Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Huge Blast Cripples Part Of Critical Bridge To Crimea; Biden Warns Of Russian Nuclear Threat, Invokes Armageddon; South Korea: North Korea Fired Two Short-Range Ballistic Missiles; Source: DOJ Doesn't Believe Trump Has Returned All The Classified Docs Taken From White House; Power Restored For Most, Still Down In Hard-Hit Sanibel & Pine Island; Herschel Walker Repeatedly Denies Abortion Allegation. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired October 08, 2022 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:25]

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): This morning, a truck was blown up on the automobile part of the Crimean bridge, creating another bottleneck for the Russian forces in Southern Ukraine already struggling with logistics.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): We have waited for the moment the bridge burns. I think all the Ukrainians have waited for it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The emotions are very positive. The news is good.

MJ LEE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: A pretty remarkable warning from President Biden that he sees the direct threat of a nuclear war for the first time in 60 years.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: They begin to prepare their society. That is very dangerous. I think that is dangerous even to speak about it.

WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Kim Jong-un wants the world to know that his arsenal is there, that it is capable. He has fired seven missiles just in the last two weeks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These actions are provocative, they are dangerous.

CAMILA BERNAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Six killings in Northern California, and at least one possible suspect.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We want our communities to pay attention to how he walks.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A lot of people are scared to come out at night.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's just scary. Period.

BROWN: I'm Pamela Brown in Washington on this Saturday and you are in the CNN NEWSROOM. A bridge of huge geographic and symbolic importance crippled in a

millisecond.

Take a look right here on your screens. This is the exact moment that Russian President Vladimir Putin suffered the latest blow in his war on Ukraine. The blast from the parent truck bomb, knocking out three of the four lanes of the bridge that links Russia to Crimea, its annexed territory in the south. And now a huge bottleneck chokes a critical supply route for Putin's war in Ukraine.

Now, we should note, Ukraine has not claimed responsibility for the attack, but it is most certainly celebrating it. Ukraine quickly unveiled -- look at this -- this commemorative postal stamp that it will issue and yes, that's an apparent nod to the so called unsinkable "Titanic."

Well, CNN House correspondents analysts and experts from the White House to the capital of Ukraine covering all angles of this unfolding story.

I want to begin this hour in Kyiv with CNN's Frederik Pleitgen -- Fred.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Pamela.

Well, you know, it's a blame game going back and forth between the Russians and the Ukrainians right now as far as that explosion is concerned.

An adviser to Ukraine's President coming out earlier today and suggesting it might have been an inside job by Russian Security Services, no real evidence to back that up, however. The Russians for their parts squarely pointing the finger of blame at the Ukrainians, however, the Ukrainians have not acknowledged that they were behind the explosion.

Nevertheless, it definitely is a huge blow to Vladimir Putin and his war effort in Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PLEITGEN (voice over): A devastating blow to Vladimir Putin's war effort in Ukraine both strategically and symbolically. The Kerch Bridge that links Russia's Mainland with occupied Crimea on fire and heavily damaged.

Moscow's Investigative Committee acknowledging the severity of the attack.

SVETLANA PETRENKO, RUSSIAN INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE (through translator): According to preliminary information, a truck exploded on the automobile part of the Crimean bridge from the side of the Taman Peninsula in the morning today, which caused several fuel tanks to ignite on a train heading towards the Crimean Peninsula. As a result, two lanes partially collapsed. PLEITGEN (voice over): This CCTV video appears to show the moment of

the blast. A truck is seen driving on the lane leading towards Crimea, when all of a sudden there is a massive explosion, though it's not clear whether it is the truck that actually blew up.

Russian officials saying several people were killed in the attack. Moscow already pointing the finger at Ukraine, but so far no claim of responsibility from Kyiv's leadership.

"Crimea, the bridge, the beginning. Everything illegal must be destroyed. Everything stolen must be returned to Ukraine. Everything occupied by Russia must be expelled," an adviser to Ukraine's President tweeted.

While Russian authorities say fuel and food supplies to Crimea are ensured, videos released on social media show long lines forming at gas stations on the peninsula just hours after the blast.

The Crimean Bridge is a vital supply artery for Russian forces fighting in Ukraine, but it is also a prestige project for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Putin personally drove a truck across the bridge when it was opened in 2018. The attack came just a day after Putin's 70th Birthday leading Ukraine's national security adviser to tweet this video apparently mocking Russia's leader.

[VIDEO CLIP PLAYS]

PLEITGEN (voice over)" Ukraine's Postal Service was quick to issue a stamp commemorating the bridge explosion. Residents in the capital taking selfies in front of the main Post Office.

SVITLANA STEPUN, POLTAVA REGION RESIDENT (through translator): We have waited for the moment the bridge burns. I think all Ukrainians waited for it and we are very satisfied it has finally happened.

PLEITGEN (voice over): Moscow says it got the railway section of the bridge up and running again quickly, but the damage to the road section is more extensive creating another bottleneck for Russian forces in Southern Ukraine, already struggling with logistics.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[18:05:52]

PLEITGEN (on camera): And just to elaborate a little bit, Pamela, on the bridge being opened again for traffic, we have seen some images coming out of some cars rolling across that bridge and it is really is only a trickle of what you would normally see roll across the Crimean Bridge. It seems as though one lane is partially open from four lanes that would normally be open.

And as far as the rail traffic is concerned, yes, the Russians have been able to roll some trains over that bridge, but at a much slower pace than you would normally see. So, this certainly remains a bottleneck and with that, an issue for

Vladimir Putin, especially as his forces are struggling in the south of Ukraine anyway on the battlefield, and as far as logistics are concerned as well -- Pamela.

BROWN: All right, Fred Pleitgen, thanks so much for that.

In this latest blow to Russia comes amid growing fears that a desperate Vladimir Putin will resort to nuclear weapons amid his humiliating losses in Ukraine.

And President Biden, for his part this week intensified those concerns by saying Putin's threats have left the planet under the greatest threat of nuclear Armageddon since the Cuban Missile Crisis 60 years ago.

Armageddon, the President's word.

Now, let's go to the White House and CNN's Arlette Saenz.

So Arlette, the White House has unsurprisingly faced an avalanche of questions over the President's remarks with officials playing cleanup. What's the latest?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, US officials have said that there was no new Intelligence that prompted these comments from President Biden when he talked about the prospect of possible nuclear Armageddon. Instead, officials say that the President's words simply reflect how seriously they've been taking these threats from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

They say that they haven't seen any evidence that he has decided to use nuclear weapons and the US hasn't changed their own nuclear deterrence stance as well. But really, the White House has been watching this issue with growing concern over the past few weeks as Russian President Vladimir Putin has really escalated his rhetoric.

Here is White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre talking about this yesterday.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Russia's talk of using nuclear weapons is irresponsible and there is no way to use -- to use them without unintended consequences, it cannot happen.

We want -- we won't be intimidated by Putin's rhetoric. We have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture, nor do we have indications they are preparing to use them, but Putin can deescalate this at any time, and there is no reason to escalate.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SAENZ: And these comments from President Biden where he warned that the world is facing the highest threat of nuclear weapon use since the Cuban Missile Crisis really offers also a window into how he has been viewing and processing this whole situation and whether there is an opportunity to try to defuse the situation, especially as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to face major issues, including, for instance, that explosion on that Russian bridge to Crimea, the President in that fundraiser also saying, "We are trying to figure out what is Putin's off ramp?

Where does he find a way out? He is not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons, because his military is you might say, significantly underperforming."

So, all of this really encapsulates how President Biden has been viewing this as his White House has also said that they have made clear to Putin that there would be catastrophic consequences if he were to move forward with the use of nuclear weapons.

BROWN: Yes, clearly, this is weighing heavily on President Biden.

Arlette Saenz, thanks so much for that.

So let's continue this discussion, joining us now is former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark and Alice L. Stewart, author of "Awaiting Armageddon: How Americans Faced The Cuban Missile Crisis."

Thank you both for your time on the Saturday.

Alice, to you first, do you agree with the President making this comparison to such a terrifying time?

ALICE L. STEWART, AUTHOR, "AWAITING ARMAGEDDON": I think, we're fortunate that there hasn't been another time in the last 60 years where we've been concerned about the use of tactical nuclear weapons on a bad battlefield, however, I don't think it's a really good comparison because the Cuban Missile Crisis was about strategic weapons between the two world's superpowers and could have devastated both nations and could have left the world without the leaders and could have caused damage to other countries and fallout -- radioactive fallout in other countries.

[18:10:30]

STEWART: So, I think that while this may be the worst one since 1962, it is nowhere near as bad as the missile crisis was.

BROWN: Well, General Clark, Ukrainian president Zelenskyy has weighed in. He has commented on Putin's repeated hints to use nuclear weapons and he thinks those comments are strategic, let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENSKYY: They begin to prepare their society. That is very dangerous. They are not ready to do it, to use it, but they begin to communicate. They don't know if they will use or they will not use. I think that is dangerous even to speak about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Do you agree? Is President Putin preparing his own people for the possibility of a nuclear strike? What do you think General?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, I think he is preparing. But I also think that President Zelenskyy is right. Putin doesn't know if he's going to use it or not.

But as Alice Stewart said, it is a difficult moment.

But Pamela, there are a couple of things that are different. You know, in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Russians thought that they could push the United States out of Europe by putting the missiles in Cuba. So, it was a direct US-Soviet confrontation.

In this case, we have Ukraine in the middle of this and what the Russians want to do is deter US and Western support for Ukraine. If we were to give into this, we would be acknowledging that nuclear power can invade anyone it wants without any consequences, and this is the problem.

So it is very difficult to imagine Putin having an off ramp given by us, he has got to find his own off ramp and really, the only off ramp that is available is he needs to pull out, just what President Zelenskyy's adviser said, "just get out" and then sanctions can be lifted and then we can talk about whether or not Ukraine is a member of NATO and redevelopment and all of that stuff.

But giving him part of Ukraine, that's not an off ramp. That's a way to prepare the ground for the next phase of Putin's military action. So, we have to really be careful how we think about the off ramp.

BROWN: Yes, and that was the concern that President Biden conveyed that he can't see an off ramp for him. And all of this has raised a lot of questions, General, just about Russia's nuclear arsenal. What does tactical nuclear weapon actually mean?

So, what we know is that Russia has nearly 4,500 warheads in total according to the Federation of American Scientists. If Putin wanted to launch a nuclear weapon, the question is, how suddenly could he achieve that, General?

CLARK: So, he could -- with these weapons, using them against Ukraine, they could attack Ukrainian cities. Kharkiv would be a likely, likely target. They want to protect Kyiv as this sort of trophy, if he takes Ukraine. But Kharkiv, yes, it would be a potential target. He could use it against road junctions, supply depots.

He could also try to hit the military forces that Kyiv is using, but what we know from our own exercises is that when you try to use tactical nuclear weapons as artillery against moving forces, that's a really tough problem. We've tried it for years in US exercises, and in practice, expended a lot of these weapons. And when we measured what the results would have been, we were always disappointed. So you have to believe that there's a lot of psychological juju in what Mr. Putin is saying. BROWN: Right, but just to follow up on that, I mean, you know, the

White House has said, look, we don't have any Intelligence indicating that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon, that kind of thing.

But the question is, how quickly could a tactical nuclear weapon as they call it, how quickly could that be deployed if Putin decides he wants to use it? I mean, does he have something comparable to the nuclear football briefcase possessed by US Presidents?

CLARK: Sure, but he has to get those warheads out of storage. He has to deliver them up to the front to the artillery or mortars or however it is going to be dropped or fired and targets have to be selected. So it is a process, five days, two weeks, something like that. And probably it would be detectable. Because normally when you're dealing with special weapons like this, there are extraordinary channels of communication. There are different kinds of vehicles used and so we would pick up some, if not all of this.

[18:15:01]

BROWN: That is really interesting context.

And Alice to you again, you know, look, when you look back to history, cooler heads ultimately prevailed and the Cuban Missile Crisis along with the reality, right, of mutually assured destruction.

But in 60 years, the world has changed immeasurably. Communications are instantaneous, and often as we see with social media, less thoughtful and much more incendiary. Do you think we would have the same peaceful conclusion today in a standoff, perhaps, like the Cuban Missile Crisis?

STEWART: I think the Cuban missile crisis would be impossible today for one thing, Khrushchev got most of what he wanted shipped to Cuba. He got it to Cuba before the United States was even aware of it, and nowadays, that would be extremely difficult to do.

And I do think there might have been some advantage if Kennedy and Khrushchev had been able to have more direct contact with each other because they both felt that we were on the brink of Armageddon, and their advisers weren't always in agreement with on that.

But I think it came down to the two of them deciding on how to compromise and end it because they realized it was getting out of their control. And so I think, today, it would be hard to have the same thing happen mostly because it was based on secrecy both in the Soviet Union and Cuba and also in the United States, because President Kennedy didn't announce to the nation or to the world that he knew about the missiles for almost a week after they were discovered.

So, there was a lot of secrecy involved. And also President Kennedy asked "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post" not to reform what they knew before he made his speech, and I don't think that would happen or that would work today. I don't think the newspapers would hold it out. BROWN: Alice Stewart, General Wesley Clark, such an interesting

conversation on an important unfolding issue with the war in Ukraine. Thank you both.

Well, US Intelligence and State Department officials sat down with members of the Taliban earlier today and it was the first such sit- down meeting since this man was killed. Al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al Zawahiri. He was targeted in an American drone strike earlier this year.

US officials have kept off and on contact with the Taliban since the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the White House calls the relationship a "work in progress."

Well up next for you on this Saturday, why is North Korea firing so many missiles and should the West be worried? We're going to have more details on its latest launch when we come back.

Also ahead for you tonight, bracing for a digital tsunami of misinformation of Elon Musk's Twitter takeover goes ahead, and Donald Trump gets his account back.

That conversation coming up the next hour.

You are in the CNN NEWSROOM and we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:22:14]

BROWN: South Korea military officials confirmed that North Korea fired two short-range ballistic missiles off their eastern coast earlier today.

CNN's Will Ripley joins me now from Taipei. Will, what more do we know?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Pam, what we know is that it is a missile testing binge in North Korea. The fact that they, in the last two weeks, have launched more missiles than they did in 2020 or in 2021, and this is despite the United States announcing even more sanctions on Friday, one of the most heavily sanctioned economies in the planet as is. It hasn't really slowed or stopped their weapons program. I suppose that's debatable, but what we do know for sure is that Kim Jong-un has been on a roll here.

There was a -- there was kind of a pause during the COVID outbreak in North Korea, but after he declared victory over COVID in a matter of weeks, it is back to launching missiles.

And interestingly, they're not putting them on state media. They're not putting them on the news like they usually do. It's not for propaganda purposes, probably from their perspective. It is for scientific knowledge, and maybe to send a message to the world that despite what is happening in Ukraine, North Korea, you know, wants everybody to know that they have an arsenal, and it's getting bigger and bigger.

BROWN: Yes, and wants to make sure that it doesn't lose any of the world's attention, but that is really interesting that they are not putting these launches on state TVs. So, has there been any response when we talked about the sanctions, but what else from the US because as you pointed out, Will, North Korea is already heavily sanctioned and clearly that's not stopping these ballistic missile launches.

RIPLEY: You know, if this -- it is like the same old playbook, and your same losing strategy. You know, one thing you could give former President Trump, I mean, he really did try something different.

Now, he also ended up in the end, diplomacy fell apart for various reasons, but it was something different than sanctions, and, you know, calling for complete denuclearization like Vice President Kamala Harris did at the DMZ. When North Korea has written it into their Constitution, that they're going to be a nuclear weapons state forever.

You try telling somebody to take away their nuclear weapons after that, so the US and South Korea response, military drills, like we haven't seen in five years, Pamela, you know, joint drills, whether it's anti-submarine, whether it's missile testing, precision bombing, so things are certainly ratcheting up out here and you really have got to wonder what is going to work to slow this down, if anything.

BROWN: Yes. What is going to work? Will Ripley, thanks for getting up early for us there in Taipei. I know, you're probably on edge to wondering when is the next missile launch going to be considering there has been a binge as you said, Will Ripley, go ahead.

RIPLEY: I haven't been woken up like this. It was five years ago, I used to get these calls on the weekends all the time for missile launches and this was like deja vu. History repeats itself.

[18:25:00]

BROWN: Really? Yes, five years ago.

All right. Will Ripley, good to see you, nonetheless. Thanks so much.

Well, the midterm election is now just a month away and a disturbing number of 2020 election deniers are running, some may even have a chance to win; others are trying to backtrack on their claims.

The authors of a new book, "The Big Truth," Major Garrett and David Becker. They are here in live to discuss their concerns about the state of our democracy.

That's up next, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Well, CNN has learned that in recent week, the DOJ has demanded Donald Trump return any outstanding documents he may still have that are marked classified, making clear it does not believe he has returned all materials taken when he left the White House.

[18:30:08]

And just as clear multiple, legal dramas involving the former President will continue to play out against the backdrop of the 2022 midterms.

Joining us now Major Garrett, Chief Washington Correspondent for CBS News along with David Becker, Executive Director at the Nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. That is a long title, David Becker, we might need to shorten that one. And they've written this book right here on your screen, The Big Truth: Upholding Democracy in the Age of "The Big Lie". Welcome to you both.

MAJOR GARRETT, CBS NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Good to be with you.

BROWN: Congratulations on your book. This is an issue we've covered extensively on the show. I know, David, you've been on several times and I want to dive into this.

But first off, I just want to ask you, Major, when you put these two issues together, the politics with Donald Trump and democracy as a whole, how is his continuing presence impacting this election coming up, but also, democracy as a whole?

GARRETT: Look, let me say two things about President Trump as a president, and as a former president and as a candidate. He has had tremendous influence on American politics, that's clear. He has changed the Republican Party on a whole range of issues and Republicans have adapted to those changes and that's all well and good. That's what happens in politics.

You have a new set of ideas, a new kind of candidate and a new approach and things change. All of that is fine. One thing he has done, though, that is specifically and I believe unforgivably malevolent is to say things untrue about the 2020 election and deepen a sense of not only dissatisfaction, which is legitimate, but doubt which is illegitimate about what happened in 2020. And that's having a pervasive effect on Republicans.

It may have a strategically negative effect on many Republicans running in the 2022 midterms, who campaigned as deniers to win primaries, but can't sustain that message to a general election audience and they're either back ...

BROWN: (Inaudible) and you make sure ...

GARRETT: ... right, they're backtracking. They're trying to find some way out of this trap that they themselves walked into. Who built that trap? Former President Trump.

BROWN: Yes. And again, the Georgia seat, the Senate seat that a lot of Republicans blame Trump's message on Republicans losing the seat in 2020, so ...

GARRETT: It's two run up seats right after the 2020 election.

BROWN: Yes. Yes, exactly.

GARRETT: Yes.

BROWN: So let's get a little bit into the book here. David, you have said this repeatedly. This was the most secure election in U.S. history. That message is clear on the book. The Washington Post, though, looked at more than 500 GOP candidates running for the House Senate and key statewide posts, they found that 53 percent, that is the majority still deny or question, Joe Biden's proven victory.

And just to expand on what you were talking about, Major, there are some that are pivoting away from that messaging, because they realize they aren't going to be able to win in the general. But still, a large majority of candidates are still peddling that lie.

DAVID BECKER, EXEC. DIR., NONPARTISAN CENTER FOR ELECTION INNOVATION & RESEARCH: It shows the cynicism of all of this, right? We're here now seven or five days as we sit here today, since the November 2020 election. The most secure, transparent and verified election in American history with more paper ballots, a higher percentage of paper ballots in all the battleground states, more audits of those ballots than ever before and subjected to the most intense judicial and other kinds of scrutiny than ever before and it's held up.

As we sit here over 700 days past the election, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence brought by anybody, including the losing presidential candidate to any court or law enforcement authority to indicate there was any problem with the election. And yet there are people who are cynically exploiting the sincere disappointment of the millions of people who voted for the former president to try to attain temporary political power, and even more cynically, potentially, to just make money and we're seeing that quite a bit.

The damage, though, is that we're getting to a point where Americans only will believe that their elections are secure if their candidate wins.

BROWN: Candidate wins, yes.

BECKER: And we cannot sustain a democracy in that way. There are winners and there are losers. We are a closely divided nation and we're going to have elections where our candidates lose.

GARRETT: And that's something we say to both parties, okay?

BROWN: Yes, I was going to say. Right.

GARRETT: Look, democracy requires a lot of people. One of the things that requires of you is forbearance. And what does forbearance mean? It means you campaign and you are passionate about your candidate or set of candidates. And if they come up just short, guess what? You're going to have to live with policies from the side that won that you may violently or vehemently disagree with, but peaceably you live with that in a democracy. And you know what? You focus your attention on the next election and

you win that one. You don't slander the one you just lost, increasing a set of doubts that don't exist and something that just happened. And we're getting dangerously close to where that's becoming a tactical alternative in American politics. We argue very strongly, that's a very dangerous place for us to go.

BROWN: And we have seen it. I mean, it is dangerous, we've seen the violence from it on January 6th.

[18:35:01]

And it's interesting in the book you write, Major, that Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes, and this failed violent coup on January 6th, you write about him, democracies, they don't always die violently. Most die because rules are bent by authoritarians acting in defense of the rule of law.

GARRETT: That is what history teaches us. David and I did a lot of reading about other situations in which democracies come under assault, not by the bullet or the bayonet, but internally from those who want to be authoritarian and say they're using the rule of law to protect people from others or because they feel a sense of helplessness and they act within verifying and upholding things while quite obviously and over the test of time not only first watering them down, but ultimately dissolving them.

And that's one of the things we have to keep in mind as we think about where our democracy is, where our constitutional republic is, because Republicans always remind me, it's not a pure democracy, Major, it's constitutional republic, that's technically and legally true.

BROWN: Yes.

GARRETT: And it is in a constitutional republic that has a democratic system, you have to uphold those things that provide the verification of an election result, because from that verification comes authority. Authority is how we keep the rule of law and everything else that undergirds what we appreciate and value so much in our country.

BROWN: It's so important to go back to these building blocks, right, of democracy in the United States in order to understand that threat to it right now. And you mentioned a key point here saying what Republicans - how they view it and Democrat, suddenly there's like different views of how democracy operates. You're having the independent state legislature theory put out there, bear with us, because this is an important story with a case before the Supreme Court right now, Moore v. Harper, that some election experts say, David, could be the end of democracy. What do you say to that, what is it and what do you think?

BECKER: So what it basically says is that the Constitution reserves the ability to set state election laws with the state legislature only. This has never been adopted by any court. And what some are promoting is the idea that state legislatures are without any checks and balances in that process, that the state Judiciary's could not oversee that process by the legislature and rule it unconstitutional or some or in some other violation of the law under state law, for instance.

Of course, the state legislatures in the state Judiciary's were established under state constitutions which the framers knew. There's an excellent piece written recently by former Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was on George W. Bush's shortlist for the United States Supreme Court, where he points out the historical ironies of asserting this that it doesn't really make sense in the history of the Constitution.

But can you imagine if we get to the point where legislatures don't have any oversight, where the judiciary, which always has oversight over legislative functions here with Congress, in the United States Supreme Court or in the States, in this one area has no oversight whatsoever.

Now, this is not predicting that the Supreme Court is going to rule that way. It's a very, very novel and somewhat radical theory. And I think there's a lot of folks who think that it's unlikely the court is going to rule very radically in this direction, but it's something we have to keep an eye on.

BROWN: But some justices have hinted that they - yes.

GARRETT: But in the current atmosphere, people do fear something that they would regard as a radical choice on this question from the Supreme Court. And you can't rule it out, if it's before the court, the courts obviously entertaining and wants to take a look at it. But as David said, it's not only novel, it's completely askance or a thwart of all the constitutional interpretation before it and it would fundamentally break the idea of checks and balances at the state level.

BROWN: Right, exactly. But I know from covering the 2020 election, you both know this, a lot of conservatives were using that theory to undermine the election result in states like Pennsylvania.

GARRETT: Selectively, selectively.

BROWN: Selectively.

BECKER: And ultimately have failed, I mean, yes.

GARRETT: Ultimately, we have failed, but selectively let's look at Texas, the governor of Texas is a Republican, made a last minute decisions ...

BROWN: In Ohio, too, yes.

GARRETT: ... about drop boxes. The legislature had nothing to do with that. Republicans said, that was wonderful. That was a governor completely interposing his own choice without the legislature having any involvement whatsoever and Republicans were great with that.

When that happened in states that Trump loss, it was now a constitutional issue. BROWN: North Carolina, Pennsylvania.

GARRETT: Wait a minute, no, no. There's an inconsistency here that goes to the deeper question. I'm only satisfied when I win, no, that's not how it works.

BROWN: Bottom line right there.

GARRETT: Full stop.

BROWN: No matter what party, no matter what your politics are, that's the bottom line. Major Garrett, David Becker, I really can't wait to dive in to your book more. It's so important. Clearly a topic I'm passionate about. Thank you both.

GARRETT: Thanks so much.

BECKER: Thank you, Pamela.

BROWN: Well, you're in the CNN NEWSROOM. CNN is at the site of relief efforts for victims of Hurricane Ian in Florida as many struggle for help after losing so much to the storm.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I need a place to live. I - we have nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:44:02]

BROWN: Well, Sunday will be an emotional day for many in Fort Myers Beach, Florida. For the first time since Hurricane Ian pounded the city people who own homes and businesses there can return in the morning to survey damage. Insurance adjusters will be also be given access.

Meanwhile, electricity is back on in almost all of the impacted areas, but that may be a little solace to those whose properties suffered the most damage. Power restoration in harder hit areas like Sanibel Island and Pine Island will take longer given the storm damage and debris removal. That's about 54,000 customers.

And as residents return, they are facing frustration, desperation and scammers. CNN's Nadia Romero joins us now from Fort Myers. Nadia?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NADIA ROMERO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Pamela, this is still been the hub of activity for so many people in Fort Myers who really lost everything during the storm.

[18:45:00]

Behind me is where people had been lined up early this morning before the doors even open. The first person in line told me he arrived at 4 am. So five hours before he could have a chance to sit down and talk to someone for FEMA, he was in Sanibel Island, he said he lost everything. He's staying in a motel. He's starting from scratch. So he went inside to try to get some help.

And as people come to try to get help, unfortunately, we're learning about people becoming victims right now, because the scammers are out looking for targets. This is a sign we're seeing just everywhere around here. Unlicensed contracting is a felony during the existence of a state of emergency.

They're trying to remind people that you really have to pay attention to who you're giving your money to and who's telling them who can help them. And I want you to hear from one woman who arrived here today. She lost her car, she lost her livelihood, her job and then she found out she was an identity theft victim, take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN DETTOR, FORT MYERS RESIDENT: I have no income and no car. And I went in to apply for FEMA and just found out that somebody has already applied a fraudulent claim using all my information and my social security number. So I have to call the fraud hotline now to see what's going on and they told me that this is becoming a big problem that people are filing using somebody else's information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMERO: Along we're talking to FEMA, people came out to talk to their home insurance agencies, also to get a reminder about safety. So many people still without power, so they're using generators. And so you'll see these signs here, letting them know that there are free carbon monoxide alarms. This has been a message we've heard from first responders and now we're hearing it again here to have these available.

So as you're using those generators to heat or power your home, to make sure that you have these up to keep people safe, Pamela, when we talk about storms, we talk about what happens in the aftermath people losing power and people unfortunately dying because of their generators and carbon monoxide poisoning. It's just yet another thing the storm victims have to deal with, Pamela.

BROWN: All right. Nadia Romero, thanks so much.

And you are in the CNN NEWSROOM on this Saturday, great to have you with us. Still ahead, spooky season is here, but especially during an election year. October is a month that really keeps political campaigns on edge. CNN's Harry Enten is here to run the numbers on the phenomenon known as the October surprise and whether we may see one have an impact in a key battleground state.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [18:52:00]

BROWN: The October surprise many political races in history have seen those pop up. Could it happen this year or has it already happened this year?

This week Georgia Senate nominee Herschel Walker repeatedly denied reports that he paid for an abortion for a woman in 2009. Now that woman tells The New York Times that Walker asked her to have a second abortion two years later, something she didn't do. So could these new accusations affect Walker's race against incumbent senator, Raphael Warnock?

CNN's Senior Data Reporter, Harry Enten joins us to run the numbers. The big question, will this matter? Will all these accusations against Herschel Walker, Harry, have any effect in Georgia?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: I think if they have any effect, it will be small. And the reason why is take a look at the CBS News YouGov poll that was taken before the latest allegations came about. And they basically asked, okay, if you're voting for Herschel Walker, what is the main reason behind your vote for him?

Only 20 percent of Herschel Walker voters said the reason I'm really voting for him is because I actually like him. The vast majority, 80 percent, said I'm really only voting for him because he's the Republican nominee or because I don't really like Raphael Warnock. For Warnock, in fact, it's a majority who say they're voting for him because they like him. For Walker, it's just 20 percent.

So the real question is, among that 20 percent, are any of them really going to change their mind? We'll have to wait and see. But obviously, any small shift in that race could make a big difference.

BROWN: Yes. It's an important race. Where does it stand in the context of the Senate map?

ENTEN: Yes. So essentially, I picked out four of six races that Democrats must win in order to get to 50 seats. And if you look right here on the list, they're leading in New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan up by seven points. In Arizona, Mark Kelly up by six. In Pennsylvania, John Fetterman up by five. In Georgia, Raphael Warnock up by an average of four points.

If Democrats win all four of those seats with Georgia being the 50th, they will in fact maintain their Senate Majority. All they have to do is win the seats that they're ahead right now and they will in fact, keep control of the United States Senate.

BROWN: All right. So some are viewing the accusations against Walker as an October surprise, as we talked about earlier. What is an example of an October surprise that seemed to move the numbers? Of course, like when I think of October surprise, I think, Access Hollywood.

ENTEN: Yes. Yes. So, when I take a look at the numbers and we take a look of an example that actually moved the numbers, I'm going to go all the way back to 2006. Take a look here, the Mark Foley scandal, right, it was about pages whether or not he sent explicit messages to underage teenage boys. And you look pre-scandal, Republicans were forecast to win around 217 seats. On election eve, that forecast was just 204 and they only won 202 seats. So I think that's an example of a scandal that really did make an impact in terms of the election.

BROWN: All right. And how about one that didn't?

ENTEN: How about one that didn't?

[18:55:00]

About four years ago - remember Trump was talking all about the caravan, the migrant caravans coming up from Central America? Well, before Trump tweeted about it, the House forecast was for Democrats to win 235 seats. How many did they win? Two hundred and thirty-five. On the Senate side of the forecast before his first caravan tweet was 48 Senate seats, Democrats won 47, so that was an example of an October surprise that honestly really just fizzled.

BROWN: All right. And I mentioned the Access Hollywood and the video, what arguably is the biggest month of October surprises back in 2016? That stands out.

ENTEN: Yes. It really does stand out. There were so many October surprises there. It's kind of hard to disentangle what exactly happened. Before the October surprise that was the Access Hollywood tape, Clinton was up by six. Before the Comey letter, Clinton was up by six. The actual result was Clinton up by two, of course, Trump won the presidency. So I don't think the Access Hollywood tape had too much in effect, but the Comey letter may have in fact had one.

BROWN: All right. Harry Enten always good to see you. Thanks so much.

And be sure to check out Harry's podcast Margins of Error. You can find it on your favorite podcast app or at cnn.com/audio.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)