Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Rep. Jordan Talks To CNN About Committee Snub; Interview With Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA); Chicago Students Miss Fourth Day Of Classes Amid Reopening Fight; Chicago Teachers Union And Mayors CPS Team Still Bargaining; Colorado Dem, Governor Touts Jabs And Jobs Over Shutdowns And Mask Mandates, Even As Cases Rise; Carl Bernstein On His Earliest Stories; From JFK To The Civil Rights Movement; Judge Paves The Way For Novak Djokovic To Stay In Australia. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired January 10, 2022 - 20:00   ET


ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Now our tears flow in sadness, but also with gratitude for all the beautiful memories of our sweet, kind, hilarious, cherished Bob. He was a brother to us guys, a father to us, girls, and a friend to all of us. Bob, we love you dearly. We ask in Bob's honor that you hug the people you love. No one gave better hugs than Bob."

AC 360 starts now.



The lawmaker who says he has got nothing to hide about January 6th is acting a lot like someone who has got something to hide about January 6th. He is Congressman Jim Jordan and he has just tried to explain it again to us.

Also, there's new reporting tonight about Mike Pence on whether he'll talk to the House Select Committee. Certainly, a lot to get to this evening.

We begin with Congressman Jordan, the Ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. He would likely Chair the Committee if Republicans take the House this fall.

Knowing such, you'd think he'd have deep respect for Congressional Committees and the work they do, especially when it comes to oversight and investigation, both of which he vigorously pursued back when Republicans ran the House.

So why then did he just snub a request to meet with the House Select Committee on January 6th?

Well, in his letter to the Committee, he said he had quote: "No relevant information that would assist the Select Committee in advancing any legitimate legislative purpose."

And notice, he doesn't say he has no relevant information that would assist the Committee in its investigation. Only in quote, "any legitimate legislative purpose," which he has already made plain, he doesn't believe the Committee has.

It is a way of being less than honest without appearing to be, frankly, because if the question is, does he have anything of interest to the Committee and its investigation, the answer clearly is yes, he does.

Here is Committee member Adam Schiff talking about text messages to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in and around the insurrection.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I want to display just a few of the message he received from people in Congress. If we could cue the first graphic. This one reads, "On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all."


COOPER: So that message he read was from Congressman Jordan. Now, it's a dubious legal theory on overturning the election, which he forwarded, so you can see why the Committee might want to talk to him about that.

Again, this is the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee fronting a theory for potential coup, the same Jim Jordan who is rarely at a loss for words, except it seems when asked about something else the Committee wants to know about his conversations with the former President that day.


QUESTION: On January 6, did you speak with him before, during or after the Capitol was attacked?

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Ah, I'd have to go -- I spoke with him that day after, I think after, I don't know if I spoke with him in the morning or not. I hadn't -- I just don't know. I'd have to go back, but I mean, I don't -- I don't -- I don't know that -- when -- when those conversations happened, but -- but what I know is that I spoke to him all the time.


COOPER: So this is a guy who prides himself on his ability to pepper witnesses with rapid fire questions and bullet points, which he likes to rattle off at warp speed. It seems like it is different on the receiving end, doesn't it? Or maybe that's how he thinks people talk when they've got nothing to hide, which he has repeatedly claimed.

Here he is in July with CNN's Manu Raju.


MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You had conversations with him until after January 6th.

JORDAN: Yes, but I have conservations with the President all the time.

RAJU: But they said that they asked you to come, you would say --

JORDAN: Yes, if they call me. I've got nothing to hide.


COOPER: Nothing to hide he said in July and here he is in October, saying the same at contempt proceedings for Steve Bannon.


QUESTION: Are you willing to tell the Select Committee what you know about events leading up to, during and --

JORDAN: I've been saying all along, I've got nothing to hide. I've been straightforward all along.


COOPER: Notice again how slippery the language is. In both instances, he is asked whether he is willing to talk to the Committee and both times he answers, "I have nothing to hide." He doesn't say yes, I'll talk to the Select Committee.

That's how Washington works. Really something special, especially for somebody who once lectured former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the endless Benghazi hearings about transparency.


JORDAN: Last month on September 20th, you said, quote, "I'm being as transparent as possible, more transparent than anybody else ever has been."

Now, my definition of transparency includes being honest and straightforward, and being honest and straightforward right from the start, right from the get go.


COOPER: Joining us for more on this, CNN's Ryan Nobles at the Capitol who just spoke with the Congressman. What did he say?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, we tried to press him more on these questions about his willingness to cooperate or lack thereof with the January 6th Select Committee and I asked him if his letter meant that he had completely shut down the door or close the door to talking to the Committee and all he would do was refer me back to this letter.

He said that the letter answers all the questions that we might have, so I pressed him a little more. I asked, would you be willing to sit in front of the Committee in a public hearing and answer questions that everyone can hear and see?


Again, he just referred me back to that letter, and then I asked him, you said at one point that you have nothing to hide, you still have nothing to hide. He again said that he had nothing to hide, but then, went on to say all the problems that he has with the Committee, the way that it was formed, the way that they have handled their business up until this point, but then again, refused to say whether or not he would talk to the Committee.

And then finally, the last thing we asked him, Anderson, is whether or not he's had any communication with the former President Donald Trump and his legal team as it relates to his interaction with the Committee, he simply would not answer that question, just referred us back once again to that letter.

COOPER: There is also new reporting late tonight on former Vice President Mike Pence with regards to Committee. What do we know?

NOBLES: Yes. So what this "New York Times" report echoes, a lot of our reporting already is that the former Vice President Mike Pence does seem to be at least open to the idea of speaking to the January 6th Select Committee, but he has not yet decided whether or not he is willing to do it.

What "The Times" report does get into, which could be of a concern to the Committee is that Pence is a little upset about the perception about the level of cooperation with a number of aides that worked for him in and around the time of January 6th and how much they've been talking to the Committee.

Now we know that Marc Short, his former Chief of Staff has been subpoenaed with the Committee, he has expressed a willingness to cooperate. And of course, his former National Security adviser, Keith Kellogg, already sat for a lengthy deposition with the Committee and told us afterwards that he was willing to cooperate.

Now, it appears that Pence does not want to be seen as a full willing participant of the Committee's investigation, perhaps because of some blowback that that could provide him with those close to the former President Donald Trump. But at the end of the day, Anderson, he has not closed the door to the idea of speaking with the Committee, and we know, very specifically from the Chairman and other members of the Committee that they are very interested in hearing from the former Vice President.

COOPER: Ryan Nobles. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Joining us now, two former Republican Congress members, Mia Love who is now a CNN political commentator, and Joe Walsh, host of the podcast "White Flag with Joe Walsh." Congresswoman Love, Jim Jordan clearly relevant to the January 6 investigation. He was speaking to the former President at the time on the day, apparently, but without any details. He hasn't said when or how often.

Does it surprise you at all, that a former sitting Congressman is basically blowing off a Congressional Committee?

MIA LOVE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, you know, it's really interesting to me that the Committee decided to summon him and not subpoena him, which is a big difference, and in my experience, Members of Congress give each other a little bit of grace period, which is a little bit of grace, when it comes to hearings because they, you know, they respect them as former Members of Congress.

So I think it is really interesting that they actually summoned and not subpoenaed him, and I think that also, Jim Jordan is probably looking and saying, hey, I was on the list to begin with. They didn't use me then, they probably don't need me now.

I think that he should go, but my guess is these are the things -- this is the dynamic that is playing out in Washington.

COOPER: Yes. I mean, Congressman Walsh, you also served in the House with Jim Jordan. You said you used to be good friends. What do you think his endgame is here? I mean, politically, I understand why he wouldn't do it. It certainly plays to the people who support him, I assume.

JOE WALSH, HOST "WHITE FLAG WITH JOE WALSH" PODCAST: Anderson, this is what's so sad about this Republican Party. Jim Jordan, who I do know well can't testify in front of this Committee because if he testified under oath, he'd have to tell the truth. And if Jim Jordan told the truth about that day, his career as a Republican would be over, because he'd have to say that he communicated with the President and Donald Trump incited the insurrection, and they tried to get the President to act and he wouldn't act.

That's the truth, and Jim Jordan knows all of that. But Anderson, if he said that, the average Republican voter out there would be done with Jim Jordan. I mean, that's what the Republican Party is today. You simply can't tell the truth.

COOPER: You know, it's so interesting, Joe, you're saying this because I mean, even a guy like Jim Jordan who has bent over backwards to support the former President who has, you know, pushed the big lie repeatedly gone to the mat for the former President.

You're right, even if he did testify, and he just told the truth that would nullify all the other debasement he has done of himself for the former President in the eyes of the former President and his supporters. This former President will attack anyone who tells the truth even if they have been incredibly loyal to him.

WALSH: Anderson, I'm not the only one to say this. The Republican Party is a cult. I know a lot of people say that, but what does that mean? That means they are all beholden to Donald Trump and the base of the party which is beholden to Trump. And as a cult, you can't speak the truth.

Look at Mike Pence, look at all the supplicating he did to Donald Trump for four or five years, and then on January 6th, Anderson, he does his constitutional duty, and as far as the Republican Party base is concerned, he is done. Jordan knows that.

COOPER: Congresswoman Love, I mean, the fact that Congressman Jordan could become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, if Republicans take the House this year. You know, it's so fascinating, when you look back at his performance during the Benghazi hearings, you know, he was prosecuting that very strongly asking, you know, he was relentless on that. It's just so different when the table is turned. I mean, the hypocrisy here.

LOVE: Yes, and I think that that's what's really difficult for Representative Jim Jordan, because if he does, I do agree that if he does take the stand, it will put him -- I shouldn't say take the stand -- but actually appear before the Committee, it would really put him in a difficult situation, because he will be -- he will have to tell the truth and talk about everything that he knows what happened on January 6th.

But I do disagree with the cult statement. I'm still a member of the Republican Party, I'm not abdicating my position. As a matter of fact, if you look at the former President's numbers and the support that he has, it's actually going down, and I'm pleased with that because campaigns really aren't about what happened yesterday. They're not about what happens today. It's about what is next.

And I think the American people are looking for leaders that are going to say this is -- I want you to prevent this from happening again and then tell me --

COOPER: Yes, but the former President is still the standard bearer of the Republican Party. I mean, obviously, you are part of the Republican Party that has principles and you know, adheres to basic facts and truth. But that's not -- I mean, you could not -- could you win today running in that Republican Party without supporting the former President?

LOVE: I think you could, and you can look at Youngkin who stayed away from being -- from trying to be tied to the President. He actually didn't run with the President, and he ran on issues that were important to his -- to the State and to the areas that he is going to represent.

So I think that there is a path forward, and we can see that, again, with -- the dropping numbers of support that the President is having. And I know that there are Members of Congress that are actually going and there trying to run, still supporting the President and I think those members are going to lose or those people that are looking to be members of Congress are going to lose.

COOPER: Congressman Walsh.

WALSH: Anderson, I respect the heck out of Mia Love, but the fact is, if you don't say Donald Trump won the election, you don't have -- you can't get elected this year as a Republican.

If you say January 6th was a violent attempt to overthrow the election, if you say that truth, Anderson, there is no way on God's Green Earth as a Republican you could win next year.

COOPER: I mean, look at Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz, just saying the word "terrorist" about people who attacked police officers on the day of the insurrection, and he gets, you know, a starring role in a way he didn't want on Tucker Carlson's show and had done probably severe damage to himself, but we shall see. We shall see if support is fading.

LOVE: We shall see.

COOPER: Yes. Congresswoman Love, appreciate it. Congressman Joe Walsh, appreciate it as well.

WALSH: Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: Coming up next, one of the lawmakers suing the former president over his actions on the 6th of January after the Judge hearing their case questions lawyers who say a sitting President can say anything and not be held accountable in Civil Court. Congressman Eric Swalwell joins us on that.

And later, the latest on tennis great, Novak Djokovic, getting the okay to play in the Australian Open unvaccinated because he tested positive for COVID and recovered last month, which solves one problem of him playing, it does nothing to answer questions about what he was doing out in public when he was supposed to be quarantining. More on that ahead.



COOPER: Lawyers for the former President were in Court today in Washington trying to get a Federal Judge to throw out a trio of lawsuits from House Democrats and the Capitol Police officers.

They are seeking to hold the former President and some of his allies accountable for the Capitol attack. One of his attorneys today claimed that everything he said while President is protected from any lawsuits because it was all part of his official actions.

The Judge was skeptical, referring to a Supreme Court precedent and asking quote, "You would have me ignore what he said in its entirety." Joining us now, one of the plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California.

Congressman, appreciate you being with us. So, there is obviously a big case.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): My pleasure.

COOPER: Do you believe based on what you heard today from the Judge that he is going to let your lawsuit proceed?

SWALWELL: We believe today that we presented enough facts to show that Donald Trump incited and aimed a mob -- a violent mob at the Capitol and that that is well outside the bounds of presidential immunity, and so I know the Judge had a lot of tough questions for both sides, and we welcome that, and I think he is going to carefully review it.

But Anderson, this is about accountability, and for too long, accountability has been a stranger that Donald Trump has never encountered. And today in a courtroom, he met it.

COOPER: One of the former President's lawyers argued to the Judge today that the former President cannot be held liable for actions he did not take. What do you say to that?

SWALWELL: The key action, of course, that the Judge pressed the former President's lawyer on was, well if Donald Trump did not intend to incite the mob on January 6, why didn't he just call off the mob? Why did it take over two hours, nearly three hours before he even said anything at all? And there was no good answer other than well, because he's the President, he can say what he wants, and he can't be held accountable for that.


That's not good enough, and in the law, when you incite and aim a mob, you are held accountable and this President did not do that in his official capacity as President. He did it as a loser of a presidential campaign, someone who had lost and was throwing out the legal means of trying to win the election and relying on violence and rhetoric.

COOPER: What is your -- I mean, what's the purpose in pursuing this lawsuit?

SWALWELL: Accountability, Anderson, to show the former President and those who stood with him that day that we are a country of law and order, and when you lose an election, you can see you don't use violence, you don't use violent rhetoric, you don't fire up a mob, and you don't stop me and my colleagues from lawfully counting the votes.

And if he is not held accountable for that, I'm convinced, Anderson, that he is going to seek to do it again when he loses in 2024. So, again, this is about bringing something that has been a long time coming for Donald Trump, and that's accountability.

COOPER: Do you -- I mean, if the judge rules in your favor, do you worry then in the future, any President can be sued by anybody for anything?

SWALWELL: Well, you know, the Judge in a moment that revealed just how difficult of a case this is, I think he noted that this is a very difficult, complex case, because thankfully, we've never had a President do this before. We've never had a President use, you know, his social media to call people to Washington and then tell them when they're there that they have to fight like hell, and that they should go to the Capitol.

Thankfully, that's never happened before. So, I would say, Anderson, I hope if the President is held accountable, it would be a message that that should never happen again, and that you do not have absolute immunity to do anything you want. You are a President, you're not a King and that's what this lawsuits about.

COOPER: I mean, there are obviously multiple lawsuits at play. You know, you have House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said today that if the G.O.P. wins back the House later this year, he'll seek to kick you and two of your Democratic colleagues, Adam Schiff and Ilhan Omar off your Committees in retaliation for Democrats' kicking two fringe Republicans off their committees, Marjorie Taylor Greene for spreading hateful conspiracy theories, QAnon theories and others and Paul Gosar for posting a video depicting the killing of Alexandria Cortez in Anime.

Are you -- what do you make of what McCarthy has said targeting you?

SWALWELL: Well, he spends a lot of time thinking about and talking about me and Mr. Schiff. And I'll say this, we are thinking about and talking about doing what we can to help people and focus on winning the midterms.

He is targeting me, he is targeting Schiff and he is targeting Miss Omar because we're effective, not for any other reason. And this is the Trumpization of politics, right, Anderson that he is doing it purely for retaliation purposes, and he is not even offering a fig leaf as to why he is doing it.

It is just because we are calling him out for the Ku Klux Klan elements that he has in his caucus, who he won't call out. So he is projecting on to us what he can't do with his own colleagues.

COOPER: All right, Congressman Swalwell, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thanks.

COOPER: Up next, will Chicago schools be closed for yet another day tomorrow as the city and teachers union disagree on COVID safety measures? The latest showdown and hear from one of several parents suing the teachers union now over the walkout.



COOPER: Well, as you know, more than 340,000 students in Chicago remain out of the classroom today. It was day four of the shutdown. Public school leaders and teachers union have been deadlocked on how to handle the omicron surge.

A short time ago, Chicago's Mayor Lori Lightfoot tweeted this: "Today's negotiations were productive. We are waiting to hear back from CTU Local 1 (That's the teachers union.)"

The mayor says students in the nation's third largest School District need to be in the classroom and she believes steps have been taken to keep everyone safe. Now, the teachers union wants to be able to switch to virtual learning if COVID absences account for more than 25 percent of the school staff, 30 percent of elementary students or 25 percent of high school students.

Some Chicago parents are taking legal action. Joining us now Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney for several parents suing the Chicago Teachers Union, one of those parents, Laurel Golden.

Appreciate both of you being with us. Jeffrey, I understand if schools are still closed on Wednesday, you're going to go before a Judge to present the case with the parents that you're representing. Can you explain what your lawsuit argues and what you hope the Judge decides?

JEFFREY SCHWAB, ATTORNEY: Sure, thanks, Anderson.

Our lawsuit alleges that what the union is doing is wrong. They cannot strike both under Illinois law and under the contract, they're prevented from going on strike unless the contract is terminated or expired and it's not.

So what they're doing is illegal and our lawsuit intends to stop it.

COOPER: Laurel, you're the mom of three Chicago Public School students, an 11-year-old, and twin nine-year-old boys. First of all, how are you guys coping? I mean, how are you doing?

LAUREL GOLDEN, SUING CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION: It's a challenge every day. Boys -- my boys they want to be in school, they want to be learning and it is fairly chaotic around the house trying to find things to keep them busy, trying to get them to do some of the instructional assignments that they're putting forth online that the schools are putting out, but there is no point in doing them because they're not graded and they're completely optional.

COOPER: Wow, really? I didn't realize that.

GOLDEN: Yes, some of the principals have put out instructional pamphlets that kids can work on at home, busy work.

COOPER: And how much time have they spent just in the last you know, during this pandemic online -- you know, from home instead of at school?

GOLDEN: In this most recent --

COOPER: No, just overall roughly.


GOLDEN: Overall, they were home from September of 2020 until March of 2021. Then they finished the school year until June and then they went back to school in September of 2021 and were successfully attending in-person every day up until this Christmas break on December 17th was their last day. Then they came back for two days in January now and they've been home ever since.

COOPER: And you've - GOLDEN: And now they're not even doing remote learning.

COOPER: And you've noticed, I mean, I've talked to so many parents that no matter how hard you try with remote learning, you've noticed a difference in the results.

GOLDEN: Oh, absolutely. Two out of my three children have 504 plans, which have accommodations, and obviously with remote learning, those accommodations cannot be met. It is impossible.

COOPER: Jeffrey I know Teachers Union did something similar to this last year. How are they able to make a unilateral decision that impacts 340,000 students and families?

JEFFREY SCHWAB, ATTORNEY: Well, the reality is because CPS and the mayor refuse to enforce the law. And so they've let them do it last year, they let them do it last year around this time when CPS was trying to get back to a hybrid model where kids would go back to school two days a week. And that was delayed about a month because a CTU tried to pull the same thing. In our lawsuit, we're going to try to end this so it doesn't happen again, in the future. This is a tactic that - CTU should not be able to use.

COOPER: Laurel, how much do you think this is about COVID and, you know, understandable concerns that some have about COVID. And how much do you think is about the mayor and Union's inability to get along?


COOPER: Sorry, that's for Laurel.

SCHWAB: I'm sorry.

COOPER: That's right.

SCHWAB: I'm sorry.

GOLDEN: I believe in the science, the science says that it's safe for the kids to be in school, and it's safe for the teachers to be there. And since the beginning of this pandemic, our children have been used as pawns in this political hot potato between the CTU, CPS and Mayor Lightfoot. And it's our children that are paying the ultimate price for this.

COOPER: You know, I spoke to the mayor, I think I guess it was on Friday, and she said, you know they're going to be working for the weekend on this. She sounded optimistic about school, you know, getting to a resolution over the weekend. Clearly that that didn't happen. Do you have any sense of how long this may go on for?

GOLDEN: I received an e-mail from two out of my three boys schools this afternoon already about three o'clock, informing me that there was no school for tomorrow already. So, I already -- I know there's nothing for tomorrow. And then I'll get another e-mail tomorrow afternoon probably telling me there's nothing for Wednesday. COOPER: Laurel Golden, I really appreciate you talking. Even finding the time to do this must be difficult given all you got going on. So I appreciate it. Jeffrey Schwab as well. We'll continue to follow what happens in court. Thank you.

Coming up next, a different perspective on the COVID surge, how the governor of Colorado Democrat is pushing vaccines and saying no to shutdowns or statewide mask mandate and how voters and health officials are reacting to it.



COOPER: More now on COVID and a different perspective on the crisis. We want to now take you to Colorado where the governor a Democrat is pushing a pandemic response focused on getting life back to normal even as cases surge there with a seven day average positivity rate of 28%.

More from CNN's Ed Lavandera.



ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the darkest days of the pandemic Daniel Ramirez had to furlough 250 employees from his four Mexican restaurants in Denver, Colorado. But now more than 300 employees are back on the payroll and business is booming at Los Dos Potrillos, a family owned restaurant chain his father started 20 years ago,

DANIEL RAMIREZ, OWNER, LOS DOS POTRILLOS: We had to learn how to understand the depth to it. If we never learned how to adapt to it, then I honestly think so would have been stuck in 2020.

GOV. JARED POLIS (D-CO): Thank you, everybody for your work.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): Ramirez and others credit this happening in Colorado because of Democratic governor Jared Polis, who has distanced himself from some Democratic leaders across the country. Governor Polis is leaving mask mandate orders up to local jurisdictions. And in a statement to CNN a spokesperson says the governor is focused on fixing the economic disruptions caused by the pandemic, adding hospital capacity and COVID testing.


LAVANDERA (voice-over): The governor also says promoting the COVID-19 vaccine is key. And he says those who don't get vaccinated are responsible for what happens.

POLIS: Everybody's had the chance to get vaccinated. And at this point, I think it's almost like they made a deliberate decision not to get vaccinated. LAVANDERA (voice-over): Democratic pollster and political strategist Andrew Baumann describes the Governor as a progressive with a libertarian streak who is getting high marks for his recent handling of the pandemic, even as cases and hospitalizations are surging.

ANDREW BAUMANN, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER & POLITICAL STRATEGIST: He sort of adapted to the circumstances. He's listed the voters listen to this, his advisors and public health experts, and he's found a path that works for the state. And I think he has read that needle pretty well.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): But some say Governor Polis has become too Cavalier in an interview with Colorado Public Radio, the Governor made comments that frustrated many public health experts.

POLIS: The emergency is over. So, you know, public health doesn't get to tell people what to wear. I mean, that's, that's, you know, that's just not their job.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You see the arrival of the vaccine, as the end of mask mandates statewide. That's your position.

POLIS: Well, we see it as the end of the medical emergency. Frankly, people who want to be protected are those who get sick, it's almost entirely their own darn fault.

LAVANDERA (on-camera): Why did that bother you so much?


LAVANDERA (voice-over): Dr. Mark Johnson is the president of the Colorado Medical Society. He recently retired from his post as the public health director of Jefferson County, outside of Denver.

JOHNSON: To say its over, feeds in to those who want it to be over and are telling us in medicine and in public health, that we're overdoing it. It's not like we're trying to control people's lives, but that's kind of what it came off as.

RAMIREZ: Every recipe is my mom, my dad, my grandma's.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): Daniel Ramirez and his family operate four different restaurants in three different counties, each with their own set of local pandemic health guidelines. That's part of the local control the governor has advocated.


(on-camera): How stressful is that?

RAMIREZ: It's pretty stressful, it's a whirlwind.

LAVANDERA (on-camera): And confusing.

RAMIREZ: Very confusing. It's a -- it's you never know what you're going to get, you know, especially say that in the industry, but now with so many different county rules, you really don't know what you're going to get any day of the week. So it gets pretty confusing.

LAVANDERA (on-camera): And you're OK with that?

RAMIREZ: Of course we are. We have to figure out a way, we have to continue moving forward.


COOPER: Ed joins us. Now, we had the governor on a short time ago. Is there any scenario under which Governor Polis says he's going to return to statewide COVID restriction?

LAVANDERA: Well, we asked him that directly, is a spokesperson for the governor didn't say answer that question directly, however. But you know, about eight -- about 70% of the state's population in Colorado over the age of five is fully vaccinated. So the spokesman for the governor says that they are kind of moving beyond past this idea of a small group of unvaccinated people in that state, infringing on everyone else's ability to move beyond the pandemic.

So, you clearly get the sense they're trying to strike this balance between pushing the vaccine and getting people's lives back to normal as quickly as possible to kind of unravel the economic disruptions that the state in the country has suffered for most of the last two years.

COOPER: Yes. Ed Lavandera, appreciate it. Thank you.

Up next, our friend and colleague Carl Bernstein joins us to talk about his remarkable account getting started in his business, from his first big assignment covering Kennedy inauguration to his role getting news of the assassination and to print to how his young career led him to become the legend we all know. A new book out Chasing History.



COOPER: We are always happy to have people on the program when they've written something that makes the act of reading and freshly experiencing a moment in time of pure pleasure. Well that goes double tonight. Our guest is legendary journalist and CNN political analyst Carl Bernstein, his new book Chasing History, A Kid In The Newsroom, tells us how the legend began.

Carl, I started the book over the weekend, it's such a great read. Viewers who are familiar with your work of the Washington Post, they may be surprised to learn you began your career the Washington Star which was Washington DCs conservative paper before it folded in 1981. It's a really a love letter to a newspaper industry, which sadly, in so many ways no longer exists. What made you decide to revisit that time.

CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It was in some ways the most joyous experience of my life, I went to work in this great newsroom got the greatest seat in the country at the age of 16. Worked at the Washington Star from 1960 to '65, when so much was happening in America in the capital of the United States, civil rights, assassination of Kennedy, it was an amazing time in our history. And I was taught by the most amazing reporters of the 20th century in many regards. It's the best education you could have. And I dropped out of college and got really a superior education from these people who became my family really Evening Star.

COOPER: What are the differences you see between a conservative paper in the 1960s and the conservative media today?

BERNSTEIN: Well, because this was a paper that was committed to the best obtainable version of the truth to use a phrase that Bob Woodward and I used a lot during Watergate, but that phrase has its roots. And what I learned at the Star, we called it the complexity of the truth. And it involves the kind of thing we did in Watergate, knocking on a lot of doors, being good listeners, seeking out sources, being perseverant. And that was something we were taught.

But the amazing thing about the Star, unlike the Washington Post of those days, because the Washington Post bled its editorial opinions onto the front page in those days, and the Evening Star did not. It was the conservative paper in terms of its editorial policies. But it had a much greater commitment to the truth in all its complexity, and had reporters and editors. And that was their-- it was their first principle that we are trying to tell and report and get the truth through great reporting.

COOPER: You know, I think part of the polarization of today is because journalism that we don't have the newspapers and local newspapers like we used to, we don't have in one city, we don't have multiple newspapers covering things and that sense of community which one got and participation, which one got from having those, you know, multiple points of view and multiple, you just don't have that anymore.

BERNSTEIN: No, you don't. And the other thing that you don't have is the kind of aggressive reporting that was somewhat standard operating procedure in those days, knocking on doors, if, as I've said. Going to visit your sources, not just in their offices, but going to see them at night, having a relationship with them that you can sit across from them at the table, and really learn what's on their minds.

One of the things about reporters is they're often not very good listeners, we were taught to be good listeners, that people may try to tell you the truth, if you give them a chance, rather than just shove a microphone in their face and, and run the other way and run back to the office once they've told you something. So we had a very different approach to what we see in so much mainstream news today. It's not to say there's not an awful lot of great reporting going on today. And to demonstrate it all you have to do is look at the reporting on the Trump presidency, some of the greatest White House reporting in history.

COOPER: You know, I mean, there's so many great stories in this book. You were 16 years old, you just been hired. You saw John F. Kennedy speak in 1960 when he was running for president. In the book, I mean, it's -- BERNSTEIN: He came to my -- he came to my high school.

COOPER: Yes, right.

BERNSTEIN: And I had just started it the paper in the state editor. This one (INAUDIBLE) said hey, you know, the tariffs there, why don't you go with our senior political reporter and report on the crowds and that's what I did.


COOPER: But the speech didn't make any sense

BERNSTEIN: No, it can't be that day. Kennedy, you could be the most eloquent of speakers. He had mixed up the pages of his speech with a speech that was supposed to be given in California. And he said, no, I'm right here with the senator from California. He was actually there with the senator from Tennessee. It was a mess.

COOPER: But the crowd didn't care.

BERNSTEIN: The crowd did not care. They were mesmerized. You know, I, I had gone to the Allen Fried Rock and Roll show in New York a couple years earlier, when Jerry Lee Lewis threw his jacket into the audience and the girls went, wow, I've never seen anything like it. The same thing happened with Kennedy, if he hadn't pulled back from the crowd. They would have taken his jacket off and scripted shirt off.

COOPER: I love you're 16 years old. You're going to high school and you're reporting on Kennedy at your high school for a paper. I mean, its incredible Carl Bernstein, congratulations. I mean, the book is just -- it's Chasing History, A Kid In The Newsroom comes out tomorrow. It's a great, great read.

Carl's going to join me Wednesday on our digital show for more Full Circle.

Up next, now that a judge is OK tennis grade and vaccine opponent Novak Djokovic to play in the Australian Open because he tested positive for COVID on December 16. Here's a question, what was he doing on December 17 mask less at a public event for kids? We talk about it with former pro James Blake.



COOPER: Tennis star Novak Djokovic is now out of the detention and a judge paved the way for him to stay in Australia. But the saga isn't over yet. A spokesperson for Australia's Immigration Minister says he's still considering canceling Djokovic's visa. And this is question surrounds Djokovic's medical exemption. According to documents from Australia's Federal Circuit Court, Djokovic was granted a vaccine exemption after testing positive for COVID in December.

But multiple pictures on social media show Djokovic unmasked at events on the day he supposedly tested positive, it's unclear if he knew his results before attending to do the events.

Joining us former professional tennis player James Blake. So James, what do you make of the judge's decision today to restore his visa?

JAMES BLAKE, FMR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER: Well, I think it's a bit of a sad day for tennis just because I mean, nobody looks good. You know, it's good. We want to have the best players playing in every event. But it seems like the way it went down here. There's miscommunication between Tennis Australia, the state government, federal government, and Novak not entirely being transparent about all of what he was doing, missing a deadline for the exemption.

So, I just -- the big thing for me as a player and as a tour director is I want a fair playing field for everyone. But I think if you've been transparent throughout the whole process, this will be a lot easier to digest for a lot of people.

COOPER: Right, I mean, Djokovic says he tested positive on December 16th, he was seeing that a live streamed event without a mask that same day, as well as the next day. It's kind of hard to square that.

BLAKE: Yes. So again, it raises a lot of questions. So if I'm a player, if I'm the rank and file player that's ranked 60 in the world that went through all the correct processes to be playing there, whether it's getting vaccinated, whether putting in you're putting in for a medical exemption earlier than December 10th. And getting that exemption and getting squared away to play.

I'd have that question of like, what, why is his different? And what is different about it? Then maybe simple answer that. Maybe he's got his first press conference, h'll explain all this. And I'll let us all know why he was unmasked on the 17th and 18th, and still showing that he tested positive on 16th. I don't know what that would be, but maybe he has a simple answer for all of us.

COOPER: I mean, do you worry that that Djokovic may have been treated differently for good or for bad because of his status as a wealthy professional athlete?

BLAKE: Oh, definitely. I think there was a huge, huge spotlight on him. And I think again, that's where it would have, in my opinion, made a lot more sense to be transparent about it, because I think people were still in the dark about what we get. What's he going to do? Is he vaccinated, is he unvaccinated? And then he just pops up on social media and says, I'm getting on a plane. And I think that threw everyone into a bit of a tizzy.

And, you know, in Australia, they were pretty frustrated with the fact that they've been under these serious lockdowns and one of the greatest athletes of all time, who's clearly one of the fittest athletes, just says, well, I've got my medical exemption, I'm ready to go without any explanation, without talking about it at all.

And I know Tennis Australia got two different types of information, the federal government saying COVID In the last six months is OK, the state government saying no, that's not OK. And then not communicating that with the players accurately. Because I do believe Djokovic got on a plane and thinking he had done everything he was supposed to do. And he got his is ready to go.

COOPER: I mean, certainly no stranger to controversial, even this situation is pretty unique in his career, if he does get to play, how do you think it affects his chances for success from a mental standpoint? Because I mean, he has, he seems to kind of thrive off. I don't know if conflict is the right word or, you know, kind of him against the world.

BLAKE: Yes, I think he's done so well. I think there are certain athletes just in general that thrive off that they want that me against the world attitude, some really shrivel under that and think they need the fans to be on their side and he's one that's proven that he is risen to the occasion when he's got the crowd against him, when he's even portrayed as a villain which I don't think he ever should be portrayed as a villain, but he's, he's not the fan favorite a lot of times.

And I think for him to get through the Australian Open if he's able to play this year would be one of the greatest accomplishments any tennis players has ever has ever done mentally, because of what he's been through. And not able to train or be able to be active at all for the last five days go through all of this that he's been through and I can only imagine what he's going to walk out to in his first match and really every match and Australia with all these fans that have been through what they've been through. I have a feeling it's going to be really, really difficult to focus on strictly the tennis.

He's proven to be the best in the world at that, but I think this is a challenge like he's never seen before.


COOPER: James Blake, really a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you so much.

BLAKE: Pleasure. Thanks, Anderson.