Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

White House: Additional Classified Documents Found at Biden's Delaware Home; Russia Launches Massive Early Morning Missile Attack on Kyiv; 25 Million People Under Flood Watches Across California. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired January 14, 2023 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:32]

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It is now revealed that there were actually an additional five pages that were found. It appears that there are approximately 20 documents with classified markings that had been found between those two locations.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are cooperating fully and completely with the Justice Department's review.

SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We have gotten reports of critical infrastructure that has been damaged in the Lviv region; also, in the central city of Dnipro, a residential apartment building was very badly damaged.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We are staying strong, trying to survive waiting for the war to end.

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: You're looking at a lot of these areas that picked up nearly six months' worth of rain in just two to three weeks' time.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The rain has been pretty consistent but our systems are holding.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Saturday night, we could get blasted with rain.

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN REPORTER: One winning ticket sold in Maine.

FRED COTREAU, OWNER, HOMETOWN GAS AND GRILL: Our store had sold the winning ticket for the $1.3 billion jackpot.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: I'm Pamela Brown in Washington and you are in the CNN NEWSROOM.

New documents mean new questions for the Biden administration. Additional items have now been found inside President Biden's private home in Delaware. The White House announcing today that several additional documents of classified material were discovered on Thursday, and this is on top of documents found back in November, but not publicly disclosed until this week. And all of it, now at the center of a Special Counsel investigation. CNN senior justice correspondent, Evan Perez is following the latest

developments for us. So, I imagine -- we used to cover the Department of Justice together, Evan, I imagine DOJ is not too pleased with how this is all playing out.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: No, it really -- it really gives the impression that the White House and the President have something to hide. You know, the problem with the disclosures is that, you know when we heard about this finally this week, the White House and the President only spoke about the initial set of documents, about 10, that had been turned over after they discovery it back in November.

What they didn't tell us then whether there were another set of documents that were found on December 20th. They've known about this and they turned it over to the FBI, and of course now we know that the Attorney General had gotten a recommendation days ago from the US Attorney Chicago, John Lausch who had been doing a review, and he recommended appointing a Special Counsel to investigate all of this.

And you saw, Pamela, you saw the Attorney General do an unusual thing on Thursday when he appointed Bob Hur to do this investigation. He also gave a fulsome timeline, in part to make sure that the full story was out there. And of course now, the latest is today, the disclosure that they were another five documents that were found, and were turned over to the Justice Department. This is in addition to another document that they had talked about yesterday.

So here we are, the total number is around 20 documents, and we know that 10 were initially found at the Penn Biden Center. The rest of them were found at the Wilmington home of the President, you know, just in the last few days.

And so now, the question is, you know, are there additional documents? This is something that Bob Hur, the Special Counsel is going to want to know and how does the Biden White House, how does the President's lawyers reassure the FBI and the investigators that there is nothing more.

We've heard from the President's personal attorney, by way of explaining why you've seen this shifting narrative and he says that the President's personal attorneys have attempted to balance the importance of public transparency where appropriate with the established norms and limitations necessary to protect the investigation's integrity.

Of course, I should note that the Justice Department never told them not to disclose any of this. This is something that the White House has controlled.

BROWN: Yes, and look, it is understandable that people looking at this is not trusting the White House, wondering what else is going to come out, because we were told -- correct me if I'm wrong -- on Wednesday, there was one more document found. This is it. The searches are over. And then we find out today, two days after, more documents were found, that five documents were found. I mean, it just -- it seems so ham-handed just from, you know, as an

outsider looking in like how is this happening? It is a train wreck in the --

[18:05:04]

PEREZ: Right. Yes, it is a train wreck. From a political standpoint, this is very bad for the President. Again, this is a team that has projected competence, right, in contrast with the previous administration, which was, you know, let's just say a hot mess, right?

And so what are the things, one of the things that we expected from this team is a lot better, and it is just surprising, frankly, that this has come about the way this has been rolled out.

Now, you know, the question is, does this create more of a legal problem for the President? I have to say that, you know, when you do have these shifting disclosures, it does raise questions in the minds of investigators, is there something more that you're not telling us? And that's where the problem goes from just being a political problem, to possibly a legal problem as well.

BROWN: Very, very quickly. It also stuck out to me that his attorneys were doing the search, but they don't have security clearances. Help us understand.

PEREZ: Right. I mean, look, you know, it appears you know, they're trying to protect their client, it's attorney-client privilege is the reason to do all of this, but again, what happens is when you reach -- when you find these documents that are classified, then they have to stop and bring someone else in to try to take custody of those documents.

BROWN: All right, Evan Perez, thank you for helping us better understand this.

And new reporting tonight about New York Republican Congressman George Santos specifically, who knew what and when about his falsified past.

According to a GOP source I spoke to, concerns about his backstory became widely known in the summer of 2022 leading into the fall campaign season. I'm told that once Santos had a chance of winning his district, there was even more inside talk that his resume didn't add up. That talk became more vocal.

There was alarm among consultants, donors, and other Republicans, and many believe the media would blow the lid on his inconsistencies, but that never happened other than a small publication in New York shining a spotlight on that before the election.

"The New York Times" first reported details of what Republicans knew about Santos before the election. The freshman Congressman remains defiant pushing back on calls for his resignation.

Ukraine says at least 12 people including one child were killed in a Russian missile strike on an apartment building in Dnipro, 64 others were injured in the attack.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy saying after the strike, "The world must stop this evil. We will find everyone involved in this terror." Ukraine's capital also under fire this morning, CNN's Scott McLean is in Kyiv with the latest.

MCLEAN: Pam, the first major missile attack on the Ukrainian capital in some two weeks was a literal wake-up call for some people. Explosions could be heard from the city center in Kyiv before the air raid alert system actually went off.

There was a second air raid alert that went off a few hours later, this one lasting some two-and-a-half hours. Many people in this city spent it deep underground inside the city's metro system.

The Ukrainians say that about two-thirds of the incoming missiles were shot down by air defenses, but many of the ones that actually landed were aimed very clearly at energy infrastructure in five different regions. Officials say that the integrity of the system remains intact though the power deficit is now significant.

And it wasn't just energy infrastructure that got hit, there was also an apartment block in Dnipro that by judging from the video, it is difficult to imagine how anyone could have possibly survived a strike like this one and yet there were survivors amongst the dead and wounded, survivors that were pulled out thanks to a frantic effort to rescue them.

The Ukrainians also say that the type of missile that was used in this strike is normally used to try to sink ships. It was also used in an attack on a shopping mall in Kremenchuk last summer. The apparent target of that strike was a facility to repair military vehicles nearby, but this particular type of missile is not very accurate. Western analysts say it's accurate only within about a 500-meter radius -- Pam.

BROWN: All right, Scott, thank you so much.

Back in the US, severe weather is once again pounding California. Much of the stage has been saturated with so-called atmospheric river storms dumping huge amounts of rain since late December.

Today, some 25 million people are under flood watches, many of them also face the threat of mudslides.

CNN's Natasha Chen is in Fairfax, California that's north of San Francisco. So what is the situation there -- Natasha.

NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Oh, Pam, you caught us in a dry moment here, but this is a common sight that we're seeing around town.

Plumbers actually just showed up. They are working on trying to clear a drain over there. This is all downhill flow from the nearby creek.

[18:10:10] CHEN: We're seeing a lot of this around town and it has flooded the

streets. Urban flooding here where they've put up cones, telling drivers to please be careful as they drive around.

This is a common warning. We're hearing from lots of California city officials because this is nothing compared to the pictures we're going to show you from Pescadero, which is on the coast south of San Francisco to the west of San Jose, it is right on the coast there where you see an entire part of the road that fell off the cliff.

So the reason that this is such a dire warning even though we may be seeing less rain than New Year's Eve and in the last couple of weeks, for example, is because the ground is already so saturated, so it's not going to take much for more flooding and potential mudslides to happen. Mudslides, like one that happened one street over that crashed into an apartment complex yesterday.

Here is the Monterey County Sheriff talking about the warning she is giving to residents.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF TINA NIETO, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: Rivers are dangerous. You know, the fury of a river, you don't know standing water, you don't know how deep it is. You know one foot of water can move a car. You know we've lost lives up and down the State from people who've driven into flooded areas thinking it was safe and caught in their cars. People, you know trapped in their homes not heeding our evacuation orders and warnings.

People need to pay attention. We've lost what -- 20 lives now since this event has started back in the end of December.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: And luckily, everyone was safe after the 19 people evacuated from the apartment building here in Fairfax yesterday. We talked to one of the residents who has been here since the 80s and he said, he has seen nothing like it ever, and that it sounded like thunder when the mud crashed down at the back of their building.

At one point today, we saw more than 30,000 customers out of power throughout the State and this has just been storm after storm in the last couple of weeks.

And while Californians definitely have welcomed precipitation to help with the drought here, this is definitely a lot concentrated in a short period of time adding new meaning to the phrase when it rains it pours -- Pamela.

BROWN: Absolutely. Natasha Chen, thanks so much.

Meteorologist Allison Chinchar joins us now from the CNN Weather Center. So Allison, what is causing all of this heavy rain across California? And is there an end in sight?

CHINCHAR: That is the million dollar question, Pam.

The reason behind all of these series of rain events is an atmospheric river. Now basically, what an atmospheric river is, is it's a very narrow but intense corridor of moisture across the Pacific Ocean that funnels that into the Western States. And when you look at how much rain these areas have had over just the last two to three weeks, it's impressive.

San Francisco picking up almost 14 inches. Oakland, Santa Barbara picking up over a foot, even San Francisco's airport picking up nearly a foot of rain in just that two-to-three-week period.

The thing to note is for a lot of these places like Sacramento, San Francisco, Reno, and Santa Barbara, they basically had six months' worth of rain in just two to three weeks. It's a good thing to have just not in a very short period of time, and it is not just rain, but also snow.

Look at some of these incredibly impressive amounts. Mammoth Mountain topping out at 190 inches of snow. Donner Pass around over 120. Again, so many of these areas dealing with feet upon feet of snow in a short period of time.

Now yes, obviously, skiers love this, but it is also very important for the State as a whole because snowpack accounts for 30 percent of California's fresh water supply on an average year and we're sitting at 226 percent of that annual average. It also helps with the drought.

Take a look at the drought map for the State of California from just three weeks ago, seven percent of the State in exceptional drought, the highest level possible. Fast forward one week, that category is gone, but we do still have 27 percent of extreme drought.

Now fast forward to Thursday of this past week. We're nearly at zero percent for both of those categories.

So the rain and the snow has also been good in terms of the drought, but it's leading to flooding because of the fact that it is all coming in such a short period of time.

We have not one, but two more events to get through this weekend. The one is currently ongoing. And then our second event arrives late Sunday afternoon and continues into the day, Monday, bringing additional rain and additional snow to many of these areas.

But the good news is, Pam, we are going to finally start to see light at the end of the tunnel once we get through these systems. Widespread rainfall likely one to three inches, especially along the coastline. Snowpack, you're talking an additional three to six feet through Monday.

But again, as we mentioned, if you can get to the end of the upcoming week, we will finally start to see some drier conditions.

[18:15:02]

BROWN: All right, Allison Chinchar, thanks so much.

We are digging deeper into the Special Counsel investigations of both Biden and Trump.

Now, the man who understands these important roles, he appointed Robert Mueller to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election. Rod Rosenstein joins us next.

Plus, are the updated COVID boosters really working and should we keep getting them? A doctor who is advising the FDA says he doesn't think so.

And then later, new details about the husband of a missing Boston woman and his troubling past as investigators try to figure out what happened to Ana Walshe.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: More now on the discovery of additional classified documents found Thursday inside President Biden's private home in Delaware. That is in addition to documents found back in November, but not publicly announced until this past week.

The President's own words from September have now come back to haunt him.

[18:20:03]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT PELLEY, CORRESPONDENT, "60 MINUTES": When you saw the photograph of the top secret documents laid out on the floor at Mar-a- Lago, what did you think to yourself, looking at that image?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: How that could possibly happen? How one -- anyone could be that irresponsible?

Totally irresponsible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Joining us now with more, Rod Rosenstein, who served as Deputy Attorney General during the Trump administration.

So Rod, nice to have you on the show. Last November, you said that you probably would not have named a Special Counsel for the Trump documents case. Is a Special Counsel necessary for President Biden?

ROD ROSENSTEIN, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: You know, Pam, a Special Counsel is never required under the Department regulations. It is always left at the discretion of the Attorney General. But I think Merrick Garland, having established the precedent of the appointment, in the Trump case, pretty much, he was obligated to do it here.

BROWN: So you feel like Merrick Garland didn't have a choice, essentially?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, it depends on what the evidence shows. If the evidence showed, for example, that definitively Joe Biden had no knowledge about the existence of those documents, then perhaps, you just decline the case and close the matter. But if there are still questions to be resolved, I think this is the appropriate way to do it.

BROWN: What would the questions you have right now looking at this?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, the key question, of course, is, did Joe Biden know that those documents were in his office and in his home? That's one of the issues that needs to be resolved. I don't know -- we don't know who has been interviewed so far. But obviously, the President would be a logical person to be interviewed if you were conducting this investigation, to find out whether he had any personal knowledge about the existence of those classified documents.

BROWN: So legally, the fact that more you know, the fact that more disclosures are coming out, but that doesn't necessarily factor into the legal issues. It's more about the intent than knowledge. If there was intent, what was done with those documents?

I mean, but from a PR perspective, the fact that they keep finding these documents, and then, you know, days later, months later, they are disclosing them. That's also problematic.

Why not have the same Special Counsel investigating both Biden and Trump? Some people may have that question, what do you say?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, you know, I think it's appropriate to have Special Counsels be narrowly focused in their investigation, and I think if you were to simply take one and keep piling on more and more matters, the investigation would expand, and it would really distract the Special Counsel from the primary task.

So I think it's appropriate here to have a Special Counsel simply to look at this issue. And hopefully, to resolve it expeditiously. You know, it's critically important when you have a President of the United States under investigation to make sure you resolve that matter quickly. The American people want to know the outcome.

BROWN: And as we know, DOJ has a memo saying that a President should not be prosecuted. So, that's also a factor in this, right? The Special Counsel would have to -- if he thought charges should be brought, which very early on in this investigation he presented to Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland would have to look at that and then decide, look at that memo, right, and decide what to do.

ROSENSTEIN: That's how I believe it ought to work that Merrick Garland would need to make a decision, number one, does he believe the case merits prosecution? Does he agree on the merits with the Special Counsel? And number two, does he believe that that policy should be enforced?

BROWN: But what if -- you know, since there are two Special Counsels and this is hypothetical, but you have to look at all of this, because it's so unusual to have two Special Counsels, one, looking at the current one, looking at the former, if you have one Special Counsel who decides to move forward with charges for one and not the other? And we know there are some key differences, but would you see that as problematic?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, every case turns on its merits, Pam. One of the challenges when you're in the Department of Justice, which I was for almost three decades is trying to explain to the public what the differences are between different cases.

And so in each of those cases, Jack Smith and the Trump investigation, Rob Hur and the Biden investigation, they're going to need to make an independent determination weighing all the evidence in that individual case without regard to what the other Special Counsel may find. So, it's certainly possible that they may reach different results.

BROWN: But as you well know, I mean, the reality is, and I know that -- I covered DOJ for many years. Prosecutors are supposed to just look at the facts, focus on the facts, but there is a crisis of trust.

Millions of people don't trust the DOJ. Does that concern you? Even you could explain it all day long, these are the facts. But how much does that concern you in this environment?

ROSENSTEIN: That concerns me a lot. It was something that I worried a lot about when I was Deputy Attorney General. I know it is weighing on Merrick Garland mind right now as he has had to appoint now two Special Counsels in addition to the one that he inherited from the prior administration. So it does create concern as to whether you can maintain that public confidence.

I think that largely, obviously, there is a lot of criticism politically, but largely, I think from the American public, there is a fair degree of confidence in law enforcement.

I think when you look at law enforcement compared to other institutions of American government, it retains a lot of public confidence.

BROWN: You've worked with Robert Hur, the Special Counsel for the Biden documents, and you've said you think that he knows not to be influenced by politics and he will make decisions based on facts.

[18:25:10]

BROWN: He was part of the Russia probe, right?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, Rob worked for me when I was acting Attorney General and he was our liaison monitoring the work of the Special Counsel conducting the Russia investigation. So yes, he has been in the trenches. He understands what the pressures are and he knows how important it is for the Special Counsel to ignore all of those political considerations and focus on the facts.

BROWN: Does it surprise you that the Biden team didn't see what was happening to Trump and try to get its own House in order, especially given what we now have reporting was a chaotic departure when he was Vice President?

ROSENSTEIN: Right, well, it depends which Biden team you're talking about. The team working for the President now wasn't necessarily the team that was around when Biden left office.

BROWN: Right.

ROSENSTEIN: And so one of the challenges is they probably don't know the facts. They don't know how many documents may be out there. So they're developing, they're finding this out in real time.

BROWN: But do you think that Biden should have been more careful, you know, after the Trump investigation, after that all unfolded in the raid, criticizing him without getting his own house in order, figuring out if it was?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, I think if you look at the comment that President Biden made, criticizing the President saying was irresponsible, I'm sure that's one that he'd like to take back.

BROWN: All right, Rod Rosenstein, thank you so much.

You are in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Have they or haven't they? Russia says it took control of a Ukrainian town, Ukraine says not true. The latest on the war, up next.

[18:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The United Kingdom is condemning Iran's execution of a dual British-Iranian citizen. Sixty-one-year-old, Alireza Akbari is a former deputy defense minister for Iran and he moved to the U.K. more than a decade ago. According to Iran state media, he was hanged after being convicted of espionage and corruption.

Iran says he was working as a spy for the British intelligence agency, MI6. As part of the diplomatic fallout, the U.K. has temporarily recalled its ambassador from Iran.

Well, the White House is condemning the latest Russian strikes in Ukraine, calling them "brutal and barbaric." One missile struck an apartment building in Dnipro, killing at least 12.

CNN Military Analyst, Colonel Cedric Leighton joins us now at the magic wall here. So Colonel Leighton, you have massive attacks in Dnipro, not to mention the constant fighting in the east. What is your assessment of what's going on here?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: So the biggest assessment here, Pamela, is that, we have this area right here in the east. This is Soledar, right here and then you look at what happened at Dnipro which is right in kind of in the center of the country, so these are the things that are going on right now.

Let's move into the close up maps that shows Soledar and Bakhmut. These areas have become really part of what we're talking about right now, because the Russians have made them this way. What the Russians are doing is they're saying we need to capture something in order to have a victory - any victory at any cost.

And so they are - their initial goal was Bakhmut, this city right here, but they couldn't get it very quickly. So what they wanted to do was they want to take Soledar and then encircle the Ukrainian troops in Bakhmut.

The reason they want to get in this area is because they believe they need to control the rest of the Donetsk region and then - that would then give them control of all of this territory right here. We have to remember though that the Ukrainians pushed them back in this area during the summertime and during the early part of the fall. So this is going to be a tall order for the Russians to do this.

BROWN: And all this is happening as Russia appoints a new, another military commander, emphasis on another, there have been several. So tell us about him, what do we know?

LEIGHTON: So what we have here is we started out with Aleksandr Dvornikov who took over, and then he was replaced by General. Zhidko, and Gen. Surovikin, all of these people have had experience either in Chechnya or Syria or in any combination of those areas.

But the one who's replacing General. Surovikin and making Surovikin one of his deputies is Gen. Gerasimov. Gen. Gerasimov is the equivalent of Gen. Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is the Supreme Military person, the number one officer in the Russian Armed Forces. And he is in essence responsible now for the Ukraine theater.

And the reason he's responsible for this is because the Russians want this to succeed at all costs. They want their mission to succeed there, and they put the top guy and it could also make the top guy, Gen. Gerasimov in this case, a fall guy for this whole operation.

BROWN: I want to also mention that this is happening is as Ukrainian soldiers are actually on U.S. soil. They're learning how to use the Patriot missile system. Tell us about that.

LEIGHTON: So what they're doing is they're learning how to fire this particular missile system. This is a hazy picture of the missile battery right here. It usually has anywhere from six to eight launchers attached to it. And what they're doing here is they're learning how to fire this missile system. It's a very complex missile system. It's something that is used as an air defense and really a battery that is used with a radar - associated radar system that you see right there in order to detect all kinds of aerial objects, whether they are incoming missiles, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and, of course aircraft and drones.

The training that they have on is very intense. It usually takes - depending on the position - it takes people six months to a year ...

BROWN: Wow.

LEIGHTON: ... to accomplish this kind of training. It is not easy to do this, a lot of moving parts literally in this case to make this work. And the reason that we have this is because the system itself is complex. It takes about 90 to a hundred people to man one of these batteries and that's precisely the number of Ukrainians that are being trained at Fort Sill right now.

[18:35:07]

BROWN: So it'll be a while until it's in use, right?

LEIGHTON: Yes.

BROWN: And sadly, we do expect this war to continue (inaudible) ...

LEIGHTON: Unfortunately, that's the case. Yes, that's true, Pamela.

BROWN: Yes. All right. Col. Cedric Leighton, thank you very much.

Well, it has been two years since Russian opposition leader and fierce Putin critic Alexei Navalny was arrested in Moscow and sent to prison. The CNN film "Navalny" tells his story with the urgency and drama of a spy thriller. Learn how he survived an alleged murderer attempt, tracked down the would-be assassins and wound up in prison. Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VLADIMIR ALEXANDROVICH: Hello.

ALEXEI NAVALNY: Vladimir Alexandrovich, it's Alexei Navalny calling and I was hoping you could tell me why you wanted to kill me?

Hang up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Remarkably, Vladimir Putin faces a legitimate opponent, Alexei Navalny.

NAVALNY: I don't want Putin being president.

I will end war.

If I want to be leader of a country, I have to organize people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Kremlin hates Navalny so much that they refuse to say his name.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Passengers heard Navalny cry out in agony.

NAVALNY: Come on, poisoned? Seriously?

We are creating a coalition to fight this regime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you are killed, what message do you leave behind to the Russian people?

NAVALNY: It's very simple, never give up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "Navalny," tonight at 9 on CNN.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:39]

BROWN: Tonight, the CDC says it is unlikely the Pfizer COVID booster shot carries an increased risk of stroke for seniors. That's despite some preliminary data suggesting there could be a link. CDC officials say the agency will continue to recommend the boosters.

And all of this comes as a member of the FDA's vaccine advisory committee is now openly questioning the government's claims that the new shots are better than the old ones and whether most Americans even need boosters in the first place. That advisor is Dr. Paul Offit. He joins us now.

Dr. Offit, thanks for coming on.

So I want to first start out with just this confusion about the booster safety. What do you make of the CDC statement saying that after further investigation, this is basically a non-issue?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, MEMBER, FDA VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: I think that's right. So the question was there was an episode or episodes with - in the Vaccine Safety Datalink of strokes in people greater than 65 years of age. And the question is was that associated with the vaccine?

There's a lot of reason to believe that wasn't true. First of all, it was the only database where that was found. There are a handful of other databases where that wasn't seen. So I think this really is just a coincidental association. I don't think the vaccine causes strokes in people over 65.

BROWN: Well, there's also a lot of confusion about the effectiveness of these boosters. We were initially told they were more effective than the originals and we started hearing they may be about the same. And now CNN is reporting Moderna actually omitted data to your FDA panel showing they may be even less effective. Here's how the White House responded this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ASHISH JHA, DIRECTOR, HARVARD GLOBAL HEALTH INSTITUTE: The data that has emerged in the last three months with the new bivalent vaccine, it's really not a close call. This is why I've made it - I've recommended it to all my family and friends. It's what I recommended to Americans.

The bivalent that we have right now that's available for free at 90,000 locations across the country that is clearly superior based on all the data we have than the original vaccine. And it is also just much better at dealing with the variants like XBB.1.5 that's circulating right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Dr. Offit, is he wrong?

OFFIT: So there were two papers that were published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine that did this study the right way. What they did was they looked at people who got boosted with a monovalent vaccine, compare them to those who were boosted with the bivalent vaccine containing BA.4, BA.5. To answer the question, did you get a better neutralizing antibody response if you got that bivalent vaccine? And the answer in both of these studies, one out of Colombia, the other out of Harvard, was no.

Now, the good news is that this bivalent vaccine is no worse than the monovalent vaccine. It certainly for high risk groups like people who are elderly, people who have multiple comorbidities, people who are immune compromised, this is the value.

But I think what we hoped was going to be true was that this would be clearly better, it actually didn't turn out to be that way.

BROWN: Okay. So if you're young and you're healthy, what is your advice to the person to not get the booster, not bivalent booster?

OFFIT: There was a study done by (inaudible) co-workers out of Harvard that was published in Science Immunology that I think answered this question the best. And what they found was that, that you probably will, if you're young and healthy, meaning less than 65 years of age don't have comorbidities, aren't immune compromised, you're probably well served by three doses or at least have an mRNA containing vaccine or to dose of an mRNA containing vaccine plus a natural infection probably will give you excellent protection against serious disease for a while. We know that that's true, at least the first two years that we've had this vaccine available and hopefully it'll be longer than that.

BROWN: I got to say, I got that - I had all three and then I got COVID for a second time and it hit me really hard. And I'm like, wait a second, I got vaccinated three times. And yet, you know, it's hitting me this hard. And that brings me to my next question, because these variants seem to be rapidly evolving. It's hard for these vaccines to keep up with the new variants. And as you point out, there is data and research that shows they're not as effective as, perhaps, first thought.

What is your concern about people developing long COVID each time they get infected? How much does that raise the risk?

OFFIT: Right. Well, the good news these vaccines continue to be effective in protection against serious illness. So although - you and I actually - I also had several doses of the vaccine, and then six months after my last dose, I had a mild two-day infection. It was certainly no fun but it wasn't a serious infection. Meaning, it didn't require supplemental oxygen, it didn't require me to go to the hospital.

[18:45:07]

So these vaccines are continuing to do what they're supposed to do. You're right these strains are more immune evasive but they're evasive really for protection against mild disease, not for protection against serious disease. So right now, until a strain raises its head, there's resistant to protect against serious illness that was induced by either natural infection or immunization. We're still good.

So I think in terms of long COVID, there are data clearly showing that if you've gotten at least two doses of vaccine that that certainly dramatically lessened your risk of long COVID. And so I think right now ...

BROWN: Yes.

OFFIT: ... the incidents of long COVID seems to be coming down, which is good.

BROWN: That's really great news and you're so right, it's important to emphasize that about even though you can be vaccinated three times and get COVID and feel really bad, it is preventing that severe illness that would put you in the hospital. I certainly fortunately didn't have to do - deal with that and I haven't had to deal with long COVID as well. Really important points there. Dr. Paul Offit, thank you.

Well, you're in the CNN NEWSROOM. There is growing pressure for Republican Congressman George Santos to resign, but could a Democrat replace him? Harry Enten joins us next to Run the Numbers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:37]

BROWN: Former cryptocurrency star, Sam Bankman-Fried, insisted this week that he did not steal funds from his investors. The founder and CEO of the crypto exchange FTX is facing federal fraud and conspiracy charges and they're all related to the collapse of his crypto empire.

CNN Senior Data Reporter, Harry Enten, joins us now to Run the Numbers. Hi, Harry. Thanks for dressing up for us today, appreciate it.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: I think this sweater is very nice. I ran it past my girlfriend. She thought it looked lovely. I could have worn a Buffalo Bills t shirt, but we'll get to the Bills a little bit later.

BROWN: We'll get the Bills later. We don't want to wear it right now.

All right. So let's talk about crypto. We've heard about cryptocurrency for years. But who's been buying it? Is this something the average person has in their 401(k)?

ENTEN: Yes. I mean, look, 16 percent of adults say that they've invested in crypto or traded in crypto. I think some people might think that is a small number. I just talked with Erin Burnett, she thought it was a high number. But look at this age breakdown. Men - male adults under the age of 30, 42 percent.

Forty-two percent, there's really this great age and gender divide whereby men are more likely to invest in crypto and younger men in particular - look - versus women 50 plus, only 5 percent. I would make the argument myself that older women are smarter than younger men based upon how crypto has been doing. But you can see here that there is some portion of the public that does in fact invest in crypto.

BROWN: I think that argument too - I think that's fair, so why were they attracted to crypto?

ENTEN: Yes. This to me was interesting. I think it was kind of this unique thing to them. So why do people invest in crypto, the Pew Research Center asked this, 78 percent said it was a different way to invest, 54 percent said it was an easier way to invest, right?

It's very easy to pick up the phone, you can really invest in crypto quite easily. And then 75 percent said it was a good way to make money. I should point out though, over the last year, the biggest cryptos are down far more than the S&P 500 benchmark. So it is, in fact, at least over the last year, not been a good way to make money.

BROWN: No. And then you had all these celebrities who were also promoting it and Lord knows how much that factored into people wanting to invest, right. All right. So let's switch to - oh, go ahead.

ENTEN: No. I was just going to say you're right. I mean, like Tom Brady, right, were invested in it.

BROWN: Right.

ENTEN: Put ads on it. Larry David the same. Tom Brady, in fact, lost a lot of money in crypto. So he's not - he's part of the crowd that lost a lot of money.

BROWN: He lost a lot of money in crypto, but he still has a lot of money, let's be honest, right?

Unlike some of these other people who did put a lot of money into crypto and now really don't have much. That's important to emphasize.

ENTEN: Yes. Yes.

BROWN: So let's switch to politics now.

George Santos is trying to hold on to his political career and Speaker Kevin McCarthy doesn't seem eager to push him out. Of course, his district is a swing district. What's going on here, Harry?

ENTEN: Yes. So a few things, number one, obviously, Kevin McCarthy has such a thin majority, right? And I think he looks at the 2020 presidential baseline district. Joe Biden won that district, overwhelmingly by eight points over Donald Trump under the 2023 line. So I think he has such a thin majority and then he says, why should I risk this given that Joe Biden was able to win this district so easily.

BROWN: Yes. And if Santos is forced out, you say it might not be so easy for the Democrats to take that seat, why so?

ENTEN: Yes. So you'll look at that first graphic on the 2020 presidential election, you say, hey, the Dems would be in good shape. But look at the 2022 election margins for governor, for House and for Senate. Republicans won them all in New York, three.

Santos is right there in the middle with that eight-point win. The gubernatorial candidate for the Republican, Lee Zeldin, won it by 12. And Chuck Schumer who had traditionally done really, really well out on Long Island actually lost this district by four points to Joe Pinion, who I think a lot of your viewers have no idea who he is.

And the fact that basically someone who a lot of your viewers wouldn't know who they are was able to win there, I think is an indication that this would not be a short thing for Democrats. I think that's why a lot of local Republicans are willing to say, you know what, George Santos get out of here. We may in fact have a shot at holding this district and at the same time you're a proven liar, so you shouldn't be in political office.

BROWN: Yep. And speaking of New York State, we've got a mention, you talked about them in the front end of this conversation, now let's talk come about them in the back end, your Buffalo Bills have a big game tomorrow.

[18:55:06]

We had followed them along with you all season, how are you feeling about the game?

ENTEN: I feel awesome about this game. Let me tell you, I'm usually the most nervous Nellie in the world. But if you look at this particular point against the Miami Dolphins tomorrow, the oddsmakers have the Bills overwhelmingly in favor.

The Dolphins aren't starting their first string quarterback. They're not starting their second string quarterback. They're starting their third string quarterback and your producer, Hian (ph), was giving me the business over email. But I'll tell you this much, Hian (ph), if the Buffalo Bills do not win tomorrow, I will buy you lunch on Monday. That is how confident I am.

BROWN: Wow.

ENTEN: And I'm the cheapest son of a gun in the world. So the fact that I'd be offering to buy you lunch just tells you, I expect the Bills to win. The question is whether - not whether they win, it's whether they win by 10, 15, 20 or 30 points. BROWN: I think it should be for the whole team, Harry. That's all

I'm saying.

ENTEN: Fine, I'll do it. There you go.

BROWN: Okay.

ENTEN: I'll even buy lunch, Pam.

BROWN: Whoa. Wow. Oh, my goodness. Well, then I'm going to be rooting on the Miami Dolphins. I got to say. Sorry, Harry.

Always good to see you.

ENTEN: Bye, Pam.

BROWN: Good luck tomorrow.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BROWN: 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)