Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) is Interviewed about the Wisconsin Shooting; Polls on the Views on Vaccines; Senators Raise Questions about RFK Jr.; Bomb Kills Russian General; Science Behind Brain Rot. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired December 17, 2024 - 08:30   ET

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

[08:30:00]

REP. GWEN MOORE (D-WI): They have the CDC and other private foundations really try to study what the cause of this violence is. You know, we already know that there are too many guns. We - you know, a lot of people say it's mental health or it's video games. We don't know because we refuse to even study this phenomenon. But it's yet another American tragedy. The loss of unfulfilled life. And it's really close to home. It's - this is not Colorado or Texas. This is Wisconsin.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: One of the things that has changed in the last few years in neighboring Michigan, the parents of a school shooter were convicted for basically negligence, manslaughter, in this - in the crime committed there. In Georgia it's possible another school shooting the father could be implicated there as well. Again, not yet known there.

I do wonder, bigger picture, how you feel about that, how you feel about placing some responsibility on parents of school shooters?

MOORE: We have no idea what happened here. From what we can - what we know now is that the parents are cooperating with authorities. We don't - we don't know. And again, what we don't acknowledge, we can't fix. And I would say, as the parent, as a grandparent, as a great grandparent, that it takes a village to raise a child. We can't just say it's the fault of the parents or schools don't have magnetometers or this or that. We really have got to lean into this gun violence as a country, as a community. And this is just yet another indicator of how crucial and critical it is for us to do this.

BERMAN: Congresswoman Gwen Moore from Wisconsin, from Milwaukee, not too far from where this shooting happened. I know you are grieving along with the rest of the state and the rest of the country. Thank you so much for being with us this morning.

Sara.

MOORE: Thank you.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, new lawsuit threats from Donald Trump, this time against a renowned pollster who released unfavorable numbers about the president-elect just ahead of the election. More on that.

Plus, losing faith in vaccines and how it could affect your children. We look at the rising number of parents who no longer trust childhood vaccines.

Those stories coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:37:09]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is headed back to The Hill today to try and win over support for his nomination to head up the Health and Human Services Department. Given how big the job is that he wants, and given the 13 agencies that he would oversee, he is facing mounting questions about his long history of being a cynic of vaccines. Though Kennedy told reporters yesterday he's, quote, "all in for the polio vaccine." So, that's one. But he has also said just in July, quote, "there is no vaccine that is safe and effective."

CNN's Harry Enten has been looking into kind of the broader issue that this raises, which is vaccine skepticism. The views on vaccinations kind of in America and the trends is how it's changed. What have you found?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yes, I would say this - you know, I often look at trends - you know, we come on, we talk about trends. I believe this is one of the more troubling trends that we have seen, that we have covered here. So, vaccinate children, highly important, that is extremely or very important. We got overall and we got the GOP. They both sort of - sort of match each other, but the GOP is even more of a drop off. So, overall, you know, back in 2001, 94 percent, it was extremely or very important to vaccinate children. In 2019, it drops to 84 percent.

Look at where we are now. Just 69 percent. Look, it's still the clear majority.

BOLDUAN: Right.

ENTEN: But it's dropped 25 points since the beginning of the century and it's dropped 15 points in just the last five years.

Look at Republicans. The drop off is even more. Look at this, 93 percent back in 2001, 79 percent in 2019, and then 54 percent, that is a drop of nearly 40 percentage points since the beginning of the century. Something that I know a lot of public health officials are very, very worried about.

BOLDUAN: Yes, I mean that drop is not a blip. Why is it - what - what are you seeing is driving it more in Republicans?

ENTEN: Yes, what is driving it more in Republicans? I think this ultimately is the big question. Think vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they're designed to protect against? Of course, vaccines are not more dangerous than the diseases they're designed to protect against. They are very helpful. They help save lives.

But look at this, among Republicans, back in 2001, it was just 5 percent. I would argue that was too high. But look at where it jumped in 2019, 13 percent. Look, in the last five years, we're talking a third of Republicans who believe this falsehood that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they're designed to protect against. And I think this goes hand in hand with the vaccine skepticism and a lot of folks thinking that childhood vaccinations are not that important, when, of course, they're extremely important. And, fortunately, the majority of Americans still believe that they're extremely or very important, but it's dropped off significantly.

BOLDUAN: I'm going to also say, this time period, from like right around this time period.

ENTEN: Covid.

BOLDUAN: We've got Covid. But you also had a lot of loud mouthpieces, people with big voices -

ENTEN: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Spouting conspiracy theories that had to be batted down on their concerns and their fears about vaccines. Many, all unfounded.

[08:40:04]

ENTEN: Correct.

BOLDUAN: But this is what you're seeing here.

ENTEN: And obviously, that's part of the reason that RFK has been embraced in part by Republicans.

BOLDUAN: Right.

ENTEN: Because what we're seeing is these falsehoods have seeped into the Republican mainstream, and you get 32 percent of folks believing that vaccines are more dangerous than the disease they're designed to protect against.

One little last nugget, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Yes, please.

ENTEN: I'll note, among parents, how parents feel, vaccinate their children, extremely or very important. This, of course, is a key group that is among those with children under the age of 18. In 2019, 77 percent. Look at where we are today. It's just 58 percent. This is a dangerously low number. And as the son of a pediatrician, it's a quite concerning number.

BOLDUAN: Especially when you just consider the beginnings of what herd immunity means.

ENTEN: Yes. BOLDUAN: It's not getting 58 percent.

ENTEN: Exactly right.

BOLDUAN: To get vaccinated.

ENTEN: Exactly right.

BOLDUAN: Thank you so much, Harry.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: This is something to remember.

ENTEN: Yes.

BOLDUAN: John.

Sara. So sorry.

SIDNER: It's all good.

Joining me now is CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton, and Chuck Rocca is in the house, Democratic strategist and former senior adviser to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns.

All right, let's start right away with what we were just talking about, what Harry and Kate were just talking about, the vaccines.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, who will meet with RFK this week, was asked about RFK saying that, you know, look, the polio vaccine, you know, I'm OK with it. And she responded by saying, look, it begs the question, is it just that one vaccine or kind of where is it coming from more broadly?

So, to you, Chuck, when you hear these words from Kennedy, who knows that one member of the Senate has had polio and is extremely concerned about it, do you think he's just pandering at this point?

CHUCK ROCCA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think he's trying to get confirmed. And I think he'll revert back to what he has always said, because he's always said that. And I think that's the key here. And the member, which is really important for what you're saying about polio, was Mitch McConnell. And he is not running for re-election. And it's very, very important for people to know that these senators are up every six years. And there's a different amount of pressure you can put on somebody who's up in two years, like a Joni Ernst, or the gentleman from North Carolina, much different than if you're running in four years or if you're Mitch McConnell and all out of give a damns, like he has been with Donald Trump for a long time.

SIDNER: All out of give a damns. I'm going to have to write that down and put it on a t-shirt.

Shermichael, I want to get your thoughts. You know, knowing that RFK's attorney petitioned the government to revoke its approval of the polio vaccine, how do you see this? And how do you see senators looking at this? Do they take his words, or do they go back and look at all the things that have been said in the past and done in the past?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think they're probably going to look at everything in totality. I mean he's going to have to answer some very serious questions about the concerns that some of those senators have. You can't lose more than four. If you lose more than four, then you can't get confirmed. But ultimately, I think any cabinet nominee, if confirmed, will follow the president- elect's lead. And he's been very clear that he supports polio and he gave - made a statement yesterday. He talked about friends who survived. Experience - experience that he talked about how he would want to focus on a litany of things from the types of pesticides we use in agriculture, citing Scandinavian countries, which I, once upon a time, remember many of my Democratic friends lauding for their great health care system. And so I don't think you're going to see cabinet secretaries run amok doing whatever they want to do. They're going to follow the president's agenda, because it's his agenda that the American people ultimately elected.

SIDNER: All right, let me ask you about some of the other things that Donald Trump said yesterday in his first post-election press conference. During it, he did what he loves to do is take aim at his - at his favorite targets, the media. Here is some of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to expand on the defamation lawsuits. Could you see moving that to other people with individual platforms, social media influencers, people that -

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENT-ELECT: Or newspapers, yes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENT-ELECT: Yes, oh, I do. I do. I think you have to do it because they're very dishonest.

I'm going to be bringing one against the people in Iowa, their newspaper, which had a very, very good pollster who got me right all the time, and then just before the election she said I was going to lose by 3 or 4 points.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: All right, so he talked about he was going to sue that renowned pollster in Iowa. We have just gotten this in from our Brian Stelter, Katelyn Polantz, and Paula Reid that he is escalating his legal campaign against media outlets and is suing now that pollster, J. Ann Selzer.

So, I want to ask you, Shermichael, is this a scare tactic? You heard the question there about, this isn't just legacy media that could be sort of threatened or sued, but anybody that makes a negative comment. Is it a scare tactic to keep people from doing, you know, negative reporting, if that's what is out there?

SINGLETON: Yes, I don't know if it's a scare tactic, but I do know in our country we permit everyone under our current laws to file a lawsuit if they have a potential claim against someone.

[08:45:05]

And that litigation will move forward or it will fail on its merits. A judge will look at the allegations. A judge will assess whether or not it should move forward. And if it can't move forward, then a judge will dismiss it.

If the judge does believe that there is potentially enough there to move forward, then it should move forward, as it would for me as a regular individual or the president of the United States. I wouldn't necessarily distinguish the difference.

So, I don't know if it's a scare tactic any more than it is the president elect saying, wait a minute here, I think this poll was a bit ludicrous, which I certainly, as a strategist, believed at the time it was ludicrous, and I still maintain that position. And I want to understand, why was it moved forward when every other polling data across the country cited something different. And if a judge looks at those claims, Sara, and says, you know what, let's move this thing forward, then - then it should. I respect the justice system, and I would assume that most Americans would respect it as well.

SIDNER: Yes, you think suing over a polling, which isn't always right. I mean it - there's a slippery slope there. And I'm curious, Chuck, to you, as to whether or not you think this is a tactic to try to silence people or sort of have a chilling effect.

CHUCK ROCHA, STRATEGIST: Well, let's be clear, I've been running campaigns for 38 years. And if we can start suing people for bad polls, count me all in and a lot of trauma in my life over that time period.

But just like my good friend Shermichael said about how Democrats have pontificated about health care system, I remember when Republicans used to say free speech was a really big deal -

SIDNER: Right.

ROCHA: And we shouldn't be silencing the media. We should have a free and open press.

SIDNER: Right.

ROCHA: There's two different things happening here. Donald Trump is trying to make a point, like he always does, by flooding the zone. He's going out there to make ABC and other folks spend a lot of money that they don't have to do, and I think that's why they settled. They don't want to spend all of this money fighting him because he has unlimited money. And I know we're going to talk about all of his billionaire friends. He got money behind money. But when you start talking about individual polls that he just don't like, then put me in line with him because there's a lot of polls I haven't liked over my 30 years.

SIDNER: Chuck Rocha, Shermichael Singleton, thank you both so much for that lively -

SINGLETON: That was a good one, Chuck. That was a good one.

SIDNER: For that lively discussion.

ROCHA: I'll be here all week.

SIDNER: Appreciate it. We'll have you on.

All right, John.

BERMAN: All right, brain rot. All right, has nothing to do with anything we were just talking about. It's a phrase that describes what happens when you scroll endlessly on social media. Is it a real medical thing? And do you have it? Doctor Sanjay Gupta is about to tell you.

And put this one in the category of, if it's true, it means nothing else really matters. Rats have been taught how to drive cars. And, guess what? They like it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:52:02]

BERMAN: All right, breaking overnight, a top Russian general was killed by a bomb hidden on an electric scooter early this morning. Russia's investigative committee is calling it a, quote, "terrorist attack." Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov led Russia's nuclear, biological and chemical protection forces. We have some new video into CNN that shows the moment the Russian general, and one of his aides, leave a building just moments before the blast.

His death comes just one day after Ukrainian prosecutors charged the general in absentia with the use of banned chemical weapons in Ukraine. A source with knowledge of the operation told CNN that Ukraine's security services were behind this assassination.

With us now is CNN global affairs analyst, former secretary of defense, Mark Esper.

Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being with us.

MARK ESPER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Good morning, John.

BERMAN: This is Ukraine striking in the heart of Moscow, blocks from the Kremlin, a senior Russian general. I'm wondering what it says about Ukraine's capabilities and what you think the impact might be.

ESPER: Well, Ukraine has had a capability going on two years now to reach deep into Russia, to include Moscow. If you recall, early on in the war they shot drones at the Kremlin.

So, they had this capability. They've gone after others before. But clearly this is payback for what they allege have been over 4,600 chemical attacks against Ukrainian forces, Ukrainian civilians in that country during this, what, two-and-a-half-year war now.

BERMAN: What do you think it will do to the possibility of ending this conflict? Don't you - will it inflame the Russians?

ESPER: Sure, a little bit. But, look, Russians have the momentum right now. They're gaining ground it seems every day. They're getting very close to the strategic city of Pokrovsk (ph), which is a crossroads for logistics. So, time is not on the Ukrainian's side. And, at the same time, they know that Donald Trump's coming into office in four or five weeks and it's unclear what's going to happen then.

BERMAN: You're talking about drones in Ukraine and Moscow. Can I talk about drones in the United States?

ESPER: Sure.

BERMAN: Obviously, you've been following what's happening here. John Kirby came on last night and said that they've really gone through this, and they believe, the administration does, that most of these drones are either lawfully flown drones, airplanes, there might be 100 or so cases they're trying to track down. They're still not sure what they are.

You were secretary of defense. There's been a lot of speculation that some of the things people are seeing in the sky might be U.S. drones, some kind of military drone, some kind of top-secret operation, or maybe not even top secret. Are you aware of any, you know, system in place that would have military drones flying in such large numbers?

ESPER: Well, if it was top secret, I wouldn't tell you, John.

BERMAN: That's why - that's why I changed the question midstream.

ESPER: But, look, we have more than enough ranges around the country, outside the United States, where we can - we can test drones and rehearse them and do whatever we need to do. So that's not my concern.

I think John Kirby's explanation seems reasonable. The problem is, it took us two weeks to get there. And the bottom line is, we should know everything that's flying up there at any time. We should be able to identify it, classify it, call the owner of the UAV (ph) or whatever the case may be. But more importantly, I think, John, when you step back, the proliferation of drones flying in civilian airspace is only going to get bigger and broader and denser. And we need the FAA and the FCC, to a certain extent, to kind of speed up the process by which we write these rules for the future or else people are going to get more upset because, you know, it's one thing to have a small drone flying around your neighborhood, but to have an SUV-sized drone that could possibly fall on your house, that's a concern.

[08:55:15] BERMAN: This was something - again, the technology was five years earlier, four or five years earlier when you were secretary of defense, but this was something that was becoming an issue when you were there.

ESPER: Yes, when I was secretary, even as secretary of the army, we had sensitive sites around the country in places where we saw drones in our airspace conducting some type of surveillance we believed and yet did not have the authority to shoot them down. And we pressed within the Pentagon to get that authority. It comes from both the FAA for sure, and the FCC, if you want to use some type of directed energy weapon to knock it down in a non-kinetic means.

So, look, we need to accelerate the regulatory adoption of certain rules, authorities, this has been talked about by members of Congress, to kind of make sure we bring the FAA and FCC up to where drones and drone use is not just today, but where it's going in the future.

BERMAN: The man that Donald Trump wants to be secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, K-file, CNN's Andrew Kaczynski and his team are reporting that he was questioning January 6th, whether or not it was Antifa behind the January 6th riots four years ago. He said, apparently, "there are reports, you know, in 'The New York Post' and elsewhere. And just from, you know, common sense, the Antifa folks took advantage of this to try to get to the front and try to agitate and create openings for themselves. I could even spot it," Hegseth said. "You can see helmets where there's a Donald Trump bumper sticker on the back, quickly put on so they could look like they wanted to stop the steal, but what they really wanted to do was further the narrative."

My question here is, if here's a guy who's questioning who was behind January 6th, how comfortable would you be with that person in charge of the Pentagon?

ESPER: I think all this is going to come out in the hearings. They'll be out there in the next few weeks at some point. And he's going to have to explain, not just that issue, but his various views, as all nominees do, as I had to do on these various topics. And I think it's going to be, you know, a tough hearing for a number of reasons.

BERMAN: Former Secretary Mark Esper, great to see you in person.

ESPER: Thanks.

BERMAN: Have a wonderful holiday.

ESPER: Thank you, John. You too.

BERMAN: Sara.

SIDNER: All right, this morning we're discussing brain rot. The Oxford word of the year refers to internet content that is considered low quality or low value. You may see it while swiping and scrolling online for way longer than you expected. But is it real? What does consuming that kind of content actually do to our brains? Doctor Sanjay Gupta, our very own brain surgeon and chief medical

correspondent -

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.

SIDNER: Is on call this week and joins us now.

Look, I just - I have to say this, in all honesty, like, I am one of those people that sometimes does that. And I do feel bad. I don't know if my brain is rotting, but it does make you feel bad. So can videos of things like talking toilets - kids are going to get mad - skibidi this and skibidi that, really rot our brains?

GUPTA: You're talking to the kids. I love it, Sara.

So, the short answer is, yes. And this is really interesting because we're getting more and more data about this. And, by the way, you mentioned the criteria, excessive amounts of low-quality content. So, just keep that in the back of the mind.

We've known for some time now that simply scrolling or doom scrolling, as they call it, can be associated with an increased risk of depression. And to give you some context there, more than three hours a day for teens seem to double their risk of depression.

SIDNER: Wow.

GUPTA: So, you know, that's significant. The average is typically around five hours. So, when we talk about teens in particular, we start to get a sense of just the impact.

But now we also have images and studies that actually look at what's happening to the brain in people who are on - consuming this low- quality content for excessive amounts of time. It tends to thin certain areas of the brain, called the cortex, that is responsible for your memory and your perception. And it also - there's - so that's gray matter. There's white matter that's sort of in between all the gray matter in your brain, and it seems to slow that down as well. That can lead to people feeling like they're not thinking as quickly or the brain fog type symptoms.

So, it's a real thing. And it's concerning for a lot of people. Brain rot is the word of the year for a reason.

By the way, it's not brand new. It goes back to the 1800s. Henry David Thoreau actually first used the term "brain rot" when talking about the fact that we are devaluing complicated ideas. Same concept, just much wider scale now.

SIDNER: Same concept, new technology that were all dealing with.

GUPTA: Yes.

SIDNER: You know, I just mentioned this, we all get pulled down this rabbit hole. Like we can't just say, oh, this is a kids problem. This is an everybody problem. What is it that makes it so easy to get sucked in and you literally lose time.

GUPTA: Yes, you do. And, first of all, just look at how ubiquitous these devices are. And you raise this point that it's very similar for adults and teenagers nowadays. But if you look at the data, 95 percent of teens, 13 to 17 years old, they have access to a smartphone, 46 percent are using those devices or using the internet almost constantly.

[09:00:01]

Compare that to adults, because people often say, this is a teen problem, but with adults, 90 percent say they use the web daily, 41 percent online almost