Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Sources: Tomorrow's Hearing To Focus On Pence's Safety On January 6; USAID Administrator On Kremlin Denials Of Responsibility For Ukraine War: "It's A Farce"; Mom Of Alleged Patriot Front Group Member: I Told Him You Can't Live In My House And Be Putting This Kind Of Hate Out Into The World. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired June 15, 2022 - 21:00   ET




ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: We're talking, tonight, about a number of key new developments, in the run-up to tomorrow's installment of the televised January 6 hearings.

The hearings, as you know, are expected to focus on the pressure, former Vice President Pence was under, that day, to take part, in attempt to somehow invalidate the electoral vote.

Tonight, we got a picture, of the pressure he faced. The photo, obtained by ABC News, shows him, his wife, and daughter, and his congressman brother, hiding from the mob, in his ceremonial office. ABC says, the shot was taken just moments after he, and his family, were evacuated from the Senate chamber, and shortly before they were taken to a loading dock, in the basement.

In addition, there's new reporting tonight, on emails, the Select Committee has, between the wife of a Supreme Court Justice, and a key player, in the effort to pressure Mike Pence.

CNN's Ryan Nobles, is at the Capitol, for us.

So Ryan, this new reporting involves Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, lawyer, John Eastman, a Trump attorney, for the campaign, who's the center - he's been at the center of much of this, obviously.

What is the latest on this?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we really don't know a lot about the content of these emails, at this point, Anderson.

We just know that they're in the possession, of the January 6 Select Committee, and that they involve the wife of a sitting Supreme Court Justice, and John Eastman, who was at the center, of this pressure campaign, on Vice President Mike Pence, to stand in the way, of this certification, of the election results.

And the fact that they're in the possession of the January 6 Select Committee shows that it was part of this tranche of emails that was sent over to the committee, through a court case, in which Eastman was looking to block emails that the committee deemed relevant, to their investigation. He obviously lost that court battle, and which is the reason that the committee has access to them.

But Anderson, at this point, I'm told that there is discussions about making this a part of their investigation, in a broader sense, perhaps even adding some content, related to this, to the upcoming hearings.

But the hearings are very packed, right now. There is some skepticism that Thomas was a real central player, in all of the efforts to under - over - undermine, I should say, the election results. So, it's not a huge focus of the committee, right now. But it is something they are at least paying some attention to.

COOPER: The Select Committee has also released video, showing Republican congressman, Barry Loudermilk, giving a tour, the day before the Capitol insurrection, where a man, in these videos, a man is shown taking photos of tunnels, staircases and hallways.

What did the committee say about this video, and why they released it now?

NOBLES: Well, the committee thinks it's suspicious, for a couple of reasons.

The first being, as you mentioned, Anderson, what he was taking pictures of, security stanchions, tunnels and pathways that lead from the House Office Building, into the Capitol itself, or random staircases, things tourists don't normally take pictures of.

But then, it's also coupled with this other video that they found that the man took, on January 6, while he was marching, from that rally, that took place, outside the White House, to here, at the Capitol, where he makes very specific threats towards members of Congress, including the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others, even suggesting that some should be dragged out by their hair.

Now, the United States Capitol Police looked into this surveillance video. They did not have access to the other video, the committee had. They deemed it not suspicious.

The committee obviously feels otherwise. They want to talk to Congressman Barry Loudermilk, who led this tour, and get more information. But so far, he's been resistant, to their invitation, to come and chat with them.

COOPER: The next hearing is tomorrow. What's the focus expected to be?


NOBLES: So, it is going to be about that pressure campaign, on Mike Pence. And we're going to hear from people that were heavily involved, in that, including his Chief Counsel, Greg Jacob. And also, Judge Michael Luttig, who was part of a group of people that were advising the Vice President, not to go along, with the former President's plan, to try and stop the certification, of the election results, on January 6, Anderson.

COOPER: Ryan Nobles, appreciate it. Thank you.

CNN Special Correspondent, Jamie Gangel, joins us now, with what her sources are telling her about tomorrow.

What do you expect, Jamie?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, as Ryan just mentioned, we're going to hear about this pressure that Trump, and his allies, put on Mike Pence.

I expect, we're also going to hear more, from White House Counsel, Eric Herschmann, whose recent videotaped testimony has gone viral, for this exchange, where he warned John Eastman that, Trump outside lawyer, who's pushing the outlandish legal theories, to overturn the election.

And this is what Herschmann says, to Eastman that he's going to need a lawyer, himself.


ERIC HERSCHMANN, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEY: I said, "Good, John. Now I'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life: Get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it."


GANGEL: It turns out, Anderson, that was good advice. And apparently, Eastman took it because, according to sources, familiar with the committee's work, when we watch those hearings, tomorrow, we're going to see John Eastman, taking the Fifth, over and over and over. We understand he took it 146 times, Anderson.

COOPER: There is also this new photo of Vice President Pence, on January 6. What are your sources telling you about the committee's focus, on Pence's safety, that day?

GANGEL: So, my understanding is that the committee is very focused on Pence's safety. They've been thinking about this, and looking at it, from the beginning. Everything, from how he was evacuated, how close rioters came to him, there may be some evidence that they came much closer than anyone knew.

And, Anderson, I'm also told, the committee has been discussing that picture of the gallows. We've seen these photos, from January 6, along with the chant of "Hang Mike Pence!"

So, why are those gallows so important? Those gallows didn't magically appear that day. Someone went out, ahead of time. They bought the wood. They bought the rope. They built the gallows. Someone came up with that chant, "Hang Mike Pence!" My sources say it may speak to premeditation, planning. This was clearly not spontaneous. Sources, familiar with the investigation, want to know who came up with this, Anderson.

COOPER: We know that former Pence Chief of Staff, Marc Short's deposition testimony--

GANGEL: Right.

COOPER: --is expected to be shown, tomorrow.

I want to play just something that he told Wolf Blitzer, earlier tonight.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST, THE SITUATION ROOM WITH BLITZER: Do you blame those, surrounding the President, for giving him bad advice? Or do you blame, the then President, himself?

MARC SHORT, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE'S CHIEF OF STAFF: I think ultimately, the buck stops with the President. He has responsibility to listen to advice, or discard advice. But I also think that there's - there were people, around the President, who I think served him very poorly, and, I think, gave very poor advice.


COOPER: How significant is it that he was willing to go that far?

GANGEL: I think it is significant. Look, both Pence, and those around him, like Marc Short, have made it pretty obvious, he wants to run for President. And Marc Short is very close to him. They have been trying to straddle this issue, not alienate Trump voters. So, the fact that he would say, "The buck stops with Trump," is significant.

That said, tomorrow is Pence day. And I'm told that actually, once again, tomorrow, we're going to see Trump insiders, including administration officials, family members, all firsthand fact witnesses, who will testify, about what happened, in the days, leading up to and on January 6, between Trump and Pence.

COOPER: Jamie Gangel, appreciate it. Thank you.


COOPER: Perspective now from Berkeley Law professor, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John Yoo, and also CNN's Chief Legal Analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeff, how big of a deal, is this reporting, about Ginni Thomas, corresponding with John Eastman. Does it amount to it?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well let's - let's remember who John Eastman is. He is the person that Eric Herschmann, as we just heard, said really needs a criminal defense lawyer, which he got, and he's now taking the Fifth. He's also someone, who the judge, in the subpoena case, said you - there was illegal activity going on.

The fact that Ginni Thomas was emailing with him doesn't mean at all that she was involved, potentially, in criminal activity. But it is yet another sign that she was intimately involved, in the whole effort, to overturn the election, which is her right, under the First Amendment.


The issue is, why was Clarence Thomas, her husband, sitting on cases that were relevant to January 6, and has continued to sit in these cases. That's what's really outrageous to me about the whole--

COOPER: Do you--

TOOBIN: --Ginni Thomas situation.

COOPER: You think he should recuse himself?

TOOBIN: Of course, he should have recused himself. I mean, his wife is intimately involved in this issue.


TOOBIN: I'm not saying, it's unlawful, what she did. But it is a clear conflict of interest.

COOPER: Professor Yoo, how significant, in your mind, is this, as it relates to the Select Committee's investigation?

JOHN YOO, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL: Well, Anderson, let me just say up front, I know Ginni Thomas. I know John Eastman. For that matter, I know Greg Jacob and Mike Luttig, the two witnesses, tomorrow. They're all friends of mine.

I don't think Ginni Thomas was involved in any effort to overturn the election. I half-agree, with what Jeff is saying. I think she's exercising her First Amendment rights. I think she's forwarding emails, which I think were unwise, and say crazy things.

You should also realize that John Eastman clerked for Justice Thomas. And so, Ginni Thomas might well have asked him, something. I don't know, I haven't seen the emails yet. But I can't believe that she was involved, in an effort, to actually overturn the election.

The other thing I would think is I would bet, if Greg Jacob testifies, tomorrow, when Mike Luttig, testifies, tomorrow, they're also not going to think that Ginni Thomas was at all really intimately involved, with an effort, to try to overturn the election.

I think she's out there expressing her First Amendment - I think she's one of those many Americans, who believed what President Trump was saying. I think it was erroneous. I don't think the election was stolen. And I don't think the United States was defrauded. And I don't think there was a stolen election.

But I think maybe Ginni Thomas was worried, and concerned, and expressing her views. But I don't think she actually did anything.

TOOBIN: But isn't the fact that there is this relationship, among the three of them that John Eastman was a law clerk, that he - she - he is a friend of Ginni Thomas, and of Clarence Thomas?

It's not that she has done anything or is suspected of doing anything unlawful. It's that Clarence Thomas continues to sit on these cases. That's what wrong.

COOPER: Professor Yoo, do you think he should recuse himself?

YOO: Well, look, that's a good - yes, that's a good question. First of all, you don't recuse, ahead of time. You wait till there are any cases actually ever get to the Supreme Court.

TOOBIN: But there were a case.

YOO: There was one case that came up.

TOOBIN: Well--

YOO: No, no, yes, I'm telling - yes, there was one case that came up, and had to do with whether there was executive privilege, whether President Trump could say nobody has to cooperate with this committee, hand over any documents?

I don't think actually his sitting on the case affects Ginni Thomas at all, because these emails that your show has shown, and everybody's seen, between Thomas and Mark Meadows, there's no claim they're secret. They're not covered by executive privilege. And, in fact, I think, they were turned over, well before the Supreme Court ever heard the case.

Now, if there are future cases, then I think, if every one of these get to the Supreme Court, I don't know if any of these will, then I think Justice Thomas would have to decide, at that point, whether there's any ground to recuse.

But I don't think there's anything, based on what Ginny Thomas has said, that causes Justice Thomas, to have to never sit on the court, on any cases, involving January 6, yet. It's premature.

COOPER: Jeff, you heard Jamie's reporting about Eastman pleading the Fifth. What kind of criminal liability, if any, could Eastman face here?


COOPER: Well, I mean, why would he be pleading the Fifth?

TOOBIN: Well, several of the rioters, the January 6 rioters, have been prosecuted and pleaded guilty, to the crime of obstruction of the work of Congress. And that is potentially what he could - he could be charged with.

That's what the judge, in the subpoena case, suggested that he was involved with. I don't know, if he did or not. There's a lot of evidence about him. The Justice Department should have access to all that evidence.

But, I mean, there's a reason why Eric Herschmann, who is hardly some big Democrat, he's a very prominent Republican lawyer, defended President Trump, in impeachment, why he said to Eastman, "You need a criminal defense lawyer." That's because he needs a criminal defense lawyer.

COOPER: Professor Yoo, there's this back-and-forth, about whether the Select Committee could or should send criminal referrals, to Justice Department. Do you think criminal referrals would actually impact what the Department of Justice would ultimately do? I mean, does it really mean anything?

YOO: It's a question, Anderson. And I have to say, the referral itself is not important.

A referral, well, you could refer someone to the Justice Department. I could refer. Jeff could. That's just like, actually like the - well, a letter from your mother. It has no legal significance. Actually, in fact, the letter from my mother, is more important, than a referral from - to the Justice Department.

But the important thing, is what information that's new, comes out of the January 6 hearings that might affect the Justice Department's investigation. Surely, the Justice Department already has an investigation, going on, right now. We're just not allowed to know about. It has to be secret.


I'm willing to be persuaded that there's some kind of link, there might be some criminal action. It would depend, if the committee actually shows facts, or testimony, I think, linking President Trump, and John Eastman, to the people, who attacked the Capitol.

Or on the second theory that you mentioned, Anderson, whether President Trump, and John Eastman, somehow corruptly tried to influence Mike Pence, to reject the electoral votes, which he did not do, of course. I haven't seen that yet.

All the things the committee has brought forth so far, are things that people, who closely watch this know, already know. It's just become much more vivid, when you see people testifying, on the air, or testifying in these clips. But I want to see something new that connects those two dots. And I haven't seen it yet.

TOOBIN: Why the committee has been effective, so far, I think, is that they have relied, almost exclusively, on Republican partisan witnesses, William Barr, Ivanka Trump, Eric Herschmann.

A bunch of Democrats saying, "Prosecute Donald Trump," I don't think that's going to matter at all and, I think, in many respects, might discredit the work of the committee.

What would be valuable, for the Justice Department, is if this committee turns over all the evidence. They did 1,000 interviews, apparently. They have thousands of documents. Give that all to the Justice Department, and let them decide, whether there's a criminal case.

The committee itself saying it, I don't think that would matter, in the slightest.

COOPER: Jeff Toobin, John Yoo, appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Coming up next, our reporter, in Russia, asked the Kremlin, some tough questions, about Russia's intentions, in Ukraine. A live report, on the answers, he got.

And later, what to make of today's decision, by the FDA, to endorse the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines, for children, as young as 6- months-old? We'll talk to Dr. Leana Wen more, on what it means, for parents.



COOPER: The Biden administration, today, announced another billion dollars, in military aid, to Ukraine. The package includes 18 Howitzers, vehicles to tow them, 36,000 rounds of ammo, and two coastal defense systems.

Meantime, one of the Russian Foreign Ministry's top spokespeople, weighed in, on Russia's intentions, today. CNN's Fred Pleitgen was there, with some questions.

Fred, you challenged the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman, today. What happened?


And one of the things that was talked about, today, and I was at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, where obviously the Russians are saying, they want to reorient their economy, away from any sort of ties, to the West, because obviously there are all these sanctions.

But it was also about those weapons deliveries, from the Biden administration, and from U.S. allies, and the Russians, essentially, accusing the United States, of fueling the conflict, in Ukraine.

So, I asked the spokeswoman, for the Foreign Ministry, about some of the things that Vladimir Putin has been saying, in fact that he believes that he is in the history of Peter the Great, and is now essentially taking back land, he believes, is Russian land, essentially, there, in Ukraine. And that led to a pretty testy exchange.

Here's what happened.


PLEITGEN: The President of the Russian Federation, on Thursday, said, and he likened the special military operation, by Russia, the invasion of Ukraine, to the things that Peter the Great did, in the Great Northern War, and said that Russia was, in his estimation, taking back territory that was rightfully Russia's, and strengthening it.

Is that not an admission of a severe breach of international law?

MARIA ZAKHAROVA, RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SPOKESPERSON (through translator): When will you start using the same tone of voice, when you question your own authorities? Why do you use that tone of voice, when you question us? Take a look at 2014. We had a referendum.

PLEITGEN: The big question is, take back and strengthen other country's territories, is that not a violation of international law?

ZAKHAROVA (through translator): Was there a legal basis to invade Iraq?

PLEITGEN: We're not talking about Iraq, now.

You are invading a sovereign country.


PLEITGEN: That was the question.

ZAKHAROVA (through translator): You mentioned our invasion, and occupation of territories. What territories are you talking about?

PLEITGEN: Well, for instance, the entire region around the Azov Sea, the invasion, trying towards - go towards Kyiv, where the Russian army was defeated back (ph).


PLEITGEN: Large parts of the Luhansk and Donbas - Donetsk Oblast (ph), which were under the control of the Ukrainian military.


PLEITGEN: And then you have the region around Kherson.

ZAKHAROVA (through translator): So, are you talking about Donetsk and Luhansk? Maybe you have more information that I have. I don't have this information, about Kyiv. The territories of Donetsk and Luhansk are acknowledged as sovereign states. There are referendums, as I said, reflecting the will of the people.

PLEITGEN: If the Russian President says what's going on in Ukraine is taking back land that is intrinsically Russian land, and strengthening that land, can you please explain to me, what does that mean? Where does it end? And is that not a violation of international law?

ZAKHAROVA (through translator): You say, I don't answer your question. You just don't like the way, I answer it. I am answering it. Perhaps, it clashes with your vision.

America said, they are exceptional. And we said, this concept is wrong. But I can tell you that the U.S. troops are now in Syria. Nobody asked them to come.


PLEITGEN: So, it was the spokeswoman, for Russia's Foreign Ministry.

Meanwhile, Anderson, the former President, of this country, Dmitry Medvedev, on his social media account, he questioned whether Ukraine would actually still be, on the world's map, two years from now.

As you can see there, the Russians certainly not backing down. And one of the things that you keep hearing, from the authorities, in Moscow, from the Kremlin, from Russia's Foreign Ministry, is that Russia will not stop, with what it's doing, in Ukraine, until it has achieved all its objectives, obviously, with all the consequences, for Ukraine, and its people.


COOPER: Yes. Fred Pleitgen, appreciate it. Thank you.

Coming up, right now, Samantha Power. She's very familiar with that kind of Kremlin line, you just saw, on the last report. She served as U.N. Ambassador, during the Obama administration, and is currently Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Ambassador Power, we just heard a Kremlin spokesperson, refuse to say that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of international law that there were referendums in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions that essentially justified the Russian troop presence there.

Obviously, you were Ambassador to the U.N. You've heard this kind of argument made before. What's the response to that line of thinking, from Russian leadership?


SAMANTHA POWER, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Well, it's a farce, what they're saying. And our eyes, the testimonies, of individuals, on the ground, the vast numbers of people displaced, all are evidence of the falsehoods that Russia seeks to propagate.

I did live it, back when Russia was initially claiming, it had no claims on Crimea. Then suddenly, the little green men pop up, the Russian soldiers. Then, people are inhibited from speaking their minds. They're locked up, if they try to contest the Russian invasion.

Then, fake referenda are staged. And then, those referenda, because nobody feels like they can avoid arrest, if they vote, in a different direction, they either stay home, or they vote, in Russia's favor, under the barrel of the gun. And then, Russia says, "Look, it's legitimate. It's self-determination." So, it's out of the playbook.

And all of the statements, by the Ukrainian government, the legitimate sovereign government, they're at the United Nations, they hold up the U.N. Charter. They say, "This is our country. We should know whether our borders are being violated, whether our sovereignty is being attacked."


POWER: They expect all of that to get ignored. They expect the press, you all, who are on the ground, watching Russian troops, bombard civilians, and hospitals, and schools, to ignore all that. And they really expect our eyes, to deceive us, and for us to believe this farcical claim.

COOPER: The National Security Council spokesman, John Kirby, said that Vladimir Putin has weaponized food, by blocking the delivery of Ukrainian agriculture, around the world.

How big is this problem? And how bad could this crisis get? Because India is having climate-related farming issues, and may stop exporting grains, this year, so that they can feed their own people.

POWER: It's really bad, Anderson. There's no way around it.

It was bad, before Putin launched this gratuitous and brutal invasion. And now that he is weaponizing food that he is holding back? What's going to amount to, about 50 million tonnes of grains, really, 50 million tonnes, when there are people, who are starving in Sub-Saharan Africa, and beyond, it's going to get a lot worse.

And so, you now already are seeing really dire effects, in countries, like Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia. You have 7 million kids, in Somalia, who are acutely malnourished, at this moment in time. You have UNICEF predicting, what is going to be an explosion, in child deaths, at this rate.

Again, when you combine climate change, four consecutive seasons of drought, and then Putin willfully, intentionally, denying the ability, of the Ukrainians, to get these grains out? It's a perfect storm of terribleness.

COOPER: And what can be done about it? I mean, obviously, you're with the U.S. Agency - USAID. What can be done?

POWER: Well, the first thing is we can't just accept that Russia is going to block the export of 50 million tonnes of grain.

And so, the pressure needs to come, not only from the United States, which of course, is already doing - taking a range of steps, to hold Russia accountable, for everything that it has done. But also, from the African countries that themselves are most in peril, by virtue, again, of the pre-existing climate shocks that were landing already, and now, just so compounded by the absence of these - the ability to import these grains.

Second, humanitarian assistance, is going to be pivotal, just in keeping people alive, just in literally getting nutritional supplements, to those kids, to those babies. We've all seen the images before, and we are going to see them again. We can keep people alive, if we have the resources, to do so.

And the Congress, in the United States, has come together, in a bipartisan way, and allocated $4.3 billion, in supplemental funding, to help the people of Ukraine, inside Ukraine, but also to help deal with the spillover effects, from Putin's war, in terms of food security. And all of that money is going to go to good use.

But we need those countries, who are making a profit, off the increased fuel prices, around the world, the increased fertilizer prices, themselves, to contribute, to be part of this donor community, to see this, as a collective human responsibility, to step up.

Because, the needs are going to outpace, what the United States alone, or the United States and Europe, are going to be able to fund. We need new players to be part of this soon, because now is the time to stave off the most calamitous effects.

COOPER: Yes. Ambassador Samantha Power, appreciate it. Thank you so much, USAID Administrator, appreciate you joining us.

POWER: Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: Just ahead, police response, to mass shootings, now under scrutiny, after several high-profile tragedies. Our Gary Tuchman takes a look at how police train, for active shooter situations, next.



COOPER: In the last hour, we spoke to a father, of one of the victims, of the Robb Elementary School shooting, in Texas. He called the police, cowards, and said they did not follow protocol, when responding to it. It's put a spotlight, on the speed, of the response, by local law enforcement.

Last night, we reported on a far more swift response, by police, outside of Dallas, who shot a gunman, threatening a summer camp.

Gary Tuchman has been following, how police train for active shooter situations. And we warn you that part of what you're seeing, or about to see, is a reenactment. The people involved, are participating, in a simulation. It's not real. It is disturbing, nonetheless.

Here's Gary's report.


GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Thomas Duran, Enid, Oklahoma Police Department. THOMAS DURAN, ENID, OKLAHOMA POLICE DEPARTMENT: I've been here two weeks. I've been an officer, in total, for almost 12 years.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): A warning that what you're about to see, might be very difficult to watch.

Officer Duran is starting intensely realistic active shooter police training.

DURAN: Let's go, catch up fire, intrude, intrude (ph).

TUCHMAN (voice-over): With a high-tech simulator that this Department just recently bought.

The people you will see are hired actors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, Officer Duran. Shots fired at this - at the school. And that's all the information we have here. You're there with your two partners. And you know our policy, is we go in, we don't wait.

DURAN: How many out there? Where are they?


TUCHMAN (voice-over): Even though they're actors, watching the training scene unfold, is traumatic.

DURAN: Where did they go?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where did they go? How many are there (ph)?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, officer (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where did they go?



DURAN: Roger, split to go (ph).



TUCHMAN (voice-over): Officer Duran's partner is shot.


TUCHMAN (voice-over): The gunman is then shot by Duran.

DURAN: I'm good. I'm good. We got to go. Go! Go!

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Captain Warren Wilson is Officer Duran's trainer. CAPTAIN WARREN WILSON, ENID, OKLAHOMA POLICE: We know that you average about one dead person, every 10 seconds, of an active shooter situation. At least one victim, every 10 seconds. So, there's no time to wait.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): The simulation continues. There are two more shooters, in the school library.

DURAN: Where did he go?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He went that way. He went that way.

DURAN: That way? Outside?


DURAN: Suspect, drop it.


DURAN: Drop it!


TUCHMAN (voice-over): After each scenario, the trainer gives his evaluation.

WILSON: Very rare, is it for the new officers, to get that hit, right off the bat. So, good job on that one. And then, you immediately started scanning again, every time.


WILSON: And here's another one that we don't very often get the first time. So, you got him with your scanning. Is there any point that you felt like you couldn't cover everything?

DURAN: No, just because, like I said, maybe because of my time, in the training, and situations I've been in, I'm used to - if there's one, there's more than one, you got that mindset. So, I'm used to, even though you think you've dealt with threat, you do have a 360 awareness for yourself. So, you do need to make sure you scan for additional, always.

WILSON: Always.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police Department?

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Officer Duran's training includes other virtual locations.


TUCHMAN (voice-over): Like a theater, where the strategy is the same as a school. No waiting. Go in.

DURAN: Where they at? Where they at?

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Eliminate the threat.


DURAN: Suspect!

TUCHMAN (voice-over): After getting shot at, Officer Duran did just that.

And then, at a courthouse?

DURAN: Where they at, your honor? Where they at?



TUCHMAN (voice-over): He once again eliminates the threat.

Captain Wilson, tells the officer, his first active shooter drill, with his new department, is a success.

WILSON: He made good decisions. He kept scanning for threats. He - his marksmanship was on point. He just did very well, in scenarios. I'm proud of him.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Officer Duran is also told his elevated stress level and heart rate are to be expected with this life-like training.

TUCHMAN (on camera): Do you think you're a better police officer than when you walked in here?

DURAN: Absolutely, yes.

TUCHMAN (on camera): Because of this training?



TUCHMAN: Anderson, the number of police departments that have these simulators, is relatively low. But the numbers are growing rapidly.

VirTra, the company that made the simulator, you just saw, one of the major players, in the business, said they sold about 600 of the units, to police departments, also to colleges and high schools.

But consider this fact. 600 units and roughly 18,000 police departments in the United States? You know that's a low percentage. And one of the reasons for that? It's very expensive. It's not cheap.

Enid, Oklahoma got its unit three months ago, paid about a quarter million dollars, for it. But Enid, and other police departments, we talked to, Anderson, swear by it. They say it's an incredibly valuable addition, to their active shooter training.


COOPER: Gary Tuchman, appreciate it. Thank you.

COVID vaccines, for America's youngest kids, are a step closer to being approved. A lot of parents waiting for this moment.

CNN Medical Analyst, Dr. Leana Wen, is with us, next.



COOPER: No vaccine has been authorized, for kids, under five, in America, more than two years into the pandemic. It's the only age group left that are not eligible, to the frustration of many parents.

That could change very soon with an FDA advisory panel, just green- lighting the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, for children, as young as six months. The CDC's own vaccine advisers, and the CDC Director, still have to approve the shots, before they're authorized. And once that happens, they could be available soon as next week.

Joining us, with more, CNN Medical Analyst, and former Baltimore Health Commissioner, and parent, Dr. Leana Wen. She's the Author of "Lifelines: A Doctor's Journey in the Fight for Public Health."

So Dr. Wen, assuming the CDC signs off, on both vaccines, parents are obviously going to wonder, which one they should choose. How do you decide?

DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST, FORMER BALTIMORE HEALTH COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, first of all, Anderson, I am so relieved, and I'm sure, so many parents, out there, who are listening, are extremely relieved, because we've been waiting so long, for this incredible news.

I think, a lot of parents, frankly, are just going to say, "Whatever vaccine I have the easiest access to, that's what I'm first start - that's what I'm going to start giving my kids."

There is a benefit to both the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccines.

Some parents might say, the Moderna vaccine is only two doses, and so they can get it done faster. And if you can get your child, the highest level of protection, in the shortest period of time, I think, some parents might choose that.

Other parents might say that there's more experience, with the Pfizer vaccine, for 5-year-olds, and above. And so, they might go with that.

There's no wrong choice here, though, because both vaccines are safe and effective. And I know that I'll be really eager, once my pediatrician's office, starts offering it, I'll be first in line.

COOPER: So, the Moderna, is two shots, over the course of how long?

WEN: Yes. So, the Moderna vaccine, is two shots spaced four weeks apart. And so, kids--

COOPER: And what about the Pfizer?

WEN: --will be fully vaccinated two weeks after that.

The Pfizer vaccine is three doses. The first two doses are given three weeks apart. The next, the third dose, is then given eight weeks after that. So, it's going to take a lot longer, for a child, to be fully vaccinated, with a three-dose regimen.

COOPER: But does - the longer timeframe, doesn't it have more efficacy. Isn't that kind of better? Or is that not the case?

WEN: So, these studies - yes, so the studies were not done, head-to- head. And so, it's a difficult comparison to make. Some of the preliminary results do look like the Pfizer vaccine may be more effective. But it's hard to make that case.

Probably, a booster dose is going to be needed, or a third dose is going to be needed, for the Moderna vaccine, as well. But two doses by themselves appear to be pretty effective.


COOPER: What do you think parents should do, if their child has recently had COVID? Because a lot of kids obviously had already had it. Should they wait a bit if they've just had COVID, before getting them vaccinated?

WEN: It's a really good question, Anderson that I hope the CDC will discuss, in their deliberations, this Saturday. And that's because we know that you do have a grace period, after infection. Reinfection within two to three months is very unlikely. So, maybe you could wait a short period of time.

But I also hope the CDC will stress that even if you had COVID, before, you should still get vaccinated, you should still get your child vaccinated, because that hybrid immunity, the infection, plus a vaccination, that provides the strongest level, and the most durable level of protection.

COOPER: It's going to be interesting to see how many parents actually get their young children vaccinated. I mean, is it enough to actually change the trajectory of the virus? Or are the numbers really small?

WEN: I think the numbers are going to be low, from a population standpoint.

Because when we look at 5-year-olds, to 11-year-olds, less than 30 percent are fully vaccinated. That's really low. And I think the uptake may be even lower for this younger age group. So, I don't think it's going to do much when it comes to stopping the virus from spreading, on a population level. But I think, still, this is an important milestone, psychologically, because there are millions of parents out there, including my family, who have held off, on so many of our own activities, who have not done normal social activities, for our children, and who are not doing gatherings, or travel, and other things, because we're worried about our children.

And so, I think this marks an important milestone, for parents, and for families, across the country.

COOPER: What do you say to parents who say, "Well, look, it doesn't seem like it's that bad, in kids. And the chance of them, any of them in hospital, and dying from it, is low? Why get a vaccine?"

WEN: What I would say, is that more than 400 children, in this age group, zero to five have died, from COVID, since the beginning of the pandemic. Thousands of these young kids have been hospitalized.

And it's extremely distressing, as all parents know, for our children, to become ill. And so, if there's the possibility of my doing something, for my children that will reduce their risk that is safe and effective? Of course, I'm going to do that.

And so, I think, this is a personal decision that parents will have to make, with their pediatricians, in consultation with other people that they trust. But, for me, and my family, that decision is really clear. And I have a 2-year-old and a 4-year-old. I have already called my pediatrician's office. I can't wait for them to get their shots.

COOPER: Dr. Leana Wen, appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Still to come, over the weekend, Idaho Police arrested dozens of men, law enforcement say, were associated with a white nationalist group, and planning to riot, during a Pride rally.

Now, the mother, of one of the men, is speaking out, she says, to get him out of that group. Our Sara Sidner talks to her, next.



COOPER: The mother of one of the 31 men, arrested, over the weekend, with what authorities say, were plans to riot, during a Pride rally, is now speaking out, about her son, his arrest, and his alleged association, with what she and law enforcement say, was a white nationalist group, Patriot Front.

Today, in the new court filing, authorities said they found metal shields, a smoke bomb, flags, and what they say were abnormally long metal poles. Also found were protective gear, and radios, as well as detailed plans, and documents, outlining the group's stand against, quote, "Moral depravity."

Sara Sidner was recently, in Northern Idaho, where the arrests were made. She joins us now. Sara, what did Jared Boyce's mother tell you?

SARA SIDNER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: She's distraught. Karen Amsden says that she's at her wits' end. She has, for many years, actually, known that her son, she says, has been part of this group, Patriot Front, and she has been trying to get him to leave the group. She says this is not how he was raised.

But she doesn't know what to do. And so, she had to give him an ultimatum. She thought that maybe, just maybe, after being arrested, in Idaho, and being charged, with conspiracy to riot that it would shake him up a bit, and get him to see that this is the wrong path.

But this is what happened.


SIDNER: Who is your son? How old is your son?


SIDNER: And where is he living?

AMSDEN: He is living in my basement.

He - when he came back, from this weekend, in Idaho, I was hoping, after spending some time in jail that maybe this would be a wake-up call, for him, like, to question where - "What is this group that I've been involved? Where is this really getting me?"

And I've been warning him for years now that "It's not going to take you in a good place. And it ultimately could get you in so much trouble that you're in jail, and you're not seeing your sons, and not spending time with them, and they're going to - you're going to lose them." And he always just brushed that aside, and dismisses it.

But he's really dug into their philosophy, and really believes it, and tries constantly, to get me to watch their documentaries, and read their reports, and show me, how they're right.

So, when he came home, I was really hoping, he would - might have had a wake-up call.

But when he came back, on Monday, and I went out, to the house, to talk to him, and he believes in what they did, he was standing by it, he was like, "We were there to prevent them from grooming children. And we were doing what we thought was right. And we have a great legal team. None of these charges are going to stick. And we had anonymous strangers bailing us out, because they support our cause. And we're doing" - he just - I felt like he was even more entrenched in it.


And so, that's when I said "You need to - I can't - we can't do this. You can't live at my house, and be doing this kind of stuff, and putting this kind of hate, out into the world, and putting yourself in danger. And I just - you need to - you need to move out of my house."

SIDNER: You gave him an ultimatum, why?

AMSDEN: At that time, I just felt like I didn't know what else to do. I've tried everything else. And honestly, it's so aggravating, and infuriating, to be trying to have a civil discourse, with someone, about their beliefs. And he just gets - and then, I get escalated too.

Because I just can't believe that he believes all this ridiculous conspiracy crap, and wants to blame people, for all these things, and hates groups of people. That's not who I am. And it makes me sick to listen to it, and sicker to know that this is coming from my son, who somewhere inside has a loving, loving heart.


SIDNER: At this point, her son actually is back at home, she says.

But he is going to leave, he says, when he gets that paycheck. He didn't have the money to leave. And he plans on leaving, which means he is choosing this extremist group, over his family.


COOPER: Sara Sidner, appreciate it. Thank you.

We'll be right back.


COOPER: The news continues. Let's turn things over now to Don, and "DON LEMON TONIGHT."


DON LEMON, CNN HOST, DON LEMON TONIGHT: All right, Anderson, thank you very much. Appreciate that.