Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer To Retire; Fauci: Scientists Are Working On Universal Coronavirus Vaccine; U.S. Delivers Written Response To Russian Demands On Ukraine; Fed Chair: Interest Rates To Be Raised "Soon," Likely In March; NYC Mayor Revives Plainclothes Police Unit Amid Crime Surge. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 26, 2022 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:01]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: So those masks will be off for a lot of the game. What do you think?

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Well, I also think that by the time you get to the game, it's a little late for the test. You're going to leave the Super Bowl if you test positive at the game? I'm not sure about that.

BLACKWELL: Not sure.

THE LEAD with Jake Tapper starts right now.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: One of Washington's favorite parlor games has started. Who will President Biden nominate?

THE LEAD starts right now.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, giving President Biden his first shot to fill a high court seat. A look at the potential picks.

Then signed, unsigned, and -- unsealed, rather, and delivered. The United States gives Russia a letter outlining a way out for Vladimir Putin. What we know about the secret document.

And the time to refi is now. Today's Fed announcement which could make buying a house or car more expensive soon.

(MUSIC)

BROWN: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Pamela Brown, in for Jake Tapper.

And we start today with breaking news in our politics lead. The Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is expected to announce his retirement as early as tomorrow. But the 83-year-old who has served nearly three decades on the high court plans to stay on until a replacement is confirmed. That replacement is now in President Joe Biden's hands, his first chance to nominate someone to the highest court in the land. And today, he refused to answer questions about Breyer's retirement. But as CNN's Kaitlan Collins suggests, he is ready to fulfill a

campaign promise on who he'll pick.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With Justice Stephen Breyer set to retire, President Biden now has his first chance to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There has been no announcement from Justice Breyer. Let him make whatever statement he'll make and I'll be happy to talk about it later.

COLLINS: The president declining to go into detail ahead of a formal announcement expected tomorrow. Sources say Breyer informed the West Wing of his decision last week.

BIDEN: Every justice has the right and opportunity to decide what he or she do and announce it on their own.

COLLINS: Biden now faces a major decision. As aides say he is still committed to this promise that he made on the campaign trail.

BIDEN: If I'm elected and have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts, I will appoint the first black woman to the court. It is required that they have representation now. It's long overdue.

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that.

BIDEN: At 83, Breyer is the oldest justice on the bench and his decision to retire has prompted a sigh of relief among Democrats who feared a Republican takeover in the upcoming midterm elections, something Breyer himself has hinted out publicly.

JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER, SUPREME COURT: The thing I have most of the considerations in mind and I have to weigh them and think about them and decide when the proper time is.

BIDEN: The Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer promising today that Biden's pick will receive a prompt hearing and be confirmed with all deliberate speed. Democrats can confirm a justice without Republican support but must keep their slim majority together to do so, which Republican Senator Lindsey Graham noted today, telling the GOP, quote, elections have consequences and that is most evident when it comes to fulfilling vacancies on the Supreme Court.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS (on camera): Now, Pam, when it comes to actually confirming these nominees, in recent decades, it has taken anywhere from 30 days to 106. The Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has indicated privately that he would like to move at the timeline that Republicans used to confirm Amy Coney Barrett. Of course, that is the Supreme Court justice who was confirmed just days before the 2020 election. It was only 30 days from when former President Trump had nominated her to the Supreme Court before her confirmation hearing was done, and she was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

So that time line remains to be seen of what they use. We do know that Senator Joe Manchin has just issued a statement on this news today. He said he looks forward to meeting with and evaluating the qualifications of whomever it is that President Biden picks.

BROWN: All right. Kaitlan Collins from the White House for us, thanks so much.

And let's bring in CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic.

Joan, good to see you.

So, this decision to stay on until the successor is confirmed is basically unheard of. So walk us through Breyer's thinking with us.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure. Thanks, Pamela. He's been struggling with this. You know, he was under a lot of pressure last year to step down as soon as the Senate turned to a Democratic majority in January of 2021 and he resisted that pressure. But, now, Pamela, he is leaving nothing to chance with this January announcement and the caveat that he will not leave until a successor is confirmed.

Just in terms of the sheer timing, it hasn't been since 1993 that a justice even announced his retirement in March.

[16:05:06]

And this is, you know, nearly two months before that. So he wants to give President Biden plenty of time to seat someone, to get that person in place for the term that would start next October, and even more importantly, Pam, to get this person in place before the mid-term elections when the Senate could possibly flip.

So he thought about, you know, how to preserve a Democratic president's chance to appoint a successor. He was put on the bench by President Bill Clinton back in 1994. But he's, you know, he did want to stay the extra term and it looks like his gamble, which many of his critics said was a gamble in case the Democrats lost their slim one- vote majority, could work out now.

BROWN: Certainly. Now, we know Biden's pick won't change the balance of the court. There are still six conservative justices who were nominated by Republican presidents. But tell us who Biden is considering and just how historic this moment is.

BISKUPIC: It is. Even though the ideological balance of the court won't change from the six conservatives and three liberals, presumably, it is that President Biden has vowed to put the first African American woman in history on America's top court. And he has several sterling candidates to choose from. Many of whom have already been vetted because of other positions they've had in the federal government and on the bench. I would say leading that group is someone who actually had clerked for

Justice Breyer and that's Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is sit go right here on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a very prominent court and one that has been a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. She worked as a -- she was a trial judge, now an appellate judge. She's 51 years old.

And most importantly, for the way you and Kaitlan set this up, she's been supported in the past by Senator Joe Manchin and all Democrats, and she won confirmation last year with the help of three Republicans. So there's probably a cushion there for her appointment.

Another leading candidate, I believe, would be California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger. Another person with sterling credentials who has been a judge for a long time. She's only 45. She would be one of the younger choices for a president, which would be, you know, these are lifetime appointments, quite a legacy.

And then another one I want to point out because of the politics of the situation is a woman who is now a district court judge, Michelle Childs. She is now on the trial court in South Carolina. But she's been nominated by President Biden to that prominent D.C. circuit bench that Judge Jackson is currently sitting on. And what is important for her is that she has been House Whip James Clyburn has been pushing her and that's a very strong supporter to have in this kind of moment.

BROWN: It certainly is. Joan Biskupic, thank you for that.

Let's discuss. We have Dana and Nia-Malika Henderson with us.

All right. So, Dana, let's take it off with you. Look, every president wants to put their stamp on the Supreme Court bench. This comes at a time when Biden is seeing sinking poll numbers, a stalled agenda. Just how important is this moment for Biden right now?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It's important for all the moments, for this moment politically because of all the points that you just made and for history's sake. There's a reason why presidents want to do this, especially someone like Joe Biden who was not just a senator who voted for and against nominees, but was chairman of the judiciary committee and was in some ways, sometimes, in a controversial setting with Clarence Thomas, and others maybe less so for him with Stephen Breyer himself when he was a nominee before then Chairman Joe Biden's committee.

But your point is very well taken. The Democrats are in the dumps when it comes to the energy that they have going into this mid-term election. And so, the hope among Democrats we talk to is that this will help energize them. The flip side is very real. Any Supreme Court nominee, even if it's not going to change the make-up of the bench politically, ideologically, never mind in other ways, it will also get the, rev up the other side. It will rev up the GOP.

And already, I'm sure you are, too, Pam. Both of you guys are getting text after text after refresh your recollection the RNC, the Trump Organization saying send money. They're going to change the court, which isn't necessarily true. But it is a fundraising tool. It's a base energizer.

BROWN: This happens every time, right? But this time it's an election year. Just before the November midterms.

And, Nia, you have congressional Democrats also making their voices heard, making sure Biden remembers his promise to nominate a black woman. Look at these tweets today.

[16:10:03]

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York: I look forward to @JoeBiden upholding his promise to nominate a black woman as the next Supreme Court justice.

Congressman Jamaal Bowman of New York, you promised us a Black woman on the Supreme Court. Let's see it happen.

Congresswoman Cori Bush of Missouri, it is past time for a black woman to be named to the Supreme Court.

And the White House also reiterating that Biden is likely to stick to his promise here, Nia.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right. This was a promise that he didn't need to be reminded of. Let's remember, it came after a conversation with Jim Clyburn in 2020 as they were going into that South Carolina primary. Clyburn trying to decide whether or not he would endorse Joe Biden.

One of the conditions was that he would say that he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court and he said that in the debate in South Carolina. This has been a long time coming. Two years in the making. So, now, you have a situation where, Democrats haven't had a lot of W's lately that they're able to put on the board and this will energize a particular segment of the base. I think it will energize progressives and black voters, too.

You remember that Joe Biden famously said, you know, that black voters had his back and he would have black voters' backs as well. I think this will be something you will see black voters engage in. I think the confirmation hearings will be tough and brutal. And Republicans are certainly going to try to make her out to be a radical liberal who will force feed your kids critical race theory or something like that. But I definitely think it will energize that black base of voters that has seen a bit of a softening in terms of their support for Biden, about 70, 75 percent or so. He would like it to be 80 or 85 percent going into the mid-terms that will be so tough for his party.

BROWN: Right. But you know, Dana, when you look at the list of first responders and Joan just laid them out. At the top of that list is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I should say judge. So, she is someone who was just confirmed back in June, 53. She had 53 votes in her favor. That means three Republicans voted for her.

Do you expect if she is in fact nominee, do you expect there could be those GOP votes to stick? Or do you expect there to be, you know, you expect that to change given the fact, how Washington works? We know how it is. And we all know, as Nia just pointed out, the Republicans, the RNC, they're all going to come out and attack whoever the nominee is.

BASH: Yeah, it very well could be that there will be bipartisan support. Now, the fact we have to say that is indicative of the times. It wasn't that long ago that you had nominees from presidents of both parties that would pass overwhelming. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was passed by like 96 to either nothing or one. It was overwhelming.

So it is possible that -- I will say that the three Republicans who voted for Judge Jackson, one of them was Lindsey Graham who released a statement that was in Kaitlan's piece that said, elections have consequences. That was just today. Meaning Joe Biden is the free and fair president which shouldn't have to be said but that's what he was saying, and he voted for Judge Jackson for the appellate bench that she's on.

It is totally plausible that he and perhaps other Republicans would vote yes. But this is important. It is important, Pam, it's important to underscore because we've had so many discussions about the filibuster and that's for legislation. In recent history, the filibuster for nominees and more recently, Supreme Court nominees, it doesn't exist. So the fact that the Democrats have the majority, meaning they can schedule the hearing. They can schedule the votes and they have, they don't have one vote to spare but they've got it. If all Democrats are supportive, they can pass the president's and confirm the president's nominee.

BROWN: And that's key here. Even so, Biden's pick won't change the conservative court.

Nia, but big picture, is this going to have the impact that Democrats are hoping for?

HENDERSON: You know, listen. I think on the one hand, it is going to energize Democratic voters. There is a long way to go for the mid- terms. We'll have this confirmation hearing. Folks will tune in and they'll know that elections have consequences.

I think the flip side of this is Republicans are really going to try to make this a tough vote for Democrats in tough Senate races. People like Mark Kelly, people like Catherine Cortez Masto. I imagine they'll get those votes but you will see campaign ads for whoever this nominee is, linking her to the culture wars, linking her to mask mandates, making her out to be a radical leftist.

So, in way, you know, it will be good for Democrats on the one hand in terms of engaging their base but it also has a down side and an upside for Republicans as well.

BROWN: All right. Dana Bash, Nia-Malika Henderson, thank you both.

BASH: Thanks, Pam.

BROWN: Well, it's a vaccine that could prevent a repeat of this pandemic. How realistic is a universal COVID vaccine?

And then the confirmation hearing for Florida's top doctor gets so heated that some lawmakers walked out. We're going to tell you why, after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In our health lead, scientists are working to develop a universal coronavirus vaccine. This is according to Dr. Fauci who says the shot could protect against COVID-19 variants, but also the other coronavirus variants that can affect human such as common colds and the severe respiratory disease known as SARS.

[16:20:11]

Here to discuss, CNN chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

I'll tell you, this really caught my attention, Sanjay. Walk us through this idea of a universal coronavirus vaccine. Is it even realistic?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I think so. I mean, you know, this is something that has been talked about for a long time, and the science is really fascinating.

Basically, you think about all the coronaviruses you just mentioned for the cause more common cold-like symptom, but then also SARS from 2003, MERS virus, and then obviously this new SARS-CoV-2. They have some things that are in common. It's basically trying to find the common denominator in all these coronaviruses and figure out if you can make an antibody to that specific thing.

If do you that, you're now targeting a conserved, consistent area of these viruses and that's what scientists are trying to do. What's in common here? Let's make antibodies to that.

What is interesting, I talk on Professor Kevin Saunders even this morning, Pamela, about this. He said they have found antibodies from people who had been infected with SARS back in 2003 that actually would have some protective effect against this virus 20 years later. So I think it is very realistic and it seems like it's getting closer and closer.

BROWN: That is fascinating. You know, we've heard that the omicron variant is less lethal than delta but we're seeing deaths rise higher than the peaks of the delta wave. So, is that just because omicron is more transmissible? What's going on there?

GUPTA: Yeah, I mean, that's basically it. Many more people are becoming infected. We can show you the trajectory over the past bit of time here. When you have something that is that contagious, you can see on the right side of the screen. You get a lot more cases.

Now, overall, as a percentage, hospitalizations and deaths are lower. Because you have so many more cases, you tend to have overall absolute numbers that are higher. In fact, we did this calculation here to show you, if something is 50 percent more deadly versus 50 percent more contagious. You have two viruses. Make one more deadly, one more contagious. What you find is over time, the contagious one will lead to far more deaths because of the number of people interesting sheer number of people who get infected.

So that's what's happening. But the numbers are starting to come down in many places around the country as well because people got infected quickly and now we're seeing that downward trend.

BROWN: A big of good news on that front. So I want to turn to something else going on today. The man appointed to serve as Florida surgeon general had this confirmation hearing. He has a history of spreading COVID misinformation.

I want to get your response from one claim he made today. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. JOSEPH LADAPO. FLORIDA SURGEON GENERAL: Prior to the pandemic, there were a number of randomized clinical trials that were performed of masking in the community for prevention of respiratory viral infections. Nearly all of these trials have found no significant benefit from masking to prevent the spread of a respiratory virus. These are published data.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. So let's get right to, what does the science say?

GUPTA: Well, first there haven't been a lot of randomized trials of this. He's right about that. How many times do you have to show something in public health to work in order to believe it? I mean, there's -- we don't have to continuously prove that penicillin works as an antibiotic either. We can at some point believe that the effect, there's an efficacy of masks. It's not perfect but we use them in hospitals all the time. This is something that people have known for a long time.

But we don't do that many randomized trials. During the pandemic, it would have been knowingly masking some people, not masking others and seeing what happens. Public health experts won't do that because they have masking is going to have benefit. So, what did you find in places around the country where they were using masks and you compare them to where there were no mask mandates and you find a distinctive difference. That is a way of looking at this more globally.

There was also, there was a huge randomized clinical trial in Bangladesh, 350,000 people that showed masks, particularly surgical masks, did decrease transmission.

So when he's talking about March or April of 2020, there were not at lot of studies on masks and COVID at that time because this was just kicking off. But he knows there are a lot of studies published since then, including a very large one out of Bangladesh that convinced a lot of people about the mask utility overall. BROWN: Yeah, interesting, he didn't make note of that during the

hearing. In fact, Democrats were so unhappy with his answers. He kept dodging when they would try to pin him down on the efficacy of vaccines and mask that they walked out of the hearing.

[16:25:03]

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thanks for your time.

GUPTA: You got it. Thank you.

BROWN: It's all in the letter. That's what America's top diplomat is saying about the message hand delivered to Russia today in hopes of stopping an invasion.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Topping our world, diplomacy and deterrence. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the U.S. has delivered a formal written response to Russia's security demands regarding Ukraine.

[16:30:09]

But the document is confidential. Blinken only describes it as a, quote, serious diplomatic path forward should Russia choose it. This as sources tell CNN the U.S. and a handful of its allies are discussing to deploying thousands more troops to Eastern European NATO countries like Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary.

CNN's Clarissa Ward is live in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Clarissa, is there any reaction yet from Moscow to this document from the U.S.?

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the only reaction so far has been that they acknowledge that they have received this written document. We don't know whether they've read it yet. What the response is to it yet.

We did hear earlier on in the day from the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov who said that he hoped that it would contain the assurances that Russia needs. He also went on then to condemn the West for what he called engaging in a military frenzy and using hysterical expressions, and saying that, you know, if the West continues this aggressive line, that quote, appropriate measures will be taken. Not clear exactly what those appropriate measures will be, or again, whether this document will do anything to assuage the fears of Moscow.

There were some other talks going on today in the so-called Normandy format between Russia, Ukraine, France, Germany. The Russian negotiator at those talks said basically, they haven't made much progress at all. But they had confirmed their commitment, at least, to a continued ceasefire in the Donbas region. That's where the pro- Russian separatists are in control of the significant chunk of territory. And he also said that the group would meet again in Berlin in two weeks time. So it does appear now perhaps, Pamela, that we are in a phase where

there will be some room, hopefully, for diplomacy to try to see if it can bear any fruit. But it will be very interesting when we finally hear some word from Moscow about their response. And also, very interesting at some point ideally to hear from President Putin himself who has now gone, I believe, about one month without speaking at all on this topic, leading everyone in the world including all of us here, guessing.

BROWN: Right. And we know that's probably by design, right?

Secretary Blinken, meantime, said several times, it seals like he was putting an emphasis on the fact there was no date light between the U.S. and its partners across the board. That is what he said.

Does that mesh with what you're hearing?

WARD: So we know from the foreign minister who I interviewed yesterday that there were no issues on the Ukrainian side with the substance of this written document. We don't know the details of what was in it. The Ukrainians appear to be supportive and happy with that in principle.

But there are other areas where it seems like there is a little daylight between two sides. The foreign minister again saying this morning what he had said to us and others as well, which is that essentially, a Ukrainian intelligence does not believe at this stage that Russia has adequate troops on that border in order to -- in order to launch a large scale invasion. That of course is different from what we've heard from the White House, who have said many times, that it can happen at any time. I believe the wording used yesterday was imminent.

For the most part, the Ukrainians really want to show at this stage that they are in lock step with the U.S. and that they are very grateful from the support coming from the U.S., even if they have some minor disagreements about the messaging.

BROWN: All right. Clarissa Ward live in Kyiv, Ukraine. Thank you, Clarissa.

Joining me live to discuss, Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado. He serves on the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees and he's a former Army Ranger.

Congressman, thanks for your time. So, Secretary of State Blinken said the U.S. won't publicly release its written responses to Moscow because, quote, we think that diplomacy has the best chance to succeed if we provide space for confidential talks.

Do you think diplomacy stands any chance to succeed right now?

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Hi, Pamela. Good to be with you.

I think diplomacy is one part of an overall strategy. Diplomacy in and of itself will not get this done. Nor will sending weapons to Ukraine, nor will consolidating our NATO alliance, nor will addressing the natural gas and energy challenges of Europe posed by Russia, or any of the other challenges.

So what we have to have is a multifaceted approach that leverages all of those tools. So diplomacy backed by the NATO alliance at the same time that we support Ukraine, bolster their defenses, increase the costs on Putin in an invasion. It all has to be coordinated together and that's what the administration appears to be doing.

BROWN: Do you think the administration should be doing anything more, though, right now?

[16:35:04]

CROW: Well, I've been clear and pushing the administration to send more defensive weapons and equipment to Ukraine, both different types but also greater quantity and much faster. I do think we're up against a small window of opportunity here, a condensing time line. We don't have much time left so we have to get those weapons to Ukraine, those pieces of equipment, those supplies.

They have to distribute them to their unit. So just flying them in doesn't get it done. You have to distribute them, train people how to use them, you have to get them out into the field so there are a lot of things that have to happen. That's why we have to be moving faster than we are now.

BROWN: There is also the question, the administration has sent big shipments of aid to the Ukraine. But there is a question of provocation, right? Sources telling CNN, the U.S. and allies are discussing deploying even more troops to Eastern Europe. Do you think that is the right move? Or could the Kremlin weaponize this as a provocation?

CROW: I think it is the right move. Vladimir Putin will find or make the provocation. He and he alone knows what he's going to do here. Nobody else knows what's going to happen.

I think the risk of an invasion is very high. I think it is likely. At the end of the day, only Vladimir Putin knows what's going to happen. He has a history of provoking things and creating, fabricating provocations through false flag information, misinformation, disinformation.

So what we do and don't do I think is less relevant at this particular stage because Vladimir Putin will make up the excuse that he wants. What we need to do is increase the costs. We need to change the calculus for Vladimir Putin so he understands that invading will be very dangerous for him. It will be very costly for him and his military.

And it will have the opposite effect of what he's trying to do. He's trying to contain NATO and reestablish the Eastern European Soviet Union states. He needs to understand if he invades, it's going to have the opposite effect. That NATO is going to be bolstered. That we're going to reinforce the eastern flank. So changing that calculus is what needs to happen here.

BROWN: It's interesting, though, because as Clarissa pointed out, he's been staying silent and everyone is left wondering what will move the needle for him. You have the deputy secretary of state today suggesting the upcoming Winter Olympics in Beijing might impact Vladimir Putin's thinking and time line, saying that China, quote, would not be ecstatic if Putin chose that moment to invade Ukraine.

What do you think? What are the chances Putin makes his move before February 4th?

CROW: I think that's too hard to tell, tying it to the Olympics. I think that's probably a stretch. Nor do I think the fact that Putin has or hand spoken in the last month is that consequential or even what he says is that consequential, because he controls his messaging very tightly. What's more important is all the other indicators. The troop movements, the logistical people that he puts in place, what he's doing to bolster his own alliance with the countries pivoting toward him, the intelligence streams that we're looking at, and all the other indicators that really show what his intent is.

So we need to look at those and those are more important than any words that come out of Vladimir Putin's mouth. You certainly can't trust those.

BROWN: Congressman Jason Crow, thank you.

CROW: Thank you, Pamela.

BROWN: Coming up, why time is running out to buy a home or a car before it gets more expensive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:43:07]

BROWN: In the money lead, Wall Street closing the day down after a highly anticipated announcement affecting us all. Interest rates will go up, quote, soon, likely in March. That today from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. His committee wants to slow inflation and the higher price you've been paying on everything from food to cars.

Rates have been near zero since March of 2020 when the pandemic began.

I want to bring in Rana Foroohar. She is CNN's global economic analyst and associate editor at "The Financial Times":.

So, Rana, put this into perspective for us. In the 1980s, interest rates near 20 percent. During the 2008, 2009 financial meltdown, we considered rates around 5 percent record low. And now the bench mark is near zero.

So how might a future rate hike help our future situation and slow rising prices? RANA FOROOHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST: So interest rates

basically slow down (AUDIO GAP) if you think about a fire that's burning. You throw a blanket over it. When you raise interest rates, it's kind of like that.

And, you know, this helps people in a sense because it starts to make things potentially more affordable. Think about the housing market, for example. Anyone trying to get in the housing market lately has had a hard time because houses go on the market. They're snapped up the next day. The prices go up. Once interest rates begin to rise, then the cost of borrowing gets more expensive, and then the economy starts to slow. A certain amount of slowdown when we're running really red hot like we have been the last year can be a good thing.

BROWN: So, yeah. I mean, so then are you surprised that the Fed hasn't raised interest rates sooner?

FOROOHAR: Yeah, I am, actually. And, in fact, I've been calling for them to raise rates for several years now, even before the pandemic.

My feeling was that it is really, really tricky to time rate hikes and to time what's going on in the economy in general.

[16:45:07]

And so, it would have been nice actually, you know, coming out of COVID, if we had a little more wiggle room to play with policy wise. As it is, for quite some time, we've had low rate hikes for the past several years. But, really, if you look historically at the last few decades, now you have an economy that's really overheating. All kinds of assets at record highs, inflation at 40-year high, and there's worry that the Fed is behind the curve and it will try the play catch up, even trying to raise rates potentially as the economy is slowing, and that could get dangerous if that happens.

BROWN: Have you ever seen the environment like this? It sounds like -- I would not want to be Jerome Powell right now to make these decisions.

FOROOHAR: Oh my gosh. I wouldn't want to be Jerome Powell or any central banker.

Honestly, I've been doing this more than three decades. This is the trickiest environment I've ever seen. There are so many factors in play.

Usually when you think about a rate hike, there are one or two factors in play. Now we've got everything. We got wage increases. We got supply chain issues and we have potentially a slowing global economy. So, it is going to be a very tricky year. Buckle in.

BROWN: All right. Good advice. Rana Foroohar, thanks so much.

FOROOHAR: Thank you.

BROWN: After weeks of horrific gun violence, New York City's new mayor is bringing back a controversial police unit which is making some people nervous. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In our national lead, five New York City police officers have been shot in the first month of the year, with two dying in the line of duty. These acts of violence coming off a year in which the city saw a rise in homicides.

And amid this increase, CNN's Brynn Gingras reports, Mayor Eric Adams is reinstating a controversial plainclothes police unit with a troubled history.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): New York City facing a violent crime surge. Two police officers and a baby among those killed in recent weeks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These guns on the streets are too much.

GINGRAS: Mayor Eric Adams telling New Yorkers --

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS (D), NEW YORK CITY: We won't go back to the bad old days.

GINGRAS: But he does want to make one old thing new again, reviving a version of the NYPD's plainclothes squad to suppress gun violence.

KEITH ROSS, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, JOHN JAY COLLEGE: Honestly, it is unknown right now how people are going to deal with these units. My assumption is that most New Yorkers want to be safe.

GINGRAS: The units now being called neighborhood safety teams, is the latest iteration of the anti-crime units the city has seen in years past, ones that wreaked a notorious reputation.

DARIUS CHARNEY, NEW YORK CITY CIVILAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD: When you say anti-crime units, I think it brings up some bad memories for a lot of communities in the city.

GINGRAS: In 2002, the street crimes unit of plainclothes officers was disbanded following backlash from the killing of the 23-year-old, Amadou Diallo. Police officers fired 41 shots at the unarmed man. In 2006, it was plainclothes cops who killed Shawn Bell the morning of his wedding. And more recently, Eric Gardner died during an arrest by a plainclothes officer in 2014.

This time around, officers won't be in uniform but they will be identifiable according to their clothing according to the mayor's plan. They'll have specialized training and officers will wear body cameras.

CHARNEY: If this is what the mayor is committed to doing, and this is what the police department will do, that they really learned from the lessons of the past and they hold officers to a really high standard. And that if and when officers don't meet that standard, they are held accountable.

GINGRAS: Adams says his experience as an NYPD captain will make this targeted policing different.

ADAMS: I know how unfair and abusive that unit waffle I testified in federal court and the judge's ruling acknowledged my testimony.

GINGRAS: That testimony in the case of Floyd versus City of New York. A landmark federal class action suit which decided the NYPD's stop and frisk tactics, often used by anticrime units is unconstitutional. The judge writing, Senator Adams raised his concern that a disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics were being targeted for stops. I find Senator Adams' testimony credible.

ADAMS: We are going to learn from the past so we don't repeat the past.

GINGRAS: And we've talked to a lot of experts and everyone is really saying, it's going to be a wait and see. Will this help bring down crime? Will officers whose actions are questioned be held accountable?

And, again, it's also not just on the NYPD as the mayor has said. District attorneys and judges, they play a big part. You know, the Manhattan district attorney Pam was on new day this morning and said that he is going to hold gun possessions as a felony? Well, there's four other D.A.s in the city.

So, the hope is to get they will all together. The mayor says he'd like to meet with them weekly to help make this plan work -- Pam.

BROWN: All right. Brynn Gingras, thanks so much.

And up next, the moon is about to get a new giant crater, thanks to a SpaceX rocket.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:59:23]

BROWN: In our out of this world lead, SpaceX is headed to the moon but not quite in the way they anticipated. Part of the Falcon IX rocket launch by the company in February in 2015 is on a collision course with the lunar surface. Scientists say the impact from the four-ton rocket could create a 65-foot crater. SpaceX has been picked by NASA to land the next American astronauts on the moon, including the first woman to walk the lunar surface. Astronomers say the tumbling rocket will crash on the far side of the moon on March 4th.

I'm Pamela Brown in for Jake Tapper.

Our coverage continues now with Wolf Blitzer and "THE SITUATION ROOM."