things, but there's never been a conversation you've had, on or off the air that didn't start and end with mutual respect.

I think there are a lot more people about - around, like you and me, on these issues, where it is we hold our positions, and our beliefs, but we're not going to demonize the person we're talking to. I think, maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think that that wins out in the end.

CUOMO: Mike, there happens to be a big difference. Despite the fact that we both have weird names, I would argue yours might even be weirder--

BROOMHEAD: Oh, mine's definitely weirder!


CUOMO: --you and I don't believe things that are completely untethered to reality, and get angry, whenever anybody tells us that. I mean, you and I are like most Americans.

I don't know if you heard this story. I was outside my house, trying to do sprints. Huge mistake!

And instead of being surrounded by paparazzi, a rare occasion, I actually had some power workers out there, and they were all about the vaccine. And they were arguing about the vaccine, and if the vaccine can help some, but hurt others, why are we getting it?

Now, that's a specious premise, OK? Nobody says the vaccine can hurt as many as it can help. There's no science to support that.

But the way they were talking about it? A little hot. Respect! And the guy said, "Yes, I just don't buy it. I don't know where you're getting your numbers. And look, I got the vaccine. You don't want to get it, fine. But you better stay out of the hospital, when you get sick."

But, at the end of it, they were eating lunch together. They were together. A lot more gets solved when you talk that way.

That's why I am so encouraging of you to come on this show. And I promise, I know I'm all talk, no walk, I will come on "The Mike Broomhead Show."

BROOMHEAD: Yes, I agree with you, 100 percent. And the same things happened with me, even on social media, and others, where it's not face-to-face.

I think when you start talking to someone, and you show them a bit of respect, in giving your opinions, they begin to understand that it's not personal. And I think more people are like that than not.

We have given the attention a lot of times. Both of us are probably guilty of this, of giving people attention that are more on the extreme, because they make for a better sound, or a better headline, or a better story. But, in the end, I think, when it comes to the decision-making process, more people are like you and I.

If I can say one more thing about what happened today? I had one of the supervisors on, Clint Hickman, who was the one, who has the chicken farms. His family owns Hickman Egg Farms.

He came on the show today. And he called for our governor, our attorney general, and our state treasurer, three of the biggest, most prominent Republicans. He called for all three of them to call for the resignation of Dr. Kelli Ward, our State Party Chairwoman. So, we're starting to see that stuffs happen as well.

CUOMO: Let's see what happens to him!

All right, Broomhead. I'll talk to you soon. And I hope to see you soon. God bless. Have a good weekend.

BROOMHEAD: You too, brother.

CUOMO: All right.

New developments in the Petito case tonight, a second witness has come forward, who says, she gave Brian Laundrie, a ride, in the days, after his fiancee, Gabby, was last seen alive.

Now, here's the key to this. This is the second hitchhiking story. But this is the really interesting part that we'll take you through. The two stories go together, and lead to very different conclusions. Next.









CUOMO: A new witness account tonight further pinpoints Brian Laundrie's whereabouts, in the days after Gabby Petito was last seen.

A second woman, Norma Jean Jalovec, tells us, she picked up Laundrie, as a hitchhiker, on August 29th, in the early evening. She says he was conversational. He told her he had been hiking the last few days, along the Snake River, and mentioned he'd seen moose and elk.

That's similar to what he told the first woman, who picked him up hitchhiking. He also reportedly told Miranda Baker that he'd been hiking along the Snake River. Now, Miranda Baker says they picked him up, going in one direction, offered them 200 bucks. She thought that was weird.

He said he wanted to go in that direction, talked about his fiancee, being back with the van, working on their social media page. And then, when he heard they were going to Jackson Hole, and not Jackson, he said "I got to get out." And he got out right then, and she thought it was very odd.

This second story from Jalovec seems to pick up right there, because the time, that the two give seem to coordinate.

So, Jalovec picked him up, going in the opposite direction. He told her she needed to drop him off, at the Spread Creek Dispersed Campground. It's the same area, where Gabby's remains were found, three weeks later, and where the van was seen parked.

Meanwhile, Florida officials are still searching for Laundrie, in the 25,000 acre nature preserve, amid a federal arrest warrant.

Despite no trace of him, over the past week and a half, authorities maintain, it's not for nothing.


COMMANDER JOE FUSSELL, NORTH PORT POLICE DEPARTMENT: There are many, many more resources we're deploying in here, other than the search efforts that we're seeing here today. We have investigative means. We have other technology. Agencies are issuing search warrants for data.

We're not wasting our time out here. We are doing our due diligence to find Brian, in an area that Intelligence has led us that he could possibly be in.


CUOMO: All right, so look, they're taking it very seriously. It's a big area. It's an intricate area.

Top legal mind Joey Jackson is here, criminal defense attorney extraordinaire.

First, one thing at a time. These two stories, one couple picks him up, going in one direction. He finds out it's not where he wants to go. He gets out. And then he has the other woman, take him back, to where he came from.

Very odd, because the initial confusion is, "No, this isn't where I want to go." But then he wound up going somewhere completely different, which is where he started from.


JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, good evening, Chris. So, the reality is a person could be conflicted, right? We all make a decision A, and then say, "Ah, on second thought, maybe let's do decision B," right? And so, that could seemingly be human nature.

The significant point to me is that you have him, at the scene of the crime. And say, argue what you will, spin what you will. He wants to go where he wants to go, he doesn't want to go, where he doesn't, "Oops, I want to do this." A person could be panicked. A person could be agitated. A person could act in a variety of ways.


But the big takeaway for me is, at the end of the day, where is he, where she's found, where she's dead? And you know what? A lot of people say he's responsible. And so, I think that's what prosecutors will point to, as the takeaway, as it relates to that testimony.

CUOMO: Well, certainly, the fact pattern has gotten worse, for him, from the first account.

First account, you don't know where he goes. He just gets out, and says, "I'm going to the wrong place." Theoretically, he wanted to go to Jackson, not Jackson Hole. Now, we know that he went back to the area, where she was found. So, the facts change to his disfavor.

Why do you think it's taking so long to process Gabby?

JACKSON: I think there's a number of things happening, many of which we don't know. Remember the significance of a grand jury having been convened. We didn't know that. We knew that as a result of the indictment that of course, they voted out.

A grand jury, just to be clear, Chris, we know, and you very well, as a lawyer, consists of 23 people, right? And only a, simple majority have to say that "There's reason to believe a crime was committed, and you committed it."

Now, the big takeaway, and the big question is, "Well, yes, but they didn't indict him for murder." Well, not so fast. They indicted him simply as it related to the credit card, or the debit card, electronic transaction issue.

But the grand jury is presented information regularly. And so, what I think they're doing is, as the investigation unfolds, they've given the grand jury more evidence, and more pieces of the puzzle.

We're talking about two of them now, different witnesses, who apparently, he got in the car of. He was hitchhiking. It furthers the timeline. It furthers where he is. It furthers what he was doing. It furthers his conduct.

It furthers the circumstantial evidence, all leading to the conclusion that it was probably him. And for purposes of an indictment, that is, all you need, is the simple probability that it was him. Of course, at a jury trial, the standard is far different.

CUOMO: In terms of the timeline, I have some information, at least some of which I believe we haven't reported before.

So, there have been these questions. Why didn't the - that Gabby's family report her missing for 10 days? "What are they, bad parents? What, do they not care?" I've heard those stories in the air a lot.

Here's what we know. So, they didn't know that Brian was back. He didn't tell them, when he came back. And his family didn't tell them. So, few days, she's 12 - she's 22, not 12. So, they give her a couple of days. She's in the Grand Tetons. They know there's not great service so that adds a little bit more.

And then, it starts to get a little weird. And they hear nothing from Brian Laundrie, or his family, right? So, they then get suspicious, try to reach out to the family, the family never gets back to them.

And when they finally make an effort, where they say they're going to come to the house, they're told, "No, don't." They've gotten a lawyer.

Does that sound right to you?

JACKSON: It does not, so, two pieces.

Obviously, any lawyer is going to advise you not to say anything, right? That's the standard because you can say something, to someone. It could be misconstrued. It could be misinterpreted. It could be used against you. It could not necessarily be helpful.

But the big piece to me of that is the consciousness of guilt. What does that mean in English? It means that in the event that you run, in the event that you go somewhere, in the event that you get away, or try to get away, it evidences a guilty mind.

What further evidences that mind? When you're away, but you were with their daughter, but you have no contact with the family, you disconnect and disengage from the family, and you affirmatively don't want to speak to that family? That further evidences that perhaps you don't want to speak to them because you did something that may in effect be of a criminal variety.

And so, all of these things are significant, Chris, not in isolation, right? But they're significant, as you continue to build the story.

You build it with where they went. You build it with what they were doing. You build it with the social media content that they were displaying, every day, keeping in touch with everyone. Then, it goes cold. You build it by pinpointing him at the scene. You build it by the autopsy report.

And so, any case, as you know, that's why we call it a mountain of evidence, because there are pieces to the puzzle that ultimately paint a picture.

And from prosecutors' perspective, the picture will be vivid from a defense perspective. "Hey? Show me where he was there. Show me what he did. Show me, and otherwise, indicate to me that he's guilty." Two sides to every story. Innocent till proven guilty, of course. But circumstantial evidence certainly is pointing to him being a very responsible party here.

CUOMO: But look, on just one standalone basis, just in terms of humanity, this girl lived with them. You know what I mean?

They were supposed to be very close to her, care about her. The fiancee of their son, you don't tell the parents that the kid is back without her? You don't even take their call?


And then, it matters, in terms of the timeline, because who knows how long Gabby was laying out there? Not only that--


CUOMO: --it prolonged the agony, for her family, but it may have made a difference, in terms of the forensics. That's why I'm bringing it up. That's why I'm bringing it up.

JACKSON: See, that's it (ph), Chris, because what you described is human nature.

CUOMO: Right.

JACKSON: That's the conduct that we expect and anticipate people to engage in. And when they don't, it raises questions.

CUOMO: Right.

JACKSON: "This is the person who cared about you, who loved you, who respected you, who you went on a trip with, and he makes no contact?" So, it goes to the issue of consciousness of guilt. And that's why the humanity issue that you're speaking to, Chris, is so powerful, to a jury, because it doesn't add up.

CUOMO: And parents didn't either.

Joey Jackson, thank you very much. Cogent and competent!

JACKSON: Always.

CUOMO: Appreciate it.

JACKSON: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, two positive COVID tests upended a planned live in- studio interview, with the Vice President, on "The View," today.

Did you see this?


(AUDIENCE APPLAUSE) JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW": There seems to be something happening here that I'm not 100 percent aware of.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I need the two of you to step off for a second.


BEHAR: Ana and Sunny.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we're going to bring you back later.

BEHAR: Have to leave.


KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And Sunny and Ana are strong women. And I know they're fine. But it really also does speak to the fact that they're vaccinated. And vaccines really make all the difference.


CUOMO: Now, there's a twist. And I really hope you let us explain it in the way that is actually accurate, not just use it as more fuel, for fugazi skepticism, OK? There's definitely confusion. It goes to testing, breakthrough cases, and what can happen.

We have a top health official, next.









CUOMO: All right, you saw what happened, on the set of "The View," right, after two hosts tested positive for COVID? It was Sunny Hostin and our own Ana Navarro.


BEHAR: Can someone please--


CUOMO: They were told to leave the set immediately. It was kind of bizarre to watch. But that's live TV for you! Both are vaccinated.

But, now a twist, sources tell us they both tested negative, since the positive, twice. Now they're waiting on the results of another PCR test. Was it a false positive? Would have to be, right, if these other subsequent tests are correct?

So, what does that mean about testing and about breakthrough cases? Let's get answers, from someone, who actually knows, Dr. Zeke Emanuel. He advised Biden, on COVID, during the transition.

Let's start with breakthrough, and then go to testing.

"Ah, you see? That's why you don't have to take the vaccine. You still get sick anyway. So what's the difference?"


It is true that we have breakthrough infections. But the people, who have breakthrough infections, who've been vaccinated, have much more mild cases, and much fewer hospitalizations.

In many studies, there's one person out of 200 or 300, who gets hospitalized, and no deaths, very different than the unvaccinated.

And, by the way, Chris, if you look at the map, the places where we're having the big outbreaks, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, those in general are places with low vaccination rates. And it's among the unvaccinated that you're getting these big surges.

So, the vaccine, while it's not perfect, at preventing cases, is excellent at preventing hospitalizations, and death.

CUOMO: The testing, "I can't really trust that either, you know? You want us to test all the time. But turns out that you test, you're positive. Then you're negative, then you're negative again, or maybe you're positive. Doesn't make any sense!"

EMANUEL: Well, it is the - we have had a problem with testing, right from the start. The CDC got the tests, right, at the start, wrong. We never built up the right testing infrastructure.

We went - and up to many a couple of million tests a day. But now we're down at about 600,000 tests a day, only testing people who are very - who are very suspicious actually have the disease.

But testing is useful when you can actually screen people. First of all, I have personally--

CUOMO: What does that mean?

EMANUEL: --I've personally had a false positive, on one of those over- the-counter tests. I get tested every Monday, when I go to the university, to teach, to be sure, to reassure my students, and to reassure myself, because I have a class of 160 students that I teach twice a week.

Testing has a very important role. We've never properly created the testing infrastructure. And if they had a rapid test, it is possible that they were false positive, and that subsequent tests, confirmed through PCR that they were negative. That's perfectly possible.

CUOMO: Why does the rapid get it wrong, and the PCR get it right?

EMANUEL: Because it's the nature of the tests. There are two different tests. One test is looking for a protein, made by the virus, and that you can get wrong, because of the binding.

The other is actually looking at the DNA of the virus. And that really, you might have a positive, where the virus you've got, is not really infective. But you won't miss a case with the PCR tests.

CUOMO: Because they're so sensitive, the PCRs.

All right, I appreciate you very much, Zeke. Thank you very much, for setting us straight, on this. Every chance, we can, to clear up confusion, I think has to help.

Dr. Zeke Emanuel, be well.

EMANUEL: Take care, Chris. Have a good weekend.

CUOMO: You too.

Trumpers in Arizona wasted months, and millions, to confirm the obvious, once again. Now, that's not what they wanted to do. They wanted to prove that Biden lost. But he won. And, in fact, he gained votes, and Trump lost votes, in their own tally. But the lies likely won't stop.

The Wizard of Odds has a count of his own. He's going to show us how deeply ingrained the "Big lie," is, in the Grand Old Party, next.









CUOMO: The "Big lie," was never going to stop with this sham in Arizona. It's about more than one place.

It didn't matter what the Cyber Ninjas found or didn't find. We're already seeing attempts to do the same thing, in at least five other states. The more elected members of the Republican Party allow this to grow, the more it becomes who that party is.

The man who knows the numbers is the Wizard of Odds.

Harry Enten, good to see you, young man. Let's start with the kind of basic premise of what the lie means, to those, who support Trump.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: I mean, look, there are a lot of reasons why this lie is going about right. Massive ego, I think, is one, sowing discontent and misinformation, and other, but it's also about 2024, right?

Look, Donald Trump wants to run in 2024. There are a lot of people, who support him within the Republican Party. And I think this chart gives you a good idea of why they're - keep pushing this "Big lie."


Look at this. "Believe that the GOP has the best chance of winning in 2024 with Trump as the nominee, if you think Biden won the 2020 election illegitimately," 62 percent of those folks think that Trump gives them the best chance, to win, in November 2024. But "If you think Biden won legitimately," it's just 22 percent.

So, the idea essentially here is, look, if you don't believe Trump actually lost, then he has a good chance of winning. And so, that's why you keep pushing the "Big lie," even though there is of course, no proof for it.

CUOMO: Now, one of the reasons that my hoped-for new demographic, in society, the unvaccinated versus the vaccinated, that the vaccinated are the new majority, doesn't really work.

Because when you poll the vaccinated, they still poll very heavy to party, and they support Trump too, even though they don't support any of his talk, about the pandemic and the vaccine. And I think you see that when you look at the numbers and see it's not just party fringe.

ENTEN: No, it's not just party-fringe.

If we go to that slide, on the vaccination that we have, what we essentially see right here, which is so key to this, is that if you're in the basic belief that I believe that the election was stolen, and there's solid evidence of it, look at that, just 42 percent of those folks have been vaccinated.

"If you believe there's no solid evidence that Biden didn't win legitimately," it's 82 percent.

So, when we're talking about this lie, and this misinformation, to me, it's not just about the election. It's about everyday life. And when you believe one lie, you're far likelier to believe another lie. And that's why, to me, it's so, so dangerous.

CUOMO: No solid evidence Biden won - put that back up for a second.

No solid evidence Biden won, illegitimately, 82 percent. Solid evidence Biden won illegitimately, 42 percent. Why do those numbers not add up to 100?

ENTEN: Because they're different groups, Chris. What we're essentially saying, among those, who believe that there's solid evidence that Biden didn't win legitimately, just 42 percent of those folks are vaccinated, right?

But if you - if there's - if you believe there's no solid evidence--

CUOMO: Ah, I got you, I got you, I got you.

ENTEN: --Biden won illegitimately, it's 82 percent.

But I'm glad that we're able to do a math lesson on Friday night. We're making it fun for the kids!

CUOMO: It was more about organization of data.

But the 42 percent, that's still kind of high. Because if you think about it, if somebody is smart enough to get vaccinated, and accepting of enough of the things that Trump rejects, and 42 percent of them, still buy into him, and the "Big lie," it's weird how you believe--

ENTEN: It's--

CUOMO: --how you believe in a vaccine, but you don't believe in the science. It's just - it's just weird that you don't believe in the election.

ENTEN: Yes, go ahead.

CUOMO: This is not normal.

ENTEN: No, this isn't normal. Look, there are plenty of candidates, who have lost elections before, right? We've had many of them.

CUOMO: Almost every election, somebody loses.

ENTEN: Yes. That's what tends to happen, unless you know you're playing a special game, like maybe in third grade, with Ms. Racanelli (ph). We played kickball. No one seems--

CUOMO: Oh, your generation, where everyone gets a trophy?

ENTEN: You know what? I have a lot of trophies in my apartment. And I did win a lot of those, though, just because I'm so skillful.

CUOMO: Participation!

ENTEN: But look, in every election, there has to be a loser. And you know what those losers do? They concede. They concede. And people then for believe that the election was legitimate.

You look back since 2004. And you look at the candidate's party, the people in his party, right?

Do you have no confidence at all in the election results? And if we pull up that slide, what you'll essentially see is the no-confidence at all number tends to be about 10 percent, right, that they have no confidence at all on the results.

But look at 2020!

CUOMO: Jeez!

ENTEN: 63 percent! Something has clearly changed. And you know what's changed? The candidate didn't concede. He sowed discontent. And this is the result.

You get a large portion of the Republican Party, who simply put, does not believe reality. It's almost as if they don't believe gravity. Because we all know that Joe Biden won legitimately, if you look at the evidence, and yet these folks decide that they just want to look away.

CUOMO: Harry Enten, when you're talking, no one can look away!


CUOMO: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. In fact, you did so well, I'm going to hook you up.

Did you know that Harry has a new podcast?


CUOMO: And it's doing very well. The podcast is called "Margins of Error," where the Wizard of Odds looks at the stories, behind the statistics. Very entertaining! Very informational! Leave the cover photo to the side.

ENTEN: Two good-looking guys! Two good-looking guys, and then one other guy on there.

CUOMO: Yes, I like you good, with the beard, and without the beard, by the way.

ENTEN: You get two different versions of me. You can vote on my Twitter page, which one you like better.

CUOMO: Two yous! Good night.

ENTEN: Good night.

CUOMO: We told you last night about Daniel Robinson, geologist, missing for months. Doesn't make sense. And it's going to be a tough case to solve. Police in Arizona have just released a partial report. How does it square with the findings of a private investigator, hired by the Robinson family?

We'll hear from him, next, and how you can help.









CUOMO: Where is Daniel Robinson? His family, they don't believe the police theory that he crashed his car, in the desert, then, went to join some monkhood.

24-year-old geologist, everything keeps getting stranger, three months after he vanished in an Arizona desert.

We all know his car was found crashed, in a ravine, with all of his belongings. Even his clothes! Were they the clothes that he had on? Or were they some extra clothes? But there was no sign of him.

A private investigator, hired by Daniel's father, says he found evidence that the car didn't originally crash at that site. And that the car apparently ran another 11 miles, after its airbags were deployed, suggesting obviously, after the initial contact.

In their search for Daniel, listen to this, they came upon a number of remains, including a human skull, maybe five people. It wasn't Daniel, none of them.


Joining me now is Jeff McGrath, the private investigator, helping the Robinson family, in their search.

Good to have you, sir.


CUOMO: Authorities put out a partial report. You find it unsatisfying, because?

MCGRATH: Well, I've had that report, for three months now, well, two months now. And I was brought into this because of the vehicle. And my expertise is in forensic accident investigation. And I've looked at what the airbag control module tells me in the vehicle.

CUOMO: And what does it tell you?

MCGRATH: It tells me that there were 46 additional ignition cycles, after airbag deployment that the vehicle was traveling consistently 29 miles to 30 miles per hour, for five seconds, prior to airbag deployment.

There's not enough room in that little ravine, where it came off the ridge, for it to travel that distance, and that speed. There was 11 additional miles, on the vehicle, from the time the airbags deployed. It just didn't match up. The damage didn't match to where it was found in the ravine.

CUOMO: So, what does that make you think?

MCGRATH: Well it makes me think that that vehicle was crashed somewhere else, and I have reason to believe more than once, because I have possession of the vehicle, and we've done extensive inspections on it.

And it shows it's been involved in at least two collisions. We don't know which one deployed the airbags. But there were two significant collisions. And those were not what it was, at the bottom of that ravine.

So, however it got to the bottom of that ravine, we know the tire tracks that go down there. But who was in it? Who was operating it? We don't know. It could have been Daniel. It could have been someone else. It doesn't match. It just doesn't match that area.

CUOMO: So, what scenarios do you envision? That he was hit by another car, and somebody then did something to him, and then took the car, and got lost in the desert? I mean, what do you envision?

MCGRATH: It's tough to - it's tough to envision what took place, because we're still lacking a lot of evidence. Buckeye Police Department and my office are all lacking evidence.

It appears that right there, from where the vehicle was recovered, that there's no - there's no exit, away from the vehicle. There's no obvious signs somebody was - that walked out of there, or drove out of there.

There's just nothing. It ends right there, in that ravine. And there's no blood, or DNA, or debris, inside the vehicle, to indicate anybody was injured in that.

CUOMO: What do you make of the idea that--

MCGRATH: We just--

CUOMO: --clothes were found in the car? Do you believe that they were spare clothes? Or do you think they were what he had on? MCGRATH: Well, those were his work clothes.


MCGRATH: We do know that because his work vest was there as well, and his work boots. It's not uncommon for these geologists to carry extra clothes, in their vehicles--

CUOMO: Sure.

MCGRATH: --while they go out into remote locations. But we don't have any proof that he had a change of clothes with him. It would be unlikely, if he didn't.

CUOMO: Do you think he had - this situation speaks to the existence of another participant?

MCGRATH: We were leaning that way, early on in this investigation. But the more my team starts to dig into this, it appears that we just can't say, for certain, if there's anybody else involved. We just can't rule out foul play. But I can't say there was foul play, at this time, either.

CUOMO: The idea that somebody, who was working with him said that he seemed off, in the days, immediately before he disappeared, and the theory of the local police that he went off, to some kind of monkhood, or something like that, what do you make of those suggestions?

MCGRATH: Well, I think him wandering off, to join the monastery that was suggested to Mr. Robinson, I think, is absurd.

There was a - there was a person that worked for another company that digs the well that last saw Daniel, on June 23rd. And he made a statement that he was acting odd.

I have interviewed him. And he made statements that Daniel just said he was tired, and wanted to - he wanted to go rest. So, what that means, I don't know. I don't have anybody else to ask that that could answer that question.

CUOMO: Now, I would say to you, "Well, people don't just disappear," as you know, from your line of work.


And yet, you found remains of multiple people in the desert that I guess searches that just never turned anything up. None of them were Daniel. So, people can't just disappear and it never becomes resolved.

Do you have hope for continuing this search?

MCGRATH: Yes, I do have hope. We have some other areas we're going to start looking into. We have some tips we're following up on. So, I do have hope, yes. I do want to bring Daniel home to his family.

CUOMO: Absolutely. MCGRATH: So, I have to keep some hope.

CUOMO: We're going to put Daniel's picture up right now.


CUOMO: If anybody has seen him, please give information. It's right there. We'll put it in social media.

Also, there's a $10,000 reward, for tips, through the website. And phone number on your screen. If you have information, please do the right thing. Contact the Buckeye Police Department. Appreciate you.

And Jeff, thank you very much for what you're doing for this family. I wish you well.

MCGRATH: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: All right, we'll be right back.


CUOMO: That's it for us tonight.

"DON LEMON TONIGHT," with the upgrade, for Friday night, Laura Coates, right now.