Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Scientist Racing To Create A universal Coronavirus Vaccine; Free-At-Home COVID Tests Now Shipping Out To Americans; Data: More Than 700 Schools Not Open For In-Person Learning Today; Ukraine & White House Appear To Disagree About Biden-Zelensky Call; Huff Post: New Video Shows Rioters Who Attacked Officer Smith On January 6, He Later Died By Suicide. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired January 27, 2022 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): But scientists have been working on what could be a better solution.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: The urgent need of a universal Coronavirus vaccine.

GUPTA (voice-over): It's just what it sounds like, a vaccine that covers the circulating virus, yes, but also future variants we haven't even seen yet, and potentially other types of coronaviruses as well.

KEVIN SAUNDERS, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, DUKE HUMAN VACCINE INSTITUTE: That means not only targeting SARS like viruses but then targeting MERS like viruses or then also targeting cold viruses.

GUPTA (voice-over): Kevin Saunders is the Director of Research here at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute, one of the many groups racing to create a universal vaccine.

SAUNDERS: What we try to do is really target a specific part of the virus, for instance, that we know is its Achilles heel.

GUPTA (voice-over): Now remember, viruses mutate all the time. So the trick is to find a stable part of the virus, a part that doesn't really change from one variant to the next, a common denominator. Saunders calls it a conserved site. Creating antibodies to that is one path to a universal vaccine.

SAUNDERS: So typically, that's a place where the virus is binding to specific proteins on the host cell that it's targeting. And if it changes that site, then it's no longer able to infect.

GUPTA (voice-over): A big clue came from someone who was infected with SARS all the way back in 2003.

(on camera): What is DH1047?

SAUNDERS: The antibody DH1047 is an antibody that we found from a SARS-CoV-1 infected individual GUPTA (voice-over): Seventeen years later in 2020 in the midst of the current outbreak, they found DH1047 was also protective against COVID. Protective against a virus that didn't even exist when these antibodies were first made.

SAUNDERS: And so, we took that antibody as a template to say there must be some site that's common between SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 and let's figure that out, then we would know that needs to be in the vaccine.

GUPTA (voice-over): There are a number of pan-coronavirus vaccine strategies in the works. But unlike the mRNA vaccines we've come to know, at Duke they're working on something called a nanoparticle vaccine.

SAUNDERS: There's multiple sites that can be recognized by antibodies.

GUPTA (voice-over): Think of it like a soccer ball with tiny proteins stuck to the surface, each resembling a key conserved site of the viruses spike protein. So far in primates, the vaccine appears to work. And now, a similar vaccine developed by military scientists has already made it into early human trials. But as exciting as this science is, it's going to take time and patience.

FAUCI: I don't want anyone to think that pan-coronavirus vaccines are literally around the corner in a month or two. It's going to take years to develop.

GUPTA (voice-over): Much of the work being done today on COVID is built on the back of similar research on other viruses, influenza, HIV.

DR. BARTON HAYNES, DIRECTOR, DUJE HUMAN VACCINE INSTITUTE: We've been working on an HIV vaccine now for almost 30 years here at Duke. And HIV is one of the most rapidly evolving life forms on Earth.

GUPTA (voice-over): That's because HIV mutates much faster. And that's one reason why Dr. Barton Haynes thinks developing a universal vaccine for coronaviruses maybe easier.

HAYNES: Developing that platform for HIV over the last five years allowed this to happen when the need arose very quickly.

SAUNDERS: The most challenging part is that the virus is always changing. How do you predict what's coming in the future so that your vaccine can be effective against it?

GUPTA (voice-over): And he's not just talking about coronaviruses that are infecting humans right now, but also novel ones that could still spill over from animals, ones we don't even know about yet.

SAUNDERS: That's the type of vaccines we're going to need in order to prevent the next pandemic.

(END VIDEO TAPE) GUPTA: Jake, it's just really fascinating science. I got to tell you quickly that particular antibody, DH1047, they found it was protective against SARS, also SARS-CoV-2, but even other bat coronaviruses. So, it could be a really wide-ranging vaccine. We don't know how long it'll last. But the Duke researchers say they think it'll last -- could last years as well. So, you can have a long standing vaccine that is widely protective, Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Amazing. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thanks so much.

Joining us to discuss Dr. Vivek Murthy. He's the U.S. Surgeon General.

Surgeon General Murthy, thanks so much for joining us. How confident are you that a universal coronavirus vaccine could help us prevent the next pandemic? Could become a reality?

DR. VIVEK MURTHY, U.S. SURGEON GENERAL: Well, Jake, I think it's a very exciting possibility. There's certainly a greater chance of it happening, you know, in this day and age and there was five or even 10 years ago. And that's really because of the extraordinary advances in science that we've had.

You know, the fact that we have, for example, even now mRNA vaccines that we've, you know, vaccinated millions and millions of people within a short period of time, that's a really triumph of science. But one thing just to keep in mind, Jake, is that as exciting as a science is, not just for a pan-coronavirus vaccine but also for combining a potential flu vaccine and a COVID vaccine to reduce the number of shots people get, it's exciting as these possibilities are.

[17:05:14]

The benefits of science can only be extended to people if they have accurate information about vaccines and read other products of science. And one of the worries that I have is if we're not simultaneously working on trying to root out misinformation and elevate and uplift accurate information and accurate messengers, then I worry that a lot of the benefits that may come in the years ahead just may not be accessible to people.

TAPPER: What is the realistic timeline for when the first Americans could get one of the universal coronavirus vaccines should they be discovered?

MURTHY: Well, I don't think that we're looking at something this calendar year, you know, it probably would take on the order of several years for something like that to be developed and fully studied, tested and then rolled out to the public.

TAPPER: Just a few weeks ago, we were seeing rather insane lines of people waiting for hours to get COVID tests. Since then, the Biden administration has launched a program to send four free tests to each residence. Would you say the testing issues have been resolved or they're just headed that way?

MURTHY: Well, Jake, I think certainly that they're getting better and we're getting to be on the right track here. I think in addition to having, of course, the 20,000 locations where people can get tested. And in addition to what you mentioned, which is the test kits that are now being mailed to millions of households around the country, some of them have actually already arrived.

There are also -- there's now a private insurance coverage that's required for eight tests per person per month, another channel through which people can get tests. We know certainly, as cases come down that that may drop the demand for testing, but that's not going to make us let up on the push to get more and more tests out there. We'd rather have too many tests than too few tests. And the goal is to have a test for anyone who needs it, anyone who wants it, readily available at low cost or no cost.

TAPPER: You have been outspoken about the Youth Mental Health Crisis exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, so many kids being forced to stay home for so many months denied the ability to socialize, to learn in person. Now a lot of kids are back in classrooms, which is great, but we do see school districts such as the one in Flint, Michigan returning back to virtual learning, how much damage is that causing? And should the federal government be doing more to help these schools stay open safely, sending more tests, sending more vaccines, making it easier for parents to get their kids vaccinated?

MURTHY: Well, Jake, this is a really important question that's near and dear to my heart, the mental health of our kids. And you and I are both fathers. You know, we like all parents care deeply about the wellbeing of our children.

And one of the factors that's been important in the mental health of kids has been the stability in their lives. School is a big part of that. And so, getting the vast, vast majority, 96 percent plus of kids back to school in the fall was a really important step.

Now, one of the things that, you know, I've been saying for a few weeks now is that during this Omicron wave, these are going to be tough weeks, and they're going to be emergency decisions that some schools you're going to need to make on pulling back from in person for a short period of time. If they don't have the staffing, for example, to keep the classrooms open, our goal should be to make sure that these are as short as possible. And we're doing a lot to actually support schools in addition to certainly providing a lot of the funding for testing, billions of dollars, in fact, for testing, for masks and for other precautions like improving ventilation.

We are also offering a lot of technical assistance. We've doubled the number of tests that are available to schools right now. So, we want to do everything we can to support schools. But we also recognize, again, this wave is tough and, in some schools, have had to make some tough, temporary measures and decisions around pulling back. We just hope that that will be a short lived as possible because getting our kids back in school is extraordinarily important right now for their learning but also for their mental health.

TAPPER: Your administration also sent millions of N95 masks, the higher quality masks, to pharmacies and health centers across the country to be given out to Americans for free. If it is so important for us to be wearing these high-quality masks, if cloth masks provide some protection, but really honestly very little comparatively, why does it the administration, why don't you come out and say to Americans, cloth masks don't work as effectively, stop wearing them, wear N95 and comparable masks only.

MURTHY: So actually, Jake, I have said this and, you know, I've said it on social media. I've said it on T.V. and let me say it again hear, you speak especially given how transmissible Omicron is, wearing a high-quality mask is very important, especially if you're at higher risk yourself of medical, you know, if you've medical conditions to put your higher risk of bad outcomes or if you're going to be in a circumstance like indoors for a long period of time with people who aren't wearing masks. What are high quality masks will they include, N95, KN95, KF94 masks.

[17:10:05]

It doesn't mean that other masks aren't useful, we know that surgical masks offer some protection, we know that cloth masks, if they're well fitted, they offer some protection as well. But the high-quality masks are really the ones that are most important in this moment in time. It's one of the reasons why the administration is sending 400 million masks out, N95 masks out to community health centers, to pharmacies around the country. Some of those have arrived already, we're starting to hear that from stores that have received them and they're going to start distributing them to the public.

So, this is all part of the many layers of precaution that we need to protect ourselves, not just for against Omicron but against potential waves that may come in the future.

TAPPER: The former CDC director, Dr. Tom Frieden, told CNN he thinks the Omicron flood will fade in a few weeks. And he is -- has more optimistic now about putting this behind us as he's been through -- at any time in this pandemic. Do you share his optimism that we're turning the corner?

MURTHY: Well, I certainly share the optimism that we're in a better place now and we will be in a better place in a few weeks. But I don't think that means that we should take our foot off the accelerator.

One of the things that we've learned in the last two years, Jake, is that we can't underestimate this virus. It's throwing curveballs at us in the past, there have been new variants. And we've got to be prepared for whatever comes, whether that's another variant of similar transmissibility or something that may potentially be worse. But what gives me more optimism and hope, Jake, is the fact that we not only have abundantly available vaccines, we not only see that they're working well to protect people against hospitalization and death, but we have more therapeutics, more oral and intravenous medicines now than in any other point during the pandemic. We need to increase our supply of that and each month that follows we're going to have more and more of that. These together along with a targeted use of tests and masks, this is what I believe is going to help us get through future waves as well. TAPPER: U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, thank you so much. Appreciate your time, sir. Good to see you again.

Coming up, a look at the potential confirmation battle the Biden Supreme Court pick will likely face. We'll talk about that with a member of the Senate committee that will hold the confirmation hearings.

Then breaking news. President Biden tells Ukraine to prepare for impact. New details from his phone call with Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:16:39]

TAPPER: In our politics lead, today's Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer officially announced his plans to retire from the nation's highest court giving Senate Democrats the opportunity to put President Biden's first justice on the bench. Biden has promised to nominate the first black woman to serve in that role. And so far, several names of esteemed jurists who fit that promise are being seriously considered an informed source tells me, including D.C. Circuit Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Krueger and South Carolina U.S. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs.

Let's discuss this all with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator, thanks for joining us. The President said that he will listen to Senators from both parties on their suggestions and advice. Have you heard from the White House about meeting with the President?

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Nothing about meeting with the President, Jake, but I deeply respect their willingness to reach out to us and seek our views. I know they're seeking views from a variety of jurists and experts and litigators.

But, you know, I'd be remiss, Jake, if I failed to acknowledge, I think it's important that we really appreciate Justice Breyer's extraordinary service to our nation. You know, he was a thinker and a scholar on the court, still is, but one who knew how to fashion realistic solutions in a deeply divided court to try to bring the court together. And he also understood the real-world consequences of seemingly very abstract decisions. And I'm hoping that President Biden will be consulting real people, so to speak, I believe that he'll be listening to them as well. And that's why he's going to take some time, but I think it's well warranted.

TAPPER: Yes, the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, released a statement praising Breyer's optimism and profound love of country. Said he was a reliable antidote to dead airtime at our lunches and talked about how much he enjoyed his company.

But those three jurists, the women, the justices, would be justices that I mentioned earlier, an informed source tells me that they are, Kruger, Jackson, and Childs are the top possibilities, although there are others being considered as well. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn has been very open about who he hopes the President chooses. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): I want us to be thorough with this process. I want us to make sure that it is a black woman. I want to make sure that it's a woman that will get universal support.

When I say universal, I mean, bipartisan support. And I know that Michelle Childs will have the support of several Republicans, including the two Republican senators from South Carolina.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That would be Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham. There are lots of reasons to pick a Supreme Court justice. But do you agree with Congressman Clyburn, Majority Whip Clyburn, that Judge J. Michelle Childs has the best chance at getting bipartisan support in the Senate?

BLUMENTHAL: I think there are a variety of names, some of the mentions and some not that have the potential for gaining bipartisan support.

I look forward to a black woman as nominee, making history in exactly the right way that we need it now and having a compelling life story and immensely impressive credentials that will garner bipartisan support.

[17:20:16]

I will say I'm prepared to fight if necessary and use all the options we have. But we should hope and work for bipartisan support.

TAPPER: Your boss, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, says he wants to follow a similar accelerated timeline that Republicans used for Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. She was confirmed, of course, one month after being nominated. Was this timeline discussed this afternoon at the meeting that you had with your fellow Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats? How do you expect the process to play out?

BLUMENTHAL: The meeting we had today was important, but it was only the beginning. And it's the routine kind of meeting that we have at the beginning of major hearings and nominations. And we're comparing notes, we're preparing. I would say we all believe that it ought to be done as quickly as possible expeditiously and swiftly, but fairly. And we're going to be prepared to fight ferociously, if necessary, and hope that Republicans will respect the country's wish that we have a Supreme Court justice as soon as possible.

You know, I've argued cases in the Supreme Court for them and a few before Justice Breyer. And I was a law clerk on the Supreme Court, I really hope that we can put the court above politics because the courts credibility has never been more threatened, and its authority and independence has never been more at risk.

TAPPER: Well, you said that you wanted the nomination to proceed as quickly as possible as well as fairly. I mean, we know that McConnell did it in a month from nomination to confirmation. So, are you talking about a month from nomination to confirmation? Or do you have a different deadline in mind? For example, Justice Breyer wants to stay until the end of the term, which is usually end of June.

BLUMENTHAL: I think we need to do it quickly, as quickly as possible swiftly, expeditiously. I don't have a magic number of days. There isn't any in the Senate rules or in statutes or the constitution.

We'll have a very strong betting for whoever it is and then hearings that will last a number of days, a committee vote. We're going to follow the normal procedures, but it will be done expeditiously. And I think that's what the country wants.

I am very hopeful that the battle, and you refer to it as a battle in the opening, will be really out of the kind of three battles that we've had, partisan battles, and that will have bipartisan support.

TAPPER: Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thanks so much. Good to see you, sir.

Breaking news. President Biden and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky just wrapped up a key phone call. One side said it did not go well. The other side has a different take. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:27:46]

TAPPER: We have breaking news for you in our world leader, a senior Ukrainian official tells CNN that today's phone call between President Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, quote, "did not go well." Our source tells CNN that the two disagreed about the immediacy of the threat of a Russian attack on Ukraine.

The White House and Pentagon have been emphatic that they believe an attack could be imminent. We should note the White House just released its own readout of that call and there was no mention of President Biden's warnings or the two presidents' disagreements. The White House did say Biden underscored America's commitment to Ukraine sovereignty.

CNN's Matthew Chance joins us now live from Kyiv, Ukraine with more.

Matthew, what more are you learning about this disagreement on the Biden Zelensky call, how heated did it get?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm not sure I could characterize how heated it got, but there was definitely a disagreement about the sort of level of risk that the country is facing when it comes to a Russian invasion. On the one hand, you've got President Biden, this is according to an official who briefed me on the conversation that was -- had on the telephone call this evening. On the one hand, President Biden saying the threat is imminent. I mean, we've heard this before, the Ukrainians pushing back on that saying that the threat according to their intelligence analysts is a bit more ambiguous than that. And it's possible there won't be an invasion, whereas President Biden apparently telling his Ukrainian counterpart that an invasion was virtually certain later on in February when the ground becomes more frozen in this country.

He went on to say that he warned the Ukrainian leader that the capital, Kyiv, this city here could be sacked. And that's the word he apparently used, according to this Ukrainian official, sacked by Russian forces, who he said may attempt to occupy it.

There's also some quite bad news delivered, although expected news, I think, delivered by the U.S. president to the Ukrainian side. President Biden, according to this official who were who briefed me on the conversation, saying that he told the Ukrainian leader that Ukraine would not be getting significantly more military help, that there would be no U.S. troops sent to Ukraine to defend it. We already we already knew that of course, but it was reiterated again on this phone call.

[17:30:00]

And also, no sophisticated weapons, further sophisticated weapons delivered to Ukraine from the United States. There would be no progress on NATO and there would be no sanctions imposed on Russia pre-emptively that would only happen once Russia invades.

Let me just get this line out quite impactful if you'll forgive me. "President Biden telling his counterpart that Ukraine should prepare for impact." So quite a stark warning there from the U.S. leader.

TAPPER: All right, Matthew Chance reporting live for us in Kyiv, Ukraine. Thank you so much.

Joining us now is Republican Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio. He's the new ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. He also serves on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. Congratulations on your new post.

I want to start with...

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: -- the report you just heard from our correspondent in Kyiv that the Biden-Zelensky call according to the Ukrainians did not go well. Ukraine will not be getting significantly more military aid than it's already received. And this real disagreement between Biden telling Zelensky prepare for impact in Zelensky insisting that an attack from Russia is not imminent. Is Zelensky wrong? Is Biden wrong? What do you think?

TURNER: Well, let's hope that President Zelensky is correct. I mean, certainly everything that we have seen and what has certainly been publicly reported indicates that Russia is amassing huge and significant troop numbers, including the weapons capability that would give them the ability to invade and to take Ukraine. One thing administration's done correctly is they've made clear that there would be swift and very strong sanctions on Putin and upon Russia for doing so. The other aspect of this is that the administration has been clear that they're not going to bargain away the sovereignty of Ukraine, as Russia has made demands that were unreasonable. The administration stood up to those and said that, you know, they're not going to make statements that would diminish Ukraine as a country. If Russia invades it, they will be facing, I think, a united NATO allied front against them.

TAPPER: So, this senior Ukrainian official told CNN's Matthew Chance that President Biden warned Zelensky that Kyiv itself could be sacked, that the Ukrainians need to prepare for impact. The Ukrainians, obviously, want the public in Ukraine to stay calm and not panic. That's interesting that Biden is saying that Kyiv could be sacked, his word, sacked because some of the predictions or some of the people talking about what Russia might do have been talking about how Putin might take some of Ukraine, the Donbas region or whatever, but not a full-fledged invasion and toppling Kyiv. Do you think that that's actually on the table, the sacking of Kyiv?

TURNER: Well, if you look at where Russia has positioned their troops and the number of troops, that certainly is a preparation for a whole scale invasion of Ukraine. The problem, obviously, is that we have to find ways in which we deter Russia. Russia's, you know, incorrectly stating that NATO is a threat, there is no threat from the defense alliance. This is totally a trumped-up allegation that's coming from Russia as a pretext for invasion.

Certainly, it would be -- if President Zelensky is right, and Russia backs down again, that would be great. They have a mass troops on the border before and have left. We've never seen anything of this level and of this level of preparedness. So, it'd be incredibly unlikely to see no conflict.

TAPPER: So, you and many of your Republican colleagues have called on the Biden administration to be tougher on Russia, to give Ukraine everything it needs to keep Russia out. Some people calling for sanctions to be imposed on Russia and Putin now, even before an invasion. There is also a wing of the Republican Party that's grown louder in recent years and recent weeks, that seems to be actually vocally siding with Russia.

You pushed back against this argument back in November where -- when you are on Fox. Let's just play some of that to remind our viewers

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Who's got the energy reserves? Who's the major player in world affairs? Who's the potential counterbalance against China, which is the actual threat? Why would we take Ukraine side? Why wouldn't we have Russia side? I don't -- I'm totally confused.

TURNER: Well, clearly, Ukraine is democracy. Russia is an authoritarian regime that is seeking to impose its will upon a validly elected democracy in Ukraine. And we're on the side of democracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: A few tweets from your colleagues here, Congressman Thomas Massie, "The United States should not be involved in any future war in Ukraine." Congressman Paul Gosar, "We have no dog in the Ukraine fight." What's your response to people out there who say, you know, why are we siding with Ukraine against Russia? Russia is the powerhouse, and we need to be allied with Russia. We have no business defending Ukraine in any way.

TURNER: Well, Russia is amassing tanks on the border. If you heard me say before, they're not showing up with ballot boxes and asking Ukrainians where they want to go.

[17:35:01]

We are for democracies. We're for the self-determination of people's authoritarian regimes when they go and topple democracies tend to not be satisfied. We're just one as we've seen in history. We -- I think there's been a lot of disappointment that the administration has not worked more diligently to get advanced weaponry and stronger weapons into Ukraine that can either both act as a deterrence and raise the cost to Russia, if they invade Ukraine.

But this debate about, you know, who should we be for is is very, very disappointing. If you look at our foreign policy, if you look at our basic values, as a democracy, it's fairly easy to understand that we don't support authoritarian regimes. We don't support people using tanks to change boundaries. And we support democracies and Ukraine as a well-known ally with the United States.

In addition to, you know, Russia had already entered into a memorandum guaranteeing the sovereignty, integrity of Ukraine with the United States in Budapest, the Budapest Memorandum, when Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons after the fall of the Soviet Union. That agreement really was a moral basis from which us to say, you know, Russia's violating that. We're certainly not for people violating treaties.

TAPPER: Where do you think this line of thinking comes from? Is it a remnant of the Trump administration? Is it a growing influence of a isolationist or libertarian movement? Why are so many people in your party sounding so unlike you? Is there remnants of fatigue from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

TURNER: Well, it's certainly not coming from the remnants of the Trump administration. As you recall, the Obama administration had not sent lethal weapons into Ukraine President then Poroshenko of Ukraine coming to the House floor and saying, you know, imploring, you know, our country to send lethal weapons. Trump administration did that. It sent javelins that are still there.

This administration just sent javelins again. So, I, you know, there's, you know, some commonality between what the Trump administration was doing and the Biden administration with respect to making sure that there's -- there are weapons to at least and defend Ukraine. But I do think that this is a troubling debate that we're having.

If we can't stand, you know, people look to the United States and look to liberty (ph) for the understanding that we stand for democracy. We're the light of freedom and liberty. And when we cease to be for that, then our own values are at risk.

TAPPER: Congressman Mike Turner from Ohio, thank you so much. Good to see you again, sir.

Coming up, gruesome new details about the violence one police officer went through on January 6th before he took his own life. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:41:33]

TAPPER: A new video today describes in rather horrific detail what a D.C. police officer went through during the violent January 6th insurrection. Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jeffrey Smith was a 12-year veteran of the D.C. force, just 35 years old. His body cam video obtained by the Huffington Post reportedly shows rioters tussling with him inside the Capitol.

Then, as the attack stretched into nightfall, the video shows a rioter throwing a metal pole at officers, striking the officer -- Officer Smith in the head. Nine days after the Capitol attack, Smith died by suicide. He shot himself with a service weapon.

Let's bring in Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. She's on the Select House Committee investigating the January 6th attack. Congresswoman, more than 730 people have been arrested in connection with the violent insurrection, yet there are so many others that have not been charged. More than 1,000 others by some counts, including the rioters who attacked Officer Jeffrey Smith that day. Now, your committee is, obviously, not tasked with making arrests, that's the Justice Department.

But you have insight into many of these cases. Given all the videos circulating for more than a year now, why do you think more arrests have not been made?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Well, I don't know the answer to that, Jake. That's, you know, we're a legislative committee. That's the Department of Justice matter. I -- whether they are still making cases, whether -- I don't know the answer.

But, obviously, when you see the video, the vicious attacks on our officers, it's, you know, there needs to be full accountability in the criminal justice system. Meanwhile, the committee is working to uncover all the details, not only of the day, but of the events leading up to the day. And we're making good progress.

TAPPER: So, your committee score to win in your subpoena for e-mails from John Eastman, that's the conservative lawyer who worked for Trump and detailed in an insane memo, a wild plan for them, then Vice President Pence to throw out Biden electors on January 6. Your committee was granted access to his e-mails related to the 2020 election. What do you hope to learn?

LOFGREN: Well, you know, obviously, he played a key role in this whole plot to overturn the election. So, we want to know what he did. He said he was working at all times for former President Trump. We'd like to know more about that.

You know, I just read the decision from the court. And basically, you know, he lost on every point. I mean, the judge said he failed to even make a prima facie case for some of this allegation. So, the judge is ordering the parties to move quickly through this, through the weekend so that we can get this information as quickly as possible. We think it's important.

TAPPER: We're showing video right now of Eastman's speaking at the January 6 Stop the Steal rally. There's so much of this that just played out in front of all of our eyes. Trump, citing --

LOFGREN: Correct.

TAPPER: -- citing Eastman's argument. Trump saying that Pence needed to overturn the election. Trump saying to the crowd, let's go to the Capitol, we need to fight, et cetera, et cetera. What more are you hoping to find? Are you hoping to find a money trail that shows Trump OKing some sort of operation in which people start getting bussed in? I mean, it seems like there's so much obvious criminality that we all saw happen.

[17:45:10]

LOFGREN: Well, you know, a lot of this was done in public. And I think there's a set of people in the countries they will -- if it's in public, maybe it wasn't wrong. But we want to find the behind-the- scenes elements and see who was involved in the plot. What was the -- were the intentions? I mean, this was clearly we know already, not just some random event where people showed up randomly on the 6th of January.

There were people who plotted it. People -- we've had interviews with Proud Boys. We've had interviews with many others in the Trump administration. And we need to get the full story, not only to lay out the picture, but also to inform ourselves for the legislative recommendations we're going to make. And that would include not only reform to the Electoral Count Act, but potentially the Insurrection Act, which the former president repeatedly throughout the election year threatened to invoke without a cause and the like.

So, we are moving quickly. And I think we're more than halfway through for sure.

TAPPER: Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren from California, thank you so much. Good to see you again.

Talk about tables being turned --

LOFGREN: Good to see you.

TAPPER: -- porn star Stormy Daniels, taking the stand to testify against her own former attorney, Michael Avenatti. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:51:05]

TAPPER: In the national lead, a rather stunning exchange is playing out in a federal court in Manhattan. Attorney Michael Avenatti has started the cross-examination of his former client Stephanie Clifford, whom you might know by her stage name Stormy Daniels. The adult film actress and director paid hush -- that she was paid hush money to, says to -- that -- she was paid hush money to not reveal that she had sex with Donald Trump shortly after Melania gave birth to Baron Trump.

Daniels took the stand today claiming that Avenatti cheated her out of $300,000 from a book deal. Prosecutors say he spent much of it on everything from hotels and plane tickets, to leasing a Ferrari.

CNN's C sit in on the trial. And Kara, Daniels was on the stand for roughly 10 minutes of cross-examination before court adjourn for the day. How much did Avenatti get to cover in that time?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN REPORTER: Well, Jake, it was a brief and cordial exchange that we don't know what to anticipate for tomorrow. But in -- on his brief questioning, he got kind of at the heart of this issue here. You know, the prosecutors say that Avenatti have stolen money from Stormy Daniels. He brought up the contract that they signed, which he was entitled he said to $100 payment and could deduct expenses from any money they raised online.

There's a line in it that says that he could receive money from any book deal of reasonable percentage if it's agreed on by both sides. Now, Daniels had testified that there was no agreement for her to be -- for her to pay any money to Avenatti. She also said that he told her that he would not take a penny from her and called her an American hero.

So Avenatti asked her if she had any text messages, any e-mails any voicemails or recordings, in which he said he would not take any money. She said she did it. Then he shifted and went to attack her credibility. He asked her about some claims she has made that she can talk to the dead and that she has conversations with a haunted doll named Susan.

Now Daniel said that yes, this is someone that is -- this doll is a character on a paranormal show that she's involved with like a ghost hunter show and called spooky babes. And that Susan talks to everyone. Then it was pretty quickly after that, that the court session was over.

Avenatti has told the judge that he will cross examine her for six hours. Now the judge said that he could cut Avenatti off at any time. He said that sometimes less is more on cross-examination. Jake?

TAPPER: Did you say spooky babes?

SCANNELL: Yes, I did. And she has an Instagram page according to Stormy Daniels.

TAPPER: OK, interesting information. So Avenatti was her attorney. How, in her view, did he steal her money? Like what was the way he did it?

SCANNELL: So, she -- the prosecution over there three hours of direct testimony, had her walk through their whole relationship, how they met at the Waldorf Astoria in Beverly Hills, and how they went on to sign this fee agreement. And then, you know, she strikes this book deal, and she says that she's entitled to get her advance $800,000 over four installments.

And after she received the first one, she sent Avenatti wiring instructions, pass on to the publisher. She said she never got the second or third advance. She ultimately did get the second but then she was e-mailing Avenatti and text messaging him on WhatsApp for five months asking, have you spoken to the publisher? Where's my money?

You know, and what the prosecutors had already showed the jury was that Avenatti had set up an account in her name that he controlled and it's hold the publisher and the book agents to wire the money to that account. Stormy Daniels testified that she was unaware of any of that and only found out the truth when she finally got in touch with the publisher. That's when she cut off Avenatti. She said she felt betrayed and violated. Jake?

TAPPER: I think the kids call that sus. Kara Scannell, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Scientists say this space object is unlike anything they've ever seen before. The clue is to, what it might be? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:59:29]

TAPPER: A space mystery tops our out of this world lead today. Astronomer saying an unknown space object, marked in these photos with the star icon, is releasing giant bursts of energy every 18 minutes. The spinning celestial object beams out radiation about three times each hour. Scientists have an array of theories as to what it could be including the remnants of a collapsed star or a dense neutron star.

Researchers say they will continue to watch the object to see if it continues to turn on and off. And in the meantime, they're searching for evidence of similar space objects.

You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and the TikTok at JakeTapper. You can tweet the show at TheLeadCNN. You can catch up with our show if you miss it on podcasts.

Our coverage continues now with Wolf Blitzer in The Situation Room. Thanks for watching.