Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

U.S. Intel: Russia Advancing Ability To Invade; Russian Teenager Cleared To Compete In The Olympics Despite Testing Positive For Banned Substance; The Hard Truth About Lifting COVID Restrictions; Self-Described Constitutionalists Target Republican County Leader; Two Flights Diverted This Weekend Due To Unruly Passengers. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 14, 2022 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I will say, yes, for the people, there was a sense of anticipation here, you know, by Russia's troop mobilization, of course, but also those dire U.S. and other western nation warnings of what they call possibly an imminent action on the ground perhaps this week, although they have offered no hard evidence of that.

But I will say day to day Ukrainians, they are getting on with life, Don. I mean, usual daily routines they are continuing given the language and the troop movements. And people here, I would say, are concerned, but not by any means panicking or showing anything like fear. They are aware, they are concerned, they are worried, but getting on with it.

And, of course, as I said, you know, Ukraine's leaders continue to urge calm while at the same time, you know, they are emphasizing their own preparedness for whatever might come, concerns, too, about, you know, possible hybrid assaults as well, sorts of things like cyberattacks and hacking and targeting of communications and infrastructure and so on, Don.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: What are you hearing, Michael? What is the latest from Zelensky -- President Zelensky? I mean, he seems to be making sarcastic jokes about the invasion, but then insisting Ukraine will not back down on wanting to join NATO. Is he sending mixed messages? What's going on here?

HOLMES: Yeah, I mean, that was -- that was kind of weird, wasn't it? President Zelensky, he didn't help all of the angst or ease the concerns of the Ukrainian people when he posted on Facebook, saying that, you know, we are told that February 16, Wednesday, will be the day of the attack. I mean, officials quickly walked that back. They said he was being ironic. The 16th will instead be a day of unity.

The reaction to that -- quote, unquote "irony" just shows how, you know, on edge everyone is in the region and around the world for that matter. You've got German's chancellor, Olaf Scholz, he was in Kyiv on Monday. He is going to be talking to Mr. Putin in Moscow today, Tuesday.

After that meeting in Kyiv, the Ukrainian president, Zelensky, when you mention NATO, he made clear Ukraine would still like to at some point be in NATO. You know, something, of course, that Russia vehemently opposes, a red line. I mean Zelensky said, and the quote was, yes, we would like to join NATO as it will protect our integrity.

And that's not something that goes down well in Moscow, as you can imagine, given that it's at the heart of the tensions, NATO expansion. Of course, there is no immediate prospect of that happening anyway. It can't happen for a variety of reasons. But again, NATO expansion is the issue at the top of Russia's agenda, Don.

LEMON: Michael, thank you. Appreciate it.

I want to bring in now CNN White House correspondent John Harwood and senior political analyst Ron Brownstein. Gentlemen, good evening to you.

John, the U.S. closing down the embassy in Ukraine. Russian forces moving in to attack positions. What are you hearing from the White House at this hour? Do they think there is still a chance for diplomacy?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: A chance but a diminishing one and not all that great of a chance. Look, it's difficult to know precisely what the administration feels because they have been conducting a fairly aggressive information operation against the Russians.

That is trying to publicize in advance things that they think the Russians are going to do, broadcast that they think the Russians are going to invade as a strategy for calling them out ahead of time and perhaps buttressing the deterrence that they are trying to achieve by positioning troops in NATO countries and offering aid to the Ukrainians.

Tonight, Secretary of State Blinken said the United States is going to offer a $1 billion sovereign loan to Ukraine to shore up its finances as they brace for this invasion.

But the outward signs for the administration are this is likely, it could come this week, and could come at any moment. And if they are -- if they actually don't believe that, they are doing a pretty good job of convincing people that's what they think. They do say they don't know that Putin has made a decision, but they think that all the signs point towards him moving.

LEMON (on camera): Ron, I want you to weigh in because Republicans like Lindsey Graham are slamming President Biden for not imposing sanctions on Vladimir Putin right now. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): He has got 100,000 troops amassed on the Ukrainian border, and he is paying no price at all. So, I would like to hit him for the provocation and have sanctions spelled out very clearly. What happens to the ruble and his oil and gas economy? I think that's what's missing. We are talking way too much and we're doing too little.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): What do you think of comments like that? Does that undermine the president at a critical moment?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it is -- it is sort of ironic to hear Republicans calling for a harder line on Russia after the four years of the Trump presidency.

[23:05:00]

But, look, I mean, it's a legitimate debate, when is the right moment? Certainly, Biden has had success in uniting the European allies around a very clear message that if Putin crosses the line and actually invades, there will be enormous and crippling sanctions, particularly targeting, as Lindsey Graham accurately noted, that they are dependent on oil and gas revenue.

I mean, Europe is, as I understand it, they're the most important consumer for oil and gas. That would be enormously disrupted if they go ahead with this.

I mean, Putin's goal always is to divide and destabilize the West, and this, you know, continues to be an extremely difficult issue for the European countries because they are the on the flip side dependent on that Russian oil and gas.

But for the most part, it appears that Biden has had success in kind of hardening them into united front, and I think Putin can have no illusions about the magnitude of the sanctions that he will face if he crosses the line.

LEMON: Well, let's talk about that, John. What is the latest from the White House on sanctions? I know that President Biden said that the U.S. would respond swiftly and decisively if Russia invades, but the sanctions bill in the Senate is stalled.

HARWOOD: They don't need the sanctions bill from the Senate. I think the administration has been tolerating that effort. It's sort of a parallel thing going on while they conduct their own diplomacy with the allies, as Ron was just laying out. But it doesn't really matter whether the Senate passes a bill or not.

If Russia invades, the president will, in concert with allies, apply sanctions that will include not just cutting off the Nord Stream pipeline and impeding Russia's ability to sell oil and gas, as Ron mentioned, it is also about unplugging Russia from the global financial system. It's about sanctions on oligarchs who parked a lot of money overseas.

And so, the administration has done a good job of getting people to be on the same page. It's a very -- you know, NATO is a pretty diverse coalition. And the fact that the United States is in position to be able to credibly say we are going to apply these sanctions is about the best they could hope for in this situation.

LEMON: Ron, your take on an interview that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did with David Remnick of "The New Yorker." This is a clip where they talk about the future of our democracy. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID REMNICK, EDITOR, THE NEW YORKER (voice-over): You used a phrase earlier in the midst of this, if we have a democracy 10 years from now. Do you think we won't?

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY) (voice-over): I think there is a very real risk that we will not. I think what we risk is having a government that perhaps postures as a democracy and may try to pretend that it is, but isn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): She is talking about attacks on voting rights and Republicans who won't admit an election defeat. Do you -- what do you think of that? Do you share her concerns?

BROWNSTEIN: Yeah, don't listen to her. Listen to the wide range of people who study the erosion of democracy around the world. And almost uniformly, they are sounding the alarm that the U.S. is on a trajectory similar to what we have seen in other countries.

I mean, you know, democracy students will tell you that coups now and the undermining of democracy doesn't occur with tanks. It occurs with under the color of law and changing the rules of the system in a way that preserves the outward appearance and kind of structures that we all have, you know, have been accustomed to for centuries in this country, but hallows out their meaning.

I mean, that is what happened in Hungary, that is what happened in Turkey, Venezuela, other countries where the ruling party changed the results in a way that made it very hard for them ever to be removed from power.

We are not there yet, but certainly between what we are seeing in the laws making it hard to vote, the threats to the administration and the counting of ballots that are accumulating, the adherence to the big lie who are running for election office, these are real risks, you know. And it's not just AOC who is making that case. It is a lot of people who study --

LEMON: The former president, Barack Obama, said something very similar as well.

BROWNSTEIN: Yeah.

LEMON: Look, I don't know if we are there yet, but I think we are pretty damn close to being there. Thank you both.

HARWOOD: And, Don, if I can just add one thing to what Ron was saying. The thing that is so excruciating about watching this process is he was talking about the ruling party hollowing out those institutions and making changes. We have a situation now where if not the ruling party that's doing that, it's the party that's trying to gain power.

And all of the outward signs we have is that they are going to gain power at least in the midterm elections if not in the presidential election two years from now.

[23:10:04]

LEMON: Yeah. A party who is not selling anything that the majority, the people want, but yeah, trying to -- basically minority rule. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, gentlemen.

I want to turn to former Republican congressman Charlie Dent. He is now a CNN political commentator. Charlie, good to see you. Thank you so much for joining.

"The Washington Post" has new reporting on how Donald Trump's hold on the GOP may be slipping. They spoke to dozens of prominent Republicans who are frustrated that he is so focused on endorsing candidates who will push his personal grievances instead of those who can win. I don't know why they're surprised about that. I mean, duh. Even top GOP donors are suggesting that he step aside. From where you sit, is Trump losing his influence?

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE: Yeah, I do think he is losing his influence. He is diminishing as a political figure. But he is still a dangerous figure. He certainly can influence primary elections, which is where so many of these elections are decided. General elections are often just formalities in many of these very safe seats.

But I think many Republicans are tired of losing, and they see how Trump's obsession, unhealthy obsession, with the last election is impeding the ability of Republicans to unite around either a positive agenda or just being able to make the Democrats the focus of their attacks.

And I think they all understand that. Everybody understands that apparently except the former president, and probably no one understands it better than Mitch McConnell, you know, who has been through periods where he lost seats in the Senate because, you know, extreme candidates were nominated, five Senate seats I could calculate that Republicans should have won in 2010 and 2012. And so, people like McConnell want to go in a different direction.

LEMON: Yeah. Listen, I think that we're very close to what we believe on this. I think that the party wants Trumpism, right, when it comes to the judges. They don't necessarily want him because he is such -- he has become so extreme in these candidates he is supporting. We had a similar conversation before. Charlie, "The New York Times" is reporting that Mitch McConnell and his allies are desperately trying to recruit candidates to beat who McConnell calls Trump's unelectable goof balls, right? But he is not making a lot of progress.

Larry Hogan won't run for Senate in Maryland. Chris Sununu won't run in New Hampshire. Doug Ducey in Arizona is still undecided. I mean, there are still months go, but this attempt to suppress the Trump wing isn't finding big name takers.

DENT: Well, that is because even in those states you just mentioned, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Arizona, there will be an active Trump wing trying to stop those folks who are, you know, Trump skeptical or Trump critical. And so even good candidates like the three you just mentioned, you know, still have to get through a primary.

I mentioned earlier, look, remember the names Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Richard Mourdock, these were all candidates in 2010 and 2012 who lost very winnable seats for Republicans. Everybody knew they would be a problem in the general election.

LEMON: They made big splashes in the media, though. I mean, Christine O'Donnell was on every show and people were talking about her. Sorry for interrupting. Go on.

DENT: Yeah, yeah, you're right, Don. But that's the whole problem. These people, they might appeal to a very narrow segment of the base, but they literally cost Mitch McConnell his majority. He could have had the majority back then in 2010 and 2012. And Mitch McConnell, say what you will about him, you know, he likes to win. He likes to wield power. He doesn't -- he can't do that from a minority leader's spot as effectively.

So, that is what this is all about. It is about winning. And, you know, Trump always talks about winning. I have said many times, you know, 2020 was a very good -- very good year for Republicans not named Donald Trump.

They did extremely well and they -- and it's astounding to me that so many Republicans feel they must embrace the former president because they live in districts where the general elections are really just simply a formality. They don't matter. It's all about a primary and this is where Trump is so dangerous, even though he is a diminished figure.

LEMON: Let's look at this. This is our new CNN poll. It shows 50 percent of Republican voters want Trump to run in 2024, 19 percent want another specific person, 29 percent say that they just don't want him to be the nominee. What does that say about the direction -- we talk about Trump but what does that say about the direction of the GOP?

DENT: Well, it indicates that the party is very divided. That half still want him and half don't want anything to do with him. They realize that he is a liability, a boat anchor around the necks of the party and many of the candidates who would be offering themselves up in 2022 and 2024. It's that simple.

Why else would -- I mean, there are a lot of Republicans out there who -- the suburbs, Republicans in suburban communities know this better than anyone.

[23:15:00]

Republicans have been slaughtered in the suburbs. And it was largely because of Donald Trump's carrying on. Yeah, he brought some new voters to the table, but a lot of these people were paying attention. Look at all the voters he lost for the Republican Party. That's what they need to focus on. Get those people back. Trump can't help them.

LEMON: Charlie, thank you. Be well.

DENT: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: (on camera): Fifteen-year-old Russian figure skater gets to compete in the women single skating competition, even though she tested positive for a banned substance. But that is not the end of the story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADAM RIPPON, U.S. OLYMPIC BRONZE MEDICAL FIGURE SKATER (2018): The Russians have repeatedly shown that they don't want to play by the rules. I can just tell by the discourse online that, you know, I think they just feel like everyone is doping, and that, like, they're the ones who are just getting picked on. When, you know, we are over here at home, I am afraid when I was competing, I was afraid to take like a Valley nature multivitamin from CVS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Tonight, growing outrage at the Winter Olympics after a Russian figure skater who tested positive for a banned substance is allowed to compete.

CNN's David Culver is in Beijing for us. David, good evening to you. Thanks for joining. I should say hello to you because it's quite a different time there. You are there in Beijing. What can you tell us about the decision and what are people saying, quite frankly?

DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, hey there, Don. Well, this Court of Arbitration for Sports is the one that made this decision. It means that she is going to take to the ice again tomorrow morning, your time, just a few hours from now, Beijing evening time, and she will get to compete. All of this despite her having tested positive for a banned substance. The court is putting off any major disciplinary actions until further investigations are done. Those investigations are already underway. But the fact that she is going to be able to compete, it has sparked an anger, disappointment, for some disgust.

U.S. anti-doping officials have actually said that Russia has hijacked the competition. They said that this has been a moment stolen from clean athletes.

And then I'll read to you this. This is from the president of the World Anti-Doping Agency. He said -- quote -- "The doping of children is evil and unforgivable, and the doctors, coaches and other support personnel who are found to have provided performance-enhancing drugs to minors should be banned for life, and personally, I also think that they should be in prison."

The response out of Russia, Don? Not surprisingly, one of overwhelming support, that Valieva will be allowed to compete. They call the decision a celebration of common sense and justice.

I got to show you this. These are billboards that have gone up in Moscow, reading in Russian, Kamila, we are with you. Also, interesting that online reaction right here in China has actually been in support of the team skater. Don, many here in this -- the host country seeming to view this now through a geopolitical lens.

LEMON: Interesting. What should we expect next with the competition? How do you think all this is going to play out, David?

CULVER: She will be on the ice in just a few hours for the women single skating competition, right? So, she is favored to do really well, likely the medal. She is incredible.

All of that is going to take place except for the fact that IOC officials now say, if she finishes on the podium, there's not going to be a flower ceremony and there will be no medals handed out. That will only come after the more thorough investigation is complete.

And part of that investigation, by the way, is going to heavily focused on the adults in Valieva's life. Remember, she's only 15. So, we're talking the coaches, the doctors, trainers.

And perhaps what is most unfortunate here, Don, is that the other athletes competing aren't likely to see or the feel really that finale moment of the Winter Games. Any sort of medal ceremony could very well be delayed months well into summer.

And then, there is this. Will the Russian figure skaters gets stripped of the gold medal that that team won last week? That is still to be determined. And if they did lose their cold, then that would elevate the silver medalist to gold, and Don, that would be team USA. So, lots that will likely not get settled before closing ceremony on Sunday.

LEMON: David, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

I want to bring in now Polina Edmunds, a former Olympic figure skater. Polina, thank you so much for joining us. Wow! Here we go. Give me a reaction to this issue, to allow this young Russian superstar to compete after a positive drug test in an Olympics where Russia is already competing under sanctions for past doping.

POLINA EDMUNDS, FORMER OLYMPIC FIGURE SKATER: You know, it is quite baffling, honestly and very, very disappointing as an Olympian and former competitive athlete. Still, I was in huge support of all of the clean athletes who are competing today. I am a huge proponent of clean competition and clean sport.

So, to see this go unpunished, it just -- it doesn't set a good precedent for our sport or for the Olympic Games. It is just incredibly disheartening to see the unfairness play out.

LEMON: You heard David talk about the adults in her life because she is, you know, a teenager, she is 15 years old, she is a minor. Who do you see is responsible here?

EDMUNDS: I definitely think that the coaching team and the system of their training facility is definitely to blame here. This is a 15- year- old child. So, whether or not she knows what's going on or knows what she was given is unclear, of course, but regardless, the system that allowed this type of behavior and this cheating to take place is just ridiculous.

The fact that they are just getting a little slap on the wrist by saying that you won't have a medal ceremony if you end up on the podium is just so wrong on so many levels for all of the clean athletes who have done their absolute best to achieve the same dream.

[23:25:06]

LEMON (on camera): Former Olympic skaters Tara Lipinski and Johnny Weir condembed if you condemn this decision. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TARA LIPINSKI, FORMER OLYMPIAN: Clean sport is the only thing that matters at an Olympic Games, and what we love about Olympic Games is that we get to marvel at humans, pushing athletic limits, and doing the impossible, but with one caveat, do it fairly and cleanly.

JOHNNY WEIR, FORMER OLYMPIAN: I have to condemn this decision with every ounce of my soul. The Olympics has to be clean or it is not fair. If you won't play fair, then you can't play.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): Weir went on. He said -- he called it a slap in the face to the Olympics and every athlete who has ever competed. Does this decision call into question the legitimacy of all the athletes and the system put in place by the International Olympic Committee?

EDMUNDS: You know, I think it is just really disheartening to see there had been skaters who have been caught up in doping, things similar to this, and they have been banned, they have been suspended for the appropriate amount of time.

And to see her suspension be lifted within a day to allow her to compete because she is the heavy gold medal favorite feels wrong on so many levels for all of the clean athletes who know that under the same scrutiny, they would not be awarded this lift.

LEMON: Yeah. So, listen, I'm sure you know what happened with Sha'Carri Richardson. That was last summer. She was a sprinter. She was disqualified from competing for the U.S. due to testing positive for cannabis, which is not even a performance-enhancing drug.

Today, she questioned why she had to sit out the Tokyo Olympics and still, Valieva is able to compete. She wrote that in the tweet. What do you think? What is the difference between these two cases?

EDMUNDS: You know, I mean, one huge difference, Valieva is a minor. So, that is something that is coming into play with all of these decisions. She's only 15 years old. So, she is right on the cut off line of even being able to compete in Olympic Games. And there was also a debacle within the last Olympic Games.

Russia, again, was technically banned. They still sent athletes under a different name, so they weren't officially competing for Russia. But with the same type of stuff, some athletes either, after their investigations, had to send medals back or finally awarded their medals.

So, this is kind of an element of allowing Russian athletes, who are under this type of scrutiny, to still be able to compete even if they are found guilty under investigation later, which I personally do not agree with whatsoever.

And seeing other athletes like Sha'Carri like so many who didn't get that same leniency, who were not allowed to just go to the games and then wait for an investigation to happen or this and that, it's wrong at the end of the day and it shouldn't be happening.

LEMON: Polina Edmunds, Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Be well.

So, you don't have to wear a mask, but should you? My next guest tells us the hard truth about lifting COVID restrictions.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So, as the number of COVID cases continues to drop, tomorrow, California becomes the latest state to lift its indoor mask mandate. But it's not across the board and school kids must still wear them, at least for now.

So, let's discuss now with Dr. Jay Varma, an epidemiologist and professor at Weill Cornell Medicine here in New York. Good to see you. Thank you, sir. Dr. Varma, thanks for joining us. So, there is still a lot of confusion over mask mandates. In California, for example, they are dropping its indoor mask mandate tomorrow while Los Angeles is keeping their requirement in place. And for now, the state is still going to require masking in schools. Are states following the science? What's happening?

JAY VARMA, EPIDEMIOLOGIST, PROFESSOR AT WEILL CORNELL MEDICINE: Yeah, I think this is really a challenging time for everybody to try to figure out what's going on. So, let me explain why this is so difficult. The simple fact is, you know, we as epidemiologists would love to have, you know, simple mathematical triggers to say when you put masks on and when you take them off. But the reality is it's incredibly difficult to measure exactly how much disease there is at any one time.

So, what we're really seeing is kind of how our democracy works, which is that our elected officials are taking the information they have, they're also trying to consider what the tolerance and acceptability of the populations are, and then making a judgment.

We are really in a position where we are shifting from this notion that we are all in this together, everybody has to wear a mask to individual responsibility, where each have to take some responsibility for ourselves.

LEMON: You say that elected officials need to also consider the level of public outrage if outbreaks occur in certain settings. Explain what you mean by that, doctor.

VARMA: So, you know, there has been a lot of discussion about are we in an endemic phase of this disease? Is this something we have to live with? Well, it is true that we have to live with this, but the reality is, you know, in public health, the more you invest, the less disease that you have.

[23:35:00]

And so really what it comes down to it is, how much is the public willing to accept? How much outrage will there be? And that is one of the reasons you see this kind of paradox where people can go without masks in restaurants or bars but they have to wear them in schools.

And that is because, you know, we as a society really have a different threshold for the level of risk that we are willing to accept in our kids. If our kid gets sick, people ger really upset. There is outrage. If we get sick as ourselves, as adults, we are sometimes willing to accept the blame that it was our responsibility that got us there.

LEMON: For some people, if they are immunocompromised or have young children who can't be vaccinated, even if their states lift the mandates, should they consider still masking up? I mean, I do. Also, it depends here because we don't have -- you know, ours was lifted. But there are certain businesses that still want you to wear masks.

VARMA: So, this is where my biggest point is. You know, as an expert in this field, I am not an elected official, I am not the one making the decisions about what judgements are, but here's what I think has to happen. If we are going to shift to individual responsibility, we need to make masks as abundant as, you know, toilet paper and soap and water. You know, you go to a restaurant and you want to use a bathroom, you are not expected to bring your own soap and your own water.

Let's make N95 masks available for everybody so that people who do worry about their risks because they are old, because they have immune compromising conditions, or they just want to be extra safe -- we need to reduce all barriers to do that. And the reality is we are not in 2020 where masks were in short supply. We can make those available to everybody if they need them.

LEMON: There is also these parents of young kids 6 months to 5 years old, they are going to have to wait even longer before their child can get vaccinated after the FDA announced that they want more data. Explain what is happening here. Initially, they thought that two doses -- now, they are thinking maybe three doses?

VARMA: Yeah, and this is where it becomes particularly challenging, right? Because, you know, if you're a parent out there of a young kid, you really want to have the option to get your kid vaccinated.

And what happened in the initial studies was that they found that, you know, younger kids who only got two doses of the vaccine didn't have a very strong immune response. But there was so much pressure for them to get the data out there that they wanted the FDA to review whether or not it should still be approved.

At the same time, because there were so many infections occurring in January, they were actually able to get more data on what would happen if there was a three-dose vaccine series.

So, you know, while it's disappointing that we are not going to get a decision this week like we hoped to, I and I think many other experts feel it's the right thing to do. Let us wait until we have the data on three doses versus two doses so that when we do have a vaccine available, we can give parents the best information to make a decision.

LEMON: Doctor, thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

VARMA: Great. Thank you for having me.

LEMON: Threats, anger, outrage leading to an ultra-conservative takeover in a small California town.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): In a conservative Northern California community, there have been threats made against politicians. Outrage over COVID vaccines and mask mandates. All of that adds up to the likely removal of a longtime republican county supervisor who critics say is not Republican enough.

This is the same place where nearly 63 percent of voters backed the former president in the 2020 election. A red county in a blue state. And now, the county is poised to be led by ultra-conservatives backed by some in the community with militia ties. Opponents of the move worry it could happen in other towns across America.

More now from CNN's Kyung Lah.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There is a quiet revolution happening in this rural California town.

WOODY CLENDENEN, SHASTA COUNTY RECALL SUPPORTER (voice-over): There is just a lot of frustration. A lot of people were pretty fired up. So, that kind of lit the fuse.

LAH (voice-over): In Woody Clendenen Shasta County barbershop, it's not just Republican views, but ultra-conservative. Guns, a confederate flag rolled up in the corner, Clendenen is an unapologetic member of the California State Militia, who says conservatives like him woke up when COVID first struck.

CLENDENEN: Businesses got closed down and schools and all that. We have had a (bleep) moment in this country, you know. And people are like, holy crap, we better get a hold of things here.

UNKNOWN: Make no mistake. This is now the people's house.

LAH (voice-over): They took hold of their local county board.

UNKNOWN: I don't care about your decorum.

UNKNOWN: You guys are going to prevent me from completing my citizen's arrest?

VENUS B, SHASTA COUNTY RECALL SUPPORTER: I know the change starts local, so that's why all of us are here.

They were trying to put masks on our kids.

LAH (voice-over): Venus B or Freedom, as she preferred to be called, is a mom of two, who calls vaccines harmful to her children and says the pandemic directed her rage to the closest politicians available.

Why does it have to be so loud? Why do they have to be slogans like, let's go Brandon?

VENUS B: Being passive gets you nowhere. And being just complacent gets you what we have. And we want so much more.

[23:45:00]

They like to call us domestic terrorists because we are passionate. And just because you are passionate doesn't make you a terrorist.

LEONARD MOTY, FORMER DISTRICT 2 SHASTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR: I think they are going to try to make this community over into their image and make it a very extremist alt-right community.

LAH (voice-over): Leonard Moty was a Shasta County board member. Was because early election result show he lost a recall election this month. A lifelong Republican and local police chief, Moty was targeted, because he stood up to the anger at the board meetings defying their demands to reject state mask and vaccine rules. Then, threat started online and in public.

UNKNOWN: We know where you live. We know who your family is. We know your dogs' name.

LAH (voice-over): The anger turned into a recall petition to remove Moty. A pro-Trump millionaire in Connecticut with ties to Shasta County took interest in the local recall effort and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the smalltown race.

MOTY: It's very disheartening to me to have a group be able to spend that much money to personally assault my reputation that I worked for 44 years to build in my hometown.

LAH (on camera): Did the extremists win?

MOTY: They won the first battle. I do think the Republican Party is falling apart. Don't think it's just going to go away. Don't think this can't happen to you.

DONI CHAMBERLAIN, CHIEF EDITOR, A NEWS CAFE: I call it Shastaliban (ph). It is the anti-vax people, the anti-mask people, anti-science people.

LAH (voice-over): Doni Chamberlain runs an online website covering Shasta County. An unabashed Democrat, she backed Moty with his recall. Chamberlain says it's now the far-right and majority control.

CHAMBERLAIN: They forced the ouster, a supervisor who had truly done nothing wrong. I'm fearful about the kinds of people who come in and how they will vote and what will happen to Shasta County.

LAH (voice-over): The most visible national face of this local recall is California State militia member Carlos Zapata, who has appeared on conspiracy outlet Infowars.

CARLOS ZAPATA, SHASTA COUNTY RECALL SUPPORTER: You don't vote your way out of socialism. Once it takes root, the only way to eradicate it is to fight with arms, to have a violent, violent confrontation, blood in the streets.

LAH (voice-over): And whose speech at the Shasta County board went viral.

ZAPATA: I have been in combat and I never want to go back again. But I'm telling you what, I will save this country. If it has to be against our own citizens, it will happen. There are a million people like me and you won't stop us.

LAH (on camera): There were some harsh words that you said.

ZAPATA: Harsh to who? Harsh to the people who need to hear it, maybe. I wish people were more anger. You know, anger gets you to the point of action, right? If I wasn't angry, I never would have acted. People -- you got to get anger enough to act. So, anger is not a bad thing. Violence, that's a different deal.

LAH (voice-over): Zapata and his coalition call themselves red, white, and blue print, offering what they call a template to turn rage and school boards and city councils across the country into political takeover.

ZAPATA: I would never want my kids or myself to have to go through a civil war, but it seems to me the direction we are heading is in that direction. I don't like it at all. So that is why we are doing things, these mechanisms, political mechanisms, peaceful mechanism so we don't have to get there.

LAH (on camera): There is another county close to Shasta that is seeking to recall all of its board members. Nevada County essentially fashioning its political moves after Shasta County. Carlos Zapata tells us that he has heard from 60 other counties and what he is sharing with them is the template that he was talking to us about, which is essentially a guide for other rural conservative communities to follow in their footsteps. Don?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON (on camera): Kyung Lah, thank you very much.

What would you do it a 6'3", 240-pound man assaulted flight attendants and tried to open an emergency door? Well, passengers on one flight actually know what they do because they had to deal with it. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): Tonight, the FAA reporting the number of incidents of unruly passengers on board airplanes is down slightly so far this year, but they are still happening. This past weekend, at least two flights had to be diverted due to passengers causing trouble.

More now from CNN's Tom Foreman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The approximately 6'3", 240-pound man confronted the crew right outside the cockpit, according to court papers, holding a plastic utensil like a shank, kicking and shoving a service cart into one of the flight attendants. Those documents say Juan Remberto Rivas also tried to open the boarding door, saying people on the plane were attempting to hurt him and we're going to bring down the plane, before an attendant hit him with a coffee pot and other passengers rushed up, punching, tackling, and securing him with handcuffs and duct tape.

The flight from L.A. to D.C. was then diverted to Kansas City, where Rivas was taken into custody. The FAA says on average, about 10 unruly travelers are now reported every day.

SARA NELSON, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS: With a steep rise in these cases, flight attendants have been asking every single day when they put on their uniform, is this going to be a sign of authority and leadership in the cabin, or is it going to be a target for a violent attack?

UNKNOWN: You (INAUDIBLE) warning!

[23:54:58]

FOREMAN (voice-over): Incidents of upset, angry, and occasionally violent passengers soared last year to nearly 6,000 with almost three quarters of the episodes related to mask wearing. So far, this year, the numbers are down a bit. But while many states are dropping mask mandates, federal authorities still require them on airplanes, and the tension is real.

UNKNOWN: Listen (INAUDIBLE).

FOREMAN (voice-over): Combine that with a record number of guns caught at security checkpoints and some industry groups want no fly list for disruptive travelers. And the Biden administration says they might consider it.

PETE BUTTIGIEG, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: You simply should not behave this way on an airplane. You shouldn't behave this way on the ground either. But in air travel, it's a unique risk.

FOREMAN (voice-over): In the meantime, many flight attendants continue training to defend themselves, other passengers, and even their planes when fellow travelers for whatever reason attack.

(On camera): The man in that weekend incident has now been charged with interfering with a flight attendant and he is still being held with no word on how he will answer that accusation. Don?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON (on camera): Tom Foreman, thank you. And thank you for watching. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)