Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Parents Of Alleged Michigan Shooter Arraigned Today; Chris Cuomo Terminated From CNN Effective Immediately; The Amazing Origin Story Of Merck's Groundbreaking COVID Pill; January 6 Committee Scrambles For Answers From Trump Associates; CNN Goes Insider North Carolina Lab Testing For Omicron Variant; FOX Silent On Logan Comparing Dr. Fauci To Nazi's Mengele. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired December 04, 2021 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:00]

GENE NORMAN, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Mild but believe me, winter is making a comeback, could be to a neighborhood near you.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Winter is coming. Gene Norman, thank you very much, my friend.

Hi. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Pamela Brown. And you are in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Coming up this hour, CNN fires Chris Cuomo amid revelations on how he helped his brother, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, face down sexual misconduct allegations.

Also tonight the parents of the Michigan school shooting suspect pleading not guilty to involuntary manslaughter charges and, as we come on air, what we're learning about the person who allegedly helped them hide from the police.

Meantime, Vladimir Putin amassing tens of thousands of Russian troops on the Ukraine border. What U.S. intelligence sources are telling CNN about the potential for an invasion.

Also tonight, the incredible origin story behind Merck's groundbreaking anti-viral COVID pill. One of those doctors who helped develop the new treatment joins me live.

And in Indonesia, a volcanic eruption forcing people to outrun huge clouds of hot ash.

A statewide manhunt, overnight arrests and finally a virtual arraignment for the parents of the accused Michigan shooter. James and Jennifer Crumbley entered not guilty pleas to four charges of involuntary manslaughter filed against them.

And CNN's Athena Jones is in Pontiac, Michigan, with all the latest.

And Athena, the sheriff held a news conference a short while ago. What did he have to say about what's transpired the last 24 hours? ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Phil. Well, we learned a

few things. We learned that James and Jennifer Crumbley, and Ethan Crumbley are all being held in the same place, the same Oakland County jail not far from here. They are of course in isolation. We also heard the sheriff say that it's likely that Ethan doesn't know that his parents have been arrested because they're held in isolation.

We also heard about a third person who helped James and Jennifer Crumbley last night get into that warehouse where they were found hiding in Detriot. Here's more of what Sheriff Michael Bouchard had to say about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF MICHAEL BOUCHARD, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN: We believe they were assisted in that location to get there, to get in and we're gathering that information and we're going to have the totality of that done fairly soon and present that to our prosecutor for potential charges for either aiding and abetting or obstruction of justice.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

JONES: And I have a few more details about what transpired overnight from my colleague Mark Morales who spoke with a law enforcement official show says that that person, that person of interest was actually caught on surveillance video helping guide the Crumbleys' car into the parking spot at the back of the building where they were eventually found, and also letting them into the building.

You know, Detroit Police made it very clear that Crumbleys did not break in to this warehouse where they were later found, locked inside an art studio on the third floor. So clearly some difficult times, many hours looking for the Crumbleys, but they were found overnight, arraigned this morning, each facing four counts of involuntary manslaughter, and each of those charges carries up to 15 years in prison and a $7500 fine.

So very serious charges these parents are now facing. The Oakland County prosecutor saying that they were criminally negligent and that is why she's taking this rare step of bringing charges against the parents of a suspect in a high school shooting case -- Phil.

MATTINGLY: Athena Jones for us in Pontiac, on this very fast-moving, evolving story, thanks so much, Athena.

And I want to continue the conversation just because the dynamics here over the course of the last 24 hours have seemed to dramatically shifted to some degree. Joining me now CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, my friend, Joey Jackson.

And Joey, police and prosecutors say the parents were on the run. Defense attorneys say they were in fear for their safety and always planned to turn themselves in. Leave that wherever it is. How does their disappearance impact the case against them?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Phil, good to be with you. You know, that will be a question of fact. What will be. The issue is to whether or not they were on the run or not, right? Their attorneys during arraignment making very clear that there was a miscommunication with the prosecutor with respect to the time they were supposed to turn themselves in.

However, if you look factually, I don't know that it was a secret they were being pursued by law enforcement. I don't know that it was a secret that their presence was required before the court and obviously you have this revelation with respect to where they were warehoused, how they got into that location, the fact that they were trying to secret themselves.

And so that does not appear factually and commonsense wise that they were simply waiting to go to the arraignment and that they did not attempt to abscond from justice. And so how it really plays into the case will be it goes toward consciousness of guilt.

When you're in an instance, Phil, where you for example appear in court to face charges, it doesn't make you innocent but it certainly means you're ready to fight the charges and you're not otherwise concerned or evidencing a guilt to run away.

[19:05:04]

And so I think that's how prosecutors will use it here, to demonstrate they knew they were guilty, hence they were on the run. There's a revelation they took out $4,000 and that of course authorities will say would be to have aided them while they were on the run.

MATTINGLY: So putting aside the bizarre events of last night, if you will, there's a reason there's not a lot of precedent for charging parents for events like what transpired in Michigan. How strong is the case against the parents for the actual role they played in this tragedy and how they handled their son and his access to guns?

JACKSON: Yes, I think it's a great question. And I think what this prosecutor has done is made a judgment and said listen, there have been school shootings around the country, legislators around the country are not looking to really adopt responsible gun laws, the Congress is not looking to do it. Well, you know what, I'm going to do it.

How? I'm going to do it by using the current existing law to demonstrate that they are equally as responsible. And what are they doing with regard to that? If you look at the counts as we look at there, involuntary manslaughter, what does that mean, Phil? What it means is that your conduct created a risk because it was unreasonable of death or serious bodily injury.

So ask yourself the question, prosecutor will say, did the conduct of the parents create an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to others? And then what they will, prosecutors is factually, look. Did they purchase the gun? Answer yes. Did they secure it properly for their son? No, they did not. Did they give it to him? Were they aware with respect to their son's conduct amid fact that he was having issues in school? He was spoken to by the teachers with regard to having, for example,

searched for ammunition. That was a concern. He was spoken to with regard, not only his teachers but with the parents with regard to the drawings that he did. I could go on and on and on. But that will create the case as it relates to your conduct created some reasonable risks, people are dead and I'm going to hold you says the prosecutor responsible for this horrific circumstance.

MATTINGLY: Joey, one of the questions that I've had, obviously we've seen what happened with the alleged shooter, we've seen what happened with his parents. But by all accounts there were numerous red flags that weren't acted upon that will almost certainly be civil suits again the school. Do you see any possibilities for school administrators, teachers, somebody on that side of things, if they could also potentially face criminal proceedings against them or the school itself?

JACKSON: So I don't know that it rises to the level of criminality with respect to the school officials. When you look at crimes, it a different standard by which we judge your carelessness. It's the gross misconduct that's involved there and many will argue that this was. However, I do see a path for civil liability. Now, it should be made clear that civil liability relates to money, not criminality, not loss of liberty but money.

And of course, the parents here think, what do you mean money? I don't care anything about money, I want my children. But at the end of the day in the event that the school created this unreasonable risk because they knew something was amiss and didn't do enough about it, that creates a standard of wanton misconduct and I think that's going to be looked at very closely as it relates to civil lawsuits moving forward.

MATTINGLY: Yes. No question about that. Joey Jackson, as always, my friend, thank you very much.

JACKSON: Thank you, Phil.

MATTINGLY: And we'll be speaking to the Oakland County Michigan Sheriff Michael Bouchard about the case in our next Eastern hour.

Now, to our breaking news tonight, it involves the business of this network. CNN "PRIMETIME" anchor Chris Cuomo, no longer just suspended, he has been fired, terminated effectively immediately, a decision by our corporate leadership following a review by an outside law firm. Now that firm looked into how much help Chris Cuomo gave his brother, the now former governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, and his accusations of sexual harassment.

Let's get to our chief media correspondent Brian Stelter.

Brian, our bosses here at CNN are making it very clear that what emerged during this investigation gave them no choice, essentially Chris Cuomo had to go.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And that is something that developed as this week went along, Phil. I've been doing reporting on this in the past few minutes. I try to treat these stories when involve CNN as if I treat NBC or FOX. So I'm speaking to sources in and around CNN, getting a better picture of what's happened.

We know that on Tuesday Cuomo was suspended, quote, "indefinitely pending further evaluation." And at that time there was a sense that he could come back in weeks or months after a punishment, after a suspension period. But an external law firm, a third-party law firm was hired to look into this matter. That's something we didn't know until tonight. It was only known by management.

That law firm returned a report on Friday. So whatever that law firm found contributed to the decision on Saturday, today, to terminate Chris Cuomo. That decision was made by the head of CNN, Jeff Zucker. He notified the staff here on Saturday afternoon and now it is making -- sending shock waves across the TV world on Saturday night.

Here is the statement from CNN explaining the decision, saying, Cuomo was suspended pending further review. We retained a respected law firm to conduct the review and have terminated him effective immediately.

[19:10:05]

While in the process of that review, additional information has come to light. Despite the termination, we will investigate as appropriate."

So, again, Phil, as you pointed out, reading between the lines here, this suggests something emerged between Tuesday and Friday that led to this decision. Now I've been receiving questions from viewers on Twitter, worried about Cuomo's staff, worried about, you know, the 9:00 p.m. staff, what happens to the producers?

The answer, according to internal memo, is that nobody gets, you know, cut away, no one goes away, that staff remains in place to produce the 9:00 p.m. hour. So that of course good news for those staffers and a relief because I know there are a lot of people out there that love "CUOMO PRIMETIME," enjoy the program, and so those producers will remain in place.

Ultimately, this is a matter of journalistic ethics and about journalistic standards, about what CNN could tolerate over time. And although there was an acknowledgement that family comes first and Cuomo was in an incredibly difficult situation as his brother was being challenged, was being scrutinized, and eventually had to resign due to sexual harassment allegations, that was a very difficult situation for Cuomo.

CNN stood by him for months but something emerged this week, and we don't know exactly what, that did lead to his termination earlier today.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it was the involvement of the law firm and the additional information which we don't know the details of yet. I think that was new tonight and I think that everybody is trying to figure out more about.

Brian, Chris, and you mentioned his team, which we all think very highly of, occupied that very important 9:00 p.m. primetime timeslot. What do you know about the future of the nightly rundown here at CNN?

STELTER: Right. Well, normally Michael Smerconish fills in for Chris Cuomo. You all see him on Friday nights filling in for Chris. He had been booked already to be on this coming week. So I believe that is the plan for this coming week.

We will find out for sure on Monday. I think the insider story here is about the drama internally, different people's feelings about it, but the external story and the story that really matters is about journalistic values.

People need to be able to trust the content that comes from CNN even if there are these, you know, situations, one-of-a-kind situations where you have an anchorman and his brother is the governor and his brother is embroiled in a scandal. This has been a very difficult situation and now it's being untangled in some ways by the termination of Chris Cuomo.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it is indeed.

Brian Stelter, as always, thank you very much, my friend.

STELTER: Thanks.

MATTINGLY: All right, coming up next, the incredible origin story behind Merck's groundbreaking anti-viral COVID pill.

Also ahead, disappearing act. Is Laura Logan quietly been binged by FOX after comparing Dr. Anthony Fauci to a depraved Nazi doctor. And then an eruption in Indonesia forcing people to flee huge clouds of hot, volcanic ash. You can see it right there.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:16:59]

MATTINGLY: Tonight, a behind-the-scenes look at what could be a major development in the fight against COVID. Within days the FDA could decide on whether to authorize a pill to fight the virus. Now it's called molnupiravir and it could reduce the risk that a COVID victim will face severe effects or death by 30 percent.

Now the capsule would be the first oral anti-viral treatment available. But it doesn't come without some concern. FDA advisers narrowly voted to recommended an Emergency Use Authorization. And those who voted no were worried about the potential impact on unborn children or perhaps other unknown side effects. But most felt it was worth moving forward.

We'll continue to watch the debate over this groundbreaking pill but tonight we want to tell you the backstory. None of this would have happened without this man, George Painter. He's a scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. He's known as the drug hunter. Now he discovered molnupiravir and began studying its power nearly a decade ago, long before COVID-19 came along.

And six years ago Painter wanted to see this man, to see what he was working on. Dr. Mark Denison is the director of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. We're lucky, he joins me tonight.

Sir, thanks so much for joining us. You know, you first heard about this drug over lunch, if the stories I've read about it are accurate, in Birmingham, Alabama. Can you take me back to that day, kind of what your first thoughts were when this was laid out to you?

DR. MARK DENISON, DIRECTOR OF PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASES, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER: George Painter had been an adviser to the grant we were on looking at other drugs specifically Remdesivir. And he took me aside at this meeting and said I've got this drug. It's working against other viruses. And I want you to see what we got. And I said, I got to get home, George. And he called me back and said, come look. And I looked at this coaster and I said this is amazing.

We took the compound then it took us a few months to get everything settled. And we took that drug back to Vanderbilt and tested it and it truly was phenomenal in terms of its capacity to really block this virus -- block at the time MERS, right, and SARS, not COVID because COVID wasn't around. This was in 2016.

MATTINGLY: So obviously you very clearly recognized early on the potential or kind of, to the way you're describing it, the amazing potential this could have. When did the label come on for the COVID perspective? When did it kind of click to you that this could actually work for COVID?

DENISON: Before COVID, I would say, because our goal in all of our testing was to find a drug that would work against every coronavirus. We tested it against the mouse virus, against SARS, against MERS, against bat viruses with our colleagues at the University of North Carolina.

And so we knew that it would work against any virus with significant confidence. And so when COVID came around we just tested it and demonstrated that and we're able to show that very rapidly it would work.

MATTINGLY: Now in terms of how it works, you've described this in the past as being like nails to a car tire to some degree. Can you explain that a little bit?

DENISON: Well, I like analogies.

[19:20:02]

It's -- you know, when we think of things for the spike, there are things that -- I guess another analogy I might use is a car -- a truck driving up to a factory and going in to try to remake that factory and the factory is the cell. And the spike is the key to the door. And inside the virus assembles a new assembly line. And this drug targets that assembly line. It basically introduces damage. It's like taking a hammer or something else and hitting that assembly line all along the way so that it can no longer make new virus particles.

So it's very distinct from monoclonal antibodies. It's very distinct from vaccines. And it just induces incredible damage in the virus. And so the viruses that come out, not only are there fewer of them, but the ones that come out are damaged and can't cause infection at all.

MATTINGLY: Now you I'm sure saw or at least heard me spell out some of the pushback. You heard from the FDA advisers earlier this past week. What would you say to your colleagues in the scientific community that have concerns about this actually moving forward?

DENISON: I'd say we need to do a little better job at thinking about the science. Some of the things I heard I felt like I didn't recognize the potential. For example, this drug does cause more mutations in the virus. And so concerns were raised about whether that would cause a virus that was more dangerous. But in fact, it causes so much damage to the virus and decreases -- if it makes a tenfold increase in mutations, it makes a 10,000 fold decrease in how much virus is made.

So the fact is, the person treated with this would have less mutations coming out than the person who doesn't get the drug. So we need to really understand the science and be led by it and not by concerns that are sort of founded in sort of almost what I would call science fiction.

MATTINGLY: Can I ask given what we've seen over the course of the last six or seven days, the way you're describing it makes it sound like if there's a new variant, if there's an Omicron variant, this is bad as maybe some people predict or something else, that wouldn't affect your view of the effectiveness of this drug? Is that a fair interpretation?

DENISON: Strong prediction, hypothesis that that would be the case. I've looked at the sequence of Omicron and there's more mutation in the enzymes that's targeted by this drug with (INAUDIBLE) and it doesn't seem to be relevant to what we would be concerned about for resistance.

So there's no relationship to the emergence of things that are about the immune response in the spike to what we would see in terms of this kind of drug, so I think we need this drug. We need protease inhibitors like the Pfizer drug. We need Remdesivir, we need new ones and we need them to be used in combinations together to target this thing in multiple, multiple ways.

MATTINGLY: Yes. The backstories are always the most fascinating, these things and they came to be, the origin stories.

Dr. Mark Denison, thanks so much for your time, sir.

DENISON: My pleasure, thank you. MATTINGLY: All right. More delays and signs that members of the Trump

administration are looking to deny answer to Congress about January 6th. But one key player was supposed to give his deposition today. That's not happening. We'll talk about it and much more with former U.S. attorney and senior legal analyst Preet Bharara.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:27:33]

MATTINGLY: New showdowns could be coming as soon as next week in the January 6th committee's search for answers. Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is expected to testify. But even while he's cooperating to some degree with the panel, it could all fall apart over questions of supposed executive privilege.

That same claim brought Steve Bannon or bought Steve Bannon a contempt of Congress indictment. And Meadows, however, is quite happy to talk about his new book, which just happens to be coming out on Tuesday, something Democrats point to as a sign he doesn't have much ground to stand on over those privilege claims.

Meanwhile, a witness set to testify today Jeffrey Clark had his appearance postponed for nearly two weeks because of a medical issue. But Clark is already facing a possible contempt charge himself after refusing to answer questions in a recent deposition and failing to hand over documents.

So I think the big question is, who is Jeffrey Clark? It's not necessarily a name we heard often or really ever for most of President Trump's administration. Since then we've learned in fact that he was very active in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

So here he is. At the end of the Trump presidency, Clark was the acting head of the civil cases at the Department of Justice. Now in the weeks after the election, he pushed unfounded claims about voter fraud. He's also accused of helping Donald Trump create a plan to oust then acting Attorney Jeffrey Rosen and take the job himself as attorney general. It's thought that Clark would have probably helped lawmakers in Georgia and other states potentially undermine the results of the popular vote.

So leaders in the Department of Justice say they told Trump that if he made Clark attorney general to overturn Biden's elections many if not all of the department's senior officials would resign. Now a report by the Senate Judiciary Committee this year slammed Clark and asked the Washington Bar Association to review of his professionalism as a lawyer. As for the possibility that Clark would refuse to testify, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, Democrats say that's not normal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): I don't know if it's unprecedented but it's certainly unusual. And yet the Fifth Amendment like the rest of the Constitution is there for everybody, including former Department of Justice officials. I will say that Jeffrey Clark's superiors, his bosses at the Department of Justice have none of these problems. They didn't try to assert the executive privilege before and they're certainly not raising a Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination now.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

[19:30:00]

MATTINGLY: So we want to untangle all of this or try to, so naturally, we bring in CNN senior legal analyst, former U.S. Attorney, Preet Bharara. He is also the host of "Stay Tuned with Preet," the podcast.

And Preet, look, as a former prosecutor, D.O.J. insider, how important based on what you've seen and learned could Clark's testimony actually be?

PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's pretty important as you point out. He was a behind the scenes figure, name not well known, but figured very prominently behind the scenes in the final days of the Trump administration, even when his bosses, the acting Attorney General and the Acting Deputy Attorney General were casting him away and his sort of conspiracies on the side with then President United States to try to undo the election in Georgia and in other places, it has been reported that he had direct communications with Donald Trump at the time, and perhaps with other folks, maybe he had communications with officials in Georgia and other places.

And so I think his testimony is pretty on point.

MATTINGLY: So one of the questions, and Zoe Lofgren, a member of the January 6th Committee brought this up last hour, when we were talking to her about it. You know, you're pleading the Fifth because you don't want to implicate yourself.

As you understand them to this point, is anything you've seen or heard about what Jeffrey Clark did constitute any kind of crime?

BHARARA: Yes, I mean, it could be, that's what I think people are looking at. We know there's a district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia that's looking at the possibility of charges and criminal liability on the part of various people up to and including potentially, the former President of the United States.

Now, some people invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination in bad faith. Now, sometimes it's done in good faith. Here, we don't know which of those it is. But given the nature of what he was planning, given the strident opposition he got, and threats of resignation he got, and that were transmitted to the then President Trump, from the acting Attorney General and others, it seems like he was -- it is certainly very, very nefarious, and I think there's a legitimate possibility that it was criminal, yes.

MATTINGLY: So to move on to another individual that we didn't hear a lot about over the prior four years until these investigations really kicked into gear, lawyer, John Eastman, he's made clear he will defy his subpoena. He helped draft a plan for then Vice President, Mike Pence to interrupt votes certification. Why would a lawyer worry about incriminating himself if he's just crafting legal strategy?

BHARARA: Because maybe he was doing more than that, and that's one reason why by the way, he might not have the protection of attorney- client privilege, because there's a doctrine of the crime fraud exception, that if you are engaging with your client, who you otherwise represent in a criminal conspiracy of some sort, then you don't get the protection of the attorney-client privilege. So you know, that's meaningful.

The other thing I want to say is, everyone in America has the absolute right to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination, if it's done in good faith. And you probe whether it's good faith or not as the Committee will do, but it is a thing that the former President who is at the center of all this, Donald Trump, just to remind folks who once said the only people who plead the fifth are people who are guilty.

That's not my view. That's not the view of the Constitution or of the courts, but that's Donald Trump's view. So, I wonder what he's thinking about all this?

MATTINGLY: Yes. Always with the receipts, Preet. Now, I want to turn to Mark Meadows, the former White House Chief of Staff. His new book, not necessarily an exercise in truth telling necessarily. It revives the big lie. He whitewashes an attempted coup to some degree. I guess the question right now in talking to Committee members is, can they use the words in that book, either to catch him in a lie or to undercut his own claims of executive privilege?

BHARARA: Yes. No, absolutely. I think, you know, anything that a person says, who is in the dock, whether it's a criminal case, certainly, and whether it's in a Committee proceeding, it can absolutely be used against him.

So, you know, presumably, he chose his words carefully, but he may have been in a different frame of mind when he wrote the book and was trying to sell copies, and may have hurt himself. You know, we don't know.

There is also this Kabuki dance going on between Mark Meadows and the Committee. First, he was going to be fully defiant, then he is going to cooperate a little bit. And I think, you know, the effect of the Steve Bannon indictment looks like it had an impact on Mark Meadows, who probably doesn't want to spend all the money on defending himself against criminal charges and wants to figure out a way based on the reporting I've seen to do the bare minimum, to avoid prison, also sell books and provide some testimony to the Committee.

MATTINGLY: And do you think he can actually walk that line?

BHARARA: I don't know. The Committee is, I think, very tough. And I think the indictment of Steve Bannon has had a big impact and the threat to indict or make a referral for the indictment of Jeffrey Clark shows people including Mark Meadows that they are very, very serious about this and they are not going to engage in nonsense because they know the clock is ticking. And there may be only another year before the other party takes over.

So, I think it's a hard line to walk because the Committee is going to hold his feet to the fire.

MATTINGLY: On that point, and last question, but more broadly, as you game all of this out, as somebody who lived through the Trump impeachment where they just ran out the clock to some degree, the first impeachment, I should clarify and seem to be part of the strategy at least at the start.

One, do you feel like as you noted that the Bannon contempt charge really did start to change the game or shift the dynamics? And two, do you think that they can really run the clock out for a year or can the Committee actually figure out a way to get the information they need in that time?

BHARARA: So, you know, when we come on television, we focus on the intransigent people. We focus on Jeffrey Clark, we focus on Steve Bannon. But as Jamie Raskin pointed out, among other people, Jeffrey Clark's bosses, the acting Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General came forward voluntarily, didn't throw up a smokescreen, didn't assert the Fifth, didn't say that they had executive privilege.

[19:35:37]

BHARARA: And from the reporting also that CNN and others have done, the Committee has talked to, I think, 250 people, and they probably reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and communications, and we've still got another year.

So, are they going to get the testimony from everybody they want? No. Will they ever get testimony from Steve Bannon even if he goes to prison? Probably not. But they will have a lot of testimony from a lot of folks, a lot of people who have cooperated, and they will get communications and some documents from third parties, even if the authors of those documents were -- you know, one of the parties to those e-mails is defiant. There are other ways of getting those materials from other sources and I'm sure they're doing that.

So will they get everything possible under the sun? Probably not. Will they get enough to show us in a transparent way what happened on January 6 and who was responsible? I think there's a good shot.

MATTINGLY: Yes, there's a lot going on I think that the public is not seeing in this so far as to you as a former U.S. Attorney, Preet, you know quite well.

Preet Bharara thanks so much for your time, sir.

BHARARA: Thanks for having me.

MATTINGLY: All right, we have this new video just in the CNN.

[VIDEO CLIP PLAYS]

MATTINGLY: Now, if that makes you think of Charlottesville, it is not. This group is marching across the Washington Mall and past the Lincoln Memorial just a short time ago. They're called the Patriot Front. They're wearing white masks, matching arm patches, and with some members carrying plastic shields.

The group is widely considered white nationalists. One banner read "Reclaim America."

The group had told CNN that the march was permitted, but minutes ago the U.S. Park Police said the group does not have a permit. Unlike the violent Unite the Right protests in Charlottesville, Virginia police say this gathering has been peaceful with no arrests recorded so far.

But the picture though.

All right, a laboratory in North Carolina is on the frontline when it comes to tracking the COVID omicron variant.

CNN got a rare access inside that lab and we'll explain why the lab's work is so important.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:42:16]

MATTINGLY: Right now, the race is now really across the globe to catch and stop the new COVID variant and its tracks. But how? CNN got rare access to a lab that has already identified several confirmed cases of the omicron variant in the U.S. and is on the cutting edge of detecting the ever changing virus.

CNN's Dianne Gallagher shows us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): This is the frontline in the hunt for omicron in the U.S. After you're finished with that often uncomfortable COVID test --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're doing great. Perfect. Next nostril.

GALLAGHER (voice over): It's usually shipped to a place like MAKO Medical Laboratories just outside of Raleigh, North Carolina.

MATTHEW TUGWELL, DIRECTOR OF GENOMICS, MAKO MEDICAL: Ten thousand square feet, just COVID processing.

GALLAGHER (voice over): MAKO sequences samples taken in more than 40 states.

TUGWELL: It is 30,000 per day is how many we're processing right now. So that's about 100,000 or so per week.

GALLAGHER (voice over): Labs like this are key in detecting the omicron variant in the United States because of what they do after identifying a positive test.

TUGWELL: As of right now, we are at the point where we're sequencing every positive that we get.

GALLAGHER (voice over): Genomic sequencing, complicated, and expensive testing that reveals the precise genetic lineage of the virus is the only way to identify new COVID-19 variants. MAKO was one of just over 60 labs that does sequencing for the C.D.C.'s national strain surveillance network.

LAUREN MOON, SEQUENCING MANAGER, MAKO MEDICAL: I would say it takes between two to three days to actually fully get the sequence from confirming a sample as positive to library prepping the DNA and then to actually sequencing that library.

GALLAGHER (voice over): The World Health Organization and the CDC declared omicron a variant of concern after it was flagged by scientists in South Africa. A mutation in the omicron variant causes a peculiar test result called an S-gene dropout.

MOON: N-gene is the blue curve and then the green curve is the S-gene.

GALLAGHER: It would normally be up there with them.

MOON: Yes. Typically they're all grouped pretty closely together because --

GALLAGHER (voice over): Making a suspicious case easy to spot for expedited sequencing.

TUGWELL: We have about six samples right now that have that signature S-gene drop out.

GALLAGHER (voice over): But sequencing is required to confirm omicron because it isn't the only variant with that type of marker.

Scientists at MAKO say they've seen many different variants throughout the pandemic. Some like delta become the dominant strain, while others fade quickly or never take off. Right now, there is no way to know what type of impact omicron could have on the U.S., but they agree that when it comes to cracking COVID, knowledge is power.

TUGWELL: That every time it transmits from a person to another person, it's another chance for the virus to mutate and change into something different, so you know being able to monitor it, it really highlights the importance of testing, right?

[19:45:10]

TUGWELL: Because without the testing, you really have no baseline to understand what's going on.

GALLAGHER (on camera): Now one of those so-called suspicious samples did wrap up sequencing, and it turned out it was not the omicron variant. There are still six that are finishing up that process. The expectation is the sequencing should be completed sometime on Friday, and those results will be reported to the C.D.C.

But of course, labs like this are receiving tens of thousands of new samples from COVID tests every single day. And so these numbers are fluid, and will likely change in the weeks to come.

Dianne Gallagher, CNN, Henderson, North Carolina.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: After outrageous slurs against Dr. Anthony Fauci, a FOX News commentator has apparently disappeared from the channel. Jewish groups are demanding action.

I'll talk live with a member of the New York Board of Rabbis coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:50:27]

MATTINGLY: A prominent FOX News commentator, maybe in the penalty box, even if FOX won't necessarily admit it. Now, it's been five days since Lara Logan was last seen on air. She drew condemnation this past week for comparing top COVID expert Dr. Anthony Fauci to the Nazi Angel of Death, Dr. Josef Mengele. Listen to how she actually tried to sell that claim.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARA LOGAN, FOX NEWS CHANNEL POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: What you see on Dr. Fauci -- this is what people say to me -- that he doesn't represent science to them. He represents Josef Mengele. Dr. Joseph Mengele, the doc -- the Nazi doctor, who did experiments on Jews during the Second World War in the concentration camps, and I am talking about people all across the world are saying this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: People aren't actually saying that. Jewish groups are demanding FOX acknowledge her offensive remarks. Rabbi Joseph Potasnik is the Executive Vice President of the New York Board of Rabbis. He is also the son of Holocaust survivors.

Sir, thanks for being with us. I guess, the first question I would ask is, you see that on national television, what's your reaction when you see that comparison made?

RABBI JOSEPH POTASNIK, EXECUTIVE VICE President, NEW YORK BOARD OF RABBIS: Phil, Firstly, thank you for having me, as a child of Holocaust survivors who are no longer living, who lost so many members of their family, I would say that had there been more Fauci's then, and no Mengele's then, many more members of my family and other families would still be alive today.

It's offensive. It's outrageous. It should not have been said.

MATTINGLY: Now, FOX hasn't commented on this yet, despicable remarks, I think everybody would acknowledge. Do they need to condemn what she said? Do they need to take her off air? What would you like to see in this situation? POTASNIK: Well, so we have Holocaust education, which is mandatory in

some states for young people, for high school students. After watching this, I think we ought to have Holocaust education for adults as well.

So one of the first steps has to be that those who utter these kinds of comments need to go through a real retraining and reeducation process. And yes, it has got to be condemned.

I think there is a responsibility, we have a moral responsibility. Whenever someone says anything that is offensive, that desecrates the memory of people, that insults people, you can't simply be an innocent bystander.

Religion doesn't tolerate innocent bystanders. We have guilty bystanders. By the way, someone once asked, how did the Holocaust occur? And the answer is you could get away with it. Well, let's extend that. You can't get away with these kinds of comments.

MATTINGLY: Now, Rabbi, here is what Dr. Fauci had to say when he was asked about Laura Logan's remarks. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Not only is she being slanderous and disrespectful to so many people who were killed in the concentration camps by Dr. Mengele, but she absolutely has no idea what she is talking about. She is completely incorrect in everything she says.

What I find striking, Chris, is how she gets no discipline whatsoever from the FOX Network, how they can let her say that with no comment and no disciplinary action. I'm astounded by that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Rabbi, Lara Logan seemed to doubled down this week, seemingly going after the Auschwitz Museum at one point on Twitter, which I didn't even think was a thing. Look, one woman's ignorance, prejudice, I guess that's one thing. But what concerns do you have when that person has an audience of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to some degree?

POTASNIK: Yes. Well, you see that, if you say it long enough and loud enough, people begin to buy into it. By the way, Hitler made his comments over and over again, and people who were educated, which has also always shocked me, Phil, that we always say that education is the answer. Well, education can make you smart, but not necessarily moral. You need moral education. So it's simply not enough for us to say, it didn't happen. We've got to refute it with facts.

I think people should look at what Mengele did. Look at those experiments. Look how he tore limbs apart, look how he went after twins and tried to conjoin them. Look at how he removed eyes so he could further the kind of nefarious experimentation.

It's not enough to simply say, this wasn't right. This is immoral. You've got to strongly condemn it and there have to be consequences.

MATTINGLY: Yes, that's a great point. Read about him, if you aren't fully aware of what he did.

Rabbi Joseph Potasnik in New York. Thanks so much for your time, sir.

POTASNIK: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: All right, tonight the Oakland County Michigan sheriff is releasing new information about the arrest of the parents of an alleged school shooter.

Sheriff Michael Bouchard will join me live next hour.

[19:55:05]

MATTINGLY: And then in Indonesia, a volcanic eruption forcing people to outrun huge clouds of hot ash. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: At least one person is dead and dozens are injured after a volcanic eruption in Indonesia. People ran for their lives as Mount Semeru fired a cloud of searing ash. You can see it right there into the sky.

[20:00:09]