Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

NORAD Now Monitoring Another "High-Altitude Airborne Object"; Trump Team Turns Over More Classified Materials, Laptop; White House Says Biden's Super Bowl Interview with FOX Is Off; Republicans Fail To Prove Twitter Collusion With Federal Government; Super Bowl First: Two Black Starting Quarterbacks; Former NFL Players Sue League For Denying Disability Claims; Rihanna Returns To The Stage With Super Bowl Halftime Show. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired February 11, 2023 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:01:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: Welcome back to the CNN NEWSROOM, I'm Jim Acosta in Washington on this busy Saturday afternoon.

And we begin this hour with an unsettling new development in the skies over Canada. NORAD says it is monitoring a high altitude airborne object and military aircraft are currently operating in the area from Alaska and Canada. This follows yesterday's shoot down of another high altitude object 10 miles off the northeastern coast of Alaska near the Canadian border.

CNN national security reporter Natasha Bertrand joins us now.

Natasha, what can you tell us about this latest object? We have to keep underlining and highlighting the point that this is not what we were talking about yesterday off the coast of Alaska. This is a new object that we're talking about.

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: This is a new object that NORAD has apparently detected over northern Canada. And actually Justin Trudeau, the Canadian leader just tweeted that he did order the take down of that unidentified object that he says had violated Canadian airspace.

Now interestingly in this tweet, Trudeau also said that Canadian and U.S. aircraft were scrambled and that it was a U.S. F-22 that actually successfully fired at this object.

So again, we are just getting in right now that NORAD, and working with the Canadian government, they have identified yet another high altitude object -- unclear what it is. Is it a balloon, is it a drone over northern Canada, and of course this comes just one day after we learned that the U.S. did shoot down yet another high altitude object over Alaska.

ACOSTA: Right. BERTRAND: So clearly, you know, the policy now seems to be that when one of these things is entering U.S. or Canadian airspace, they are going to weigh whether or not to take action here.

In both instances, they have. They have shot these objects down. Of course, it comes just one week after we saw the Chinese spy balloon shot down.

ACOSTA: Yes. They're not waiting for it to fly over, you know, large portions of North America anymore. It sounds as though things have changed.

And I don't know -- we may be moving too quickly to put these tweets up on the screen from the Canadian prime minister. But it says that he ordered the take down of this unidentified object that violated Canadian airspace as you were just saying.

And the prime minister is also saying he spoke with President Biden this afternoon. Canadian forces will recover and analyze the wreckage of this object. Thank you to NORAD for keeping an eye on North America.

So this is -- we were talking to Bob Baer about this in the previous hour. And you know, he was sort of scratching his head and wondering what is going on here. Is it the fact that we're just monitoring for this stuff more now, more closely, and now we're seeing these objects? Or is something happening in terms of the frequency of these objects and why they're coming into our airspace?

BERTRAND: You know, it's a great question and it could be a combination of both. It could be that because of all of the public criticism that was leveled at the Biden administration for example, for not alerting the fact that the Chinese spy balloon was over the continental U.S. more quickly, that now they are being more public about all of the objects they are seeing in U.S. and Canadian airspace.

However, we just don't know. And the big mystery of course at the center of all of this is what these objects actually are and why aren't they being identified at the time that they are being shot down.

I mean this one that was over northern Canada, you know, there's been nothing said about whether it was manned, for example, although it is unlikely that it was, if they took that decision to shoot it down.

The object from yesterday, it was a lot smaller than the Chinese spy balloon, of course. The pilots that went up to go look at it were very unclear about what they were actually seeing.

There were some reports about that object that it was interfering with some of the plane's sensors. So it took a lot of conflicting information right now. And it is interesting that we are seeing now the U.S. and Canada working so closely and kind of watching these high-altitude objects and determining together what to do about them. ACOSTA: And just a few moments ago, reporters did try to shout some

questions at President Biden as he was going into church. They were unsuccessful. He didn't respond to the questions, but I suspect the White House, the administration is going to be saying something about this in short order.

[17:04:56]

ACOSTA: And you have some new reporting about what happened in Alaska. These pilots having varying accounts as to what occurred.

BERTRAND: Yes, so when the U.S. first detected this object over Alaska on Thursday, they sent up F-35 jets to kind of look at it and see what was going on.

And these pilots reported back very conflicting accounts. Some of them said that this object was actually interfering with the sensors of their aircraft and they couldn't figure out why because there was no identifiable kind of surveillance equipment on the object. There was nothing that appeared readily able to interfere with the communications systems.

And then other pilots were saying that they did not see anything on the object that appeared able to propel it. That it seems like there was no way that this was actually able to stay in the air.

Now of course, these jets fly very fast as your previous guest was saying, and it's possible that these pilots just didn't get a good look at it.

But that is part of why the Pentagon has been so reluctant to come out and say more about what this object actually is.

ACOSTA: Well yes. And that's the thing, we don't know what it is. And until we have some clarity on that, we're not going to stop asking the question.

Natasha Bertrand, thank you very much.

And Paula Newton, our Canadian correspondent -- correspondent based in Canada for us here at CNN. She joins us now on the phone. And Paula, let me ask you because this is quite something to see -- a tweet from the Canadian prime minister saying that he ordered this object to be taken down over Canadian skies.

What more can you tell us?

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): Yes. Yes, it also speaks, in fact, to the seriousness of what happened here, and the chain of command. And I will note that in this tweet the prime minister also indicated of course this is close coordination with the White House and with President Joe Biden.

At issue here is really what is going on with these objects and the threat that they pose. Now, remember that they would have been given some kind of intelligence when NORAD had actually spotted this high altitude object as they're calling it to give an indication that possibly there was a threat.

I would assume that if it was over northern Canada that Canadian forces, the Air Force would determine that they could shoot it down without a risk to people on the ground. And more than that the prime minister is now saying the Canadian forces will lead the recovery effort again to ascertain exactly what this is, does it pose a threat and who it belongs to because remember in the last objects, you were just talking to Natasha about that second one still a mystery, obviously this a mystery as well.

What is it? Why does it continue to enter both U.S. and Canadian airspace, and what can, you know, Canadian forces and the U.S. Now learn from having shot it down, and trying to recover the debris?

We don't have anymore details yet. We have reached out to the Canadian defense ministry to understand what kind of a recovery operation is underway, and how complicated that might be.

But given the way the close coordination has been happening between the U.S. and Canada, remember, through NORAD, they are all looking at the same intelligence in terms of what is it, does it pose a threat. They now need to determine exactly what to do going forward.

At issue though Jim, the most important thing is these last two objects, who do they belong to, and why are they entering both Canadian and American airspace.

ACOSTA: And according to these tweets from the Canadian prime minister, Paula, Canadian forces will now recover and analyze the wreckage of this object. The prime minister seems to have some degree of confidence that there's wreckage that is retrievable, recoverable at this point and possibly available for analysis once it's all picked up. That's interesting as well.

NEWTON: It is very interesting. And obviously, as I said, first and foremost, they wanted to make sure that in shooting it down there was no risk to anyone on the ground. But again, the recovery efforts, what do they entail, given I'd imagine, you know, in terms of recovery, what kind of debris field are they looking at again. It did not come down as far as we know in the water. That will make things a little bit easier.

As again, they recover that second high altitude object and they will be in close coordination with U.S. forces on that.

Just to remind everyone, it was actually just yesterday on Friday that Canada's defense minister Anita Anand met with Secretary Austin to discuss these issues and, you know, President Biden is expected to visit Canada in March.

You know, one of the key issues that was already on the agenda, Jim before these objects started appearing over U.S. and Canadian airspace was Arctic security. Some of it is certainly then seen from the point of view of what Russia has been going on -- has been tagged (ph) going on in the Arctic region, but obviously also China. And given these kinds of threats just poking their way into the airspace, this whole conversation about Arctic security over both Canada and the United States will take on a very heightened urgency.

[17:09:53]

NEWTON: And again, they are looking for a completely new security architecture for the Arctic and for the North over both countries and this will certainly feature.

ACOSTA: You're absolutely right about that. That's a very good point, Paula. I remember from my days covering the White House that both administrations I covered were becoming increasingly concerned about what was taking place in the Arctic. In part because of the warming that is going on up there but also because of the potential for things like this.

Paula Newton, thank you very much for your time. Please come back to us if you have any new information. We'll take it just as soon as you have it. We appreciate it very much.

Joining us now to discuss this further is CNN transportation analyst Mary Schiavo. Mary is a former inspector general for the Department of Transportation.

Mary, we were talking to you last weekend about how weird it was to have a balloon, a Chinese spy balloon flying over the United States, and being shot down off the coast of South Carolina.

And then lo and be hold, here we are one week later, we had the incident that took place in Alaska yesterday, and then we don't even know a whole lot about what is taking place today.

The Canadian prime minister ordering the takedown of an unidentified object over the Yukon, that is very strange.

MARY SCHIAVO, CNN TRANSPORTATION ANALYST: Well, very strange, but I've been working in Alaska for two and a half weeks on a different airplane crash case. The difference in the activity here with military aviation, I'm literally, I can see it, you know, aviation and air base from here. There are AWACS planes, you know, the airborne early surveillance radar planes from the military base circling around Alaska.

I mean, there's a tremendous increase in activity here just on surveillance activities from, you know, fixed wing aircraft and the AWACS.

And you know, the important thing to note is the United States and of course Canada has every right to take these aircraft down, whatever these objects are, or balloons because we have a series of treaties with all nations of the world, and we also have requirements for air craft to identify themselves, to be identified particularly at the altitude at which they're flying.

Yes, you can do what's called visual flight, you don't have to have a transponder on board, but at the altitudes that some of these objects have been, they will interfere with traffic, with commercial air traffic.

I mean some planes can fly at 40,000 -- 50,000 feet and by not identifying what the object is, military aircraft can fly up to you. This happened to me when I was in flight school. They can fly up to a civilian aircraft and ask you to identify yourself if you're too close to military installations. And Alaska is full of military installations.

So I think the heightened surveillance up here, in addition to realizing that there's something there that the nations need to find out, they're within their rights to take them down.

ACOSTA: And you're absolutely right about that in terms of the danger to civilian aircraft because as we were discussing about what took place in Alaska yesterday, that was the concern that that unidentified object was hovering around 40,000 feet. That puts it at risk for colliding with civilian air craft. That makes it a huge aviation security priority.

SCHIAVO: That's right, and the skies up here were very busy yesterday. You know, it's always busy with civilian aircraft in Alaska because that's the way of life, but there was a lot of military presence in the skies yesterday over Anchorage and, Environs (ph).

And you know, are they just picking up more now that everyone is paying attention? Well, really, no, because over the years there have been many sightings of various things but a lot of times the government didn't pay much attention to them.

And when I was inspector general with DOT obviously the FAA was under us. And there would be lots of reports, oh, the FAA is hiding, you know, it's covering up for unidentified flying objects.

No, when we investigated they always had an earthly origin. But now with heightened attention, I think probably more will be found because that's generally how it works. When you pay attention, you find more, but they always have an origin, at least so far, here on earth.

ACOSTA: Yes. And let me ask you about what was reported about Alaska in that the object that was taken down yesterday was described as being about the size of a small car. Does that sound like another balloon-type aircraft to you? Or does that sound like a drone of some sort?

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIAVO: Well, there were mixed reports. Yes, the pilots who went up to take a look at it themselves had mixed reports. Some thought it was a balloon, and some said it was a drone.

And of course, you know, drones, you know, they look very different nowadays. They don't look like aircraft of years gone by, so I think we'll have to wait on the government to tell that. But without a doubt, the balloon that they got they now say was doing communications surveillance, which one would, you know, expect a balloon, if you've got a satellite to take pictures, a balloon surveillance would have to be looking for something else.

[17:14:58]

SCHIAVO: But there's conflicting reports on what it really looks like. But since they have it, they'll know soon. And I imagine they'll be able to tell us the origin of it, the national origin of the object pretty soon.

ACOSTA: All right. Mary Schiavo, thank you very much. We appreciate it as always.

SCHIAVO: Thank you.

ACOSTA: Keep an eye on things up in Alaska for us.

We'll have much more on our coverage of the breaking news of the object shot down over Canada. It's a new development happening this afternoon here in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Still ahead, new materials with classified markings turned over by President Trump's legal team. We'll talk about that.

Plus, after a behind the scenes battle, President Biden is about to break something that's been a bit of a tradition in recent years.

And later, the Great Salt Lake is quickly disappearing and it could become the great toxic dust bowl according to some scientists.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:19:57]

ACOSTA: New developments on the government's effort to get back classified materials. Multiple sources tell CNN that former president Donald Trump's legal team gave federal prosecutors more materials with classified markings plus a laptop belonging to an aide.

CNN's Zachary Cohen has more on when this happened, and what this could mean for the ongoing investigation.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Major developments on the classified documents front, both for former President Donald Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence.

Now for Trump, CNN just learned that his legal team has handed over more classified documents to federal prosecutors in recent months, really suggesting that this drawn out effort to get classified material back from the former president is continuing.

The special counsel criminal investigation is also ongoing. Now, Trump's team turned over this additional material in December and January, several months after Mar-a-Lago was searched by the FBI, and included not just classified documents but also a laptop belonging to an aide.

CNN is also learning that one of Trump's attorneys appeared before a federal grand jury as part of the special counsel investigation into the former president's handling of sensitive records.

Prosecutors asked him about what happened in the lead up to the FBI's August search of Mar-a-Lago.

Now meanwhile, the FBI searched Pence's Indiana home on Friday, and found an additional document with classified markings. While it's unclear what this document is related to or its level of sensitivity, the fact that investigators located an additional classified document at Pence's house after it was searched by his own lawyers, will likely prolong the Justice Department review.

Now, these investigations into Trump and Pence could complicate their political futures. Both look toward 2024, and they will want these reviews wrapped up as soon as possible, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right. Zachary Cohen, thank you very much.

Defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Shan Wu is here to talk about this. Just when you thought the document story was fading into the background. What do you make of the fact that Trump's team turned over even more of these classified materials -- a laptop has also come into the picture here to federal prosecutors in recent months?

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It really underscores the enormous difference between what's going on with Biden's documents and Pence's. First of all, volume of documents, but the fact that they're still finding more and the fact it's in a laptop is a huge security concern for that. so it really underscores why you really need a criminal investigation of that.

Some questions in my mind still about why a special counsel appointed for Biden and how come still haven't one for Pence.

ACOSTA: And the laptop is a concern because, I mean who knows what's in there?

WU: Right. Not only it's a concern that was downloaded any classified information, sensitive information downloaded on to the laptop. From there, it's easily transmitted. It could be copied to other electronic devices as well.

So that's very different than if you could say, hey, it's inside a room, at least. We know where the paper document was. But once it goes electronic, it could go any place.

ACOSTA: Who knows where it goes after that.

And let me ask you about the FBI search of Mike Pence's home. How do you think Pence and his team have handled this? You're right, there's a clear difference between the Trump case and what's been happening with President Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence. But how do you think the Pence team is handling this right now?

WU: I think they're dragging their feet a little bit too much. I think in trying to get ahead of something like this, what they should have done legally is just say to the FBI, look, we're happy to have a consent search, ultimately they were, and excessive negotiating over the scope of the search is not necessary. I mean either you're consenting to the search or not.

If you do, it's like, come on in, we'll stand back and be there for you.

ACOSTA: Yes. And also Vice President Mike Pence -- former Vice President Mike Pence was subpoenaed by the special counsel, Jack Smith, who is investigating Trump for his role in the January 6th insurrection. I guess one of the big questions looming over all of this is executive privilege.

Do you see the former president invoking executive privilege? Might that get the former vice president out of the hot water that he might be -- well, not hot water but out of the position of having to cooperate with that investigation. How do you see that playing out?

WU: Well, your money is safe, betting that Trump will try to invoke the executive privilege. Pence probably will too. It can't possibly completely get him out of testifying. They're going to parse through that. And of course, the Supreme Court precedent on this indicates that executive privilege won't succeed as a complete shield against a criminal investigation.

Nonetheless, in a situation like this, Pence's lawyers will try to negotiate ahead of time, you know, what is the scope of the questioning, and as often happens in such a situation, there may be a question by question analysis as the questioning goes on.

He may invoke while he's in the grand jury, but as a blanket shield, it really should not succeed at all.

ACOSTA: Yes. There's been so much in the news, and so much happening with the former president and former vice president that it sort of overshadows the magnitude of Mike Pence potentially cooperating in this investigation.

WU: Absolutely.

ACOSTA: That's critically important.

WU: It is.

[17:24:57]

ACOSTA: Because there's so much that isn't known about these conversations that were going on in the lead up to January 6th.

WU: Yes, absolutely. And from a legal standpoint, I wouldn't say that someone like Pence is the last step before indictment, but certainly it's -- you have to have some basis before you move to him. You want to talk to other folks at the lower stage or at the outlying stage before you move to somebody as important as Pence. And he's right there talking about the issues. So it's really critical.

ACOSTA: All right. Shan Wu, thank you very much, appreciate that.

And we continue to follow the breaking news as Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau orders the shoot down of a high altitude object that entered Canadian airspace. This is a brand new, unidentified object that we are following this afternoon on the CNN NEWSROOM.

Stay with CNN for the very latest.

Plus, is President Biden snubbing Fox News? Fox says yes, the White House says no. A closer look at what's happening next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:30:05]

ACOSTA: President Biden seems to be bucking something of a pre-Super Bowl tradition. The apparent reason the game is being broadcast on FOX TV channels.

The White House says Biden will not be doing an interview with FOX after several days of negotiations.

Biden's FOX news decision to not do the interview was the latest example of the president continuing to ice out the right-wing channel and decline requests with its hosts and anchors.

CNN senior media reporter, Oliver Darcy, joins us now.

Oliver, what do you think? There's a part of me that wonders, is this actually bucking tradition of burying tradition?

Donald Trump didn't do it a few of years ago. Maybe this is it, you know? This current president doesn't want to do it. Maybe future presidents won't want to do it.

OLIVER DARCY, CNN SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER: Yes, Jim, I think this really underscores the level of commitment Biden has shown to icing out FOX. He hasn't granted this right-wing talk channel any interviews since he has been president.

And you can imagine why. If you watch this channel, it's very clear there's a strong an animus toward him, toward his administration.

And at nighttime, you have extremists, people like Tucker Carlson who are going on these rants, spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories about things from the vaccines to January 6th.

And so I think, for this president, he has decided he's not going to call out the channel, he's not going to go to war with it that way, but he's not going to give it any credence by appearing on. ACOSTA: That's true. One of the things you have to think about is

whether or not this battle is worth it. I mean, a lot of people just want to watch football.

DARCY: Yes, a lot of people want to watch football.

But, you know, I mean, a lot of people do tune into this game, so it is a big platform that he is effectively giving up by not appearing on FOX.

You know, the Super Bowl this year, people are expecting maybe over 100 million viewers to tune into the Super Bowl. And so by not appearing, he's giving up the platform.

But I think his administration, he has decided that he just doesn't want to -- he just does not want to appear on this channel that is really profiting off spreading misinformation and lies about his administration.

ACOSTA: And speaking of places where misinformation gets spread, you know, Twitter obviously was in the news this past week.

There was this hearing up on Capitol Hill where Republican lawmakers were trying to show that there was some sort of Twitter collusion with the federal government. It backfired on multiple levels.

One of the things that occurred was that when this Not Safe for Work tweet by Chrissy Teigen was talked about during the hearing, which seemed to indicate that the Trump White House was going to Twitter and asking for things to be taken down.

What can you tell us about that?

DARCY: I mean, the level of hypocrisy seems astounding here.

So Republicans held a hearing which they were trying to prove collusion between the government and Twitter to censure -

(CROSSTALK)

DARCY: Are we playing that?

ACOSTA: No, no, go ahead.

DARCY: Sorry. So they were holding this hearing to prove alleged government collusion between Twitter and the government and the Deep State supposedly to censure the "New York Post" story on Hunter Biden.

They didn't prove that. The witnesses they called before the committee, they subpoenaed, they refuted those claims.

What we did learn is apparently the Trump White House had tried to get Twitter to censure the speech of at least one person, Chrissy Teigen, who had gone on this, you know, Not Safe for Work, post, this Not Safe for Work tweet about the president.

And I guess that angered them to the point they wanted Twitter to remove it.

And the further reporting from "Rolling Stone" that suggested maybe this was a pattern over there from Republican lawmakers and the president, who claimed to be against the censorship of people but seemed to be doing it himself or trying to do it.

ACOSTA: All right. Oliver Darcy, thank you so much. Appreciate you coming on.

DARCY: Thank you, Jim.

ACOSTA: Coming up next, tomorrow's Super Bowl will make history. We'll explain why.

[17:34:17]

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: We are just over 24 hours until Super Bowl LVII kicks off in Arizona tomorrow.

The game is already set to make history, marking the first time two black quarterbacks will meet in the championship game.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JALEN HURTS, PHILADELPHIA EAGLES QUARTERBACK: I think the game has evolved and it's continuing to evolve before our eyes. You know, that's a beautiful thing to see, to be a part of this history. It's a blessing.

PATRICK MAHOMES, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS QUARTERBACK: It's been way long overdue. You've seen a lot of quarterbacks that haven't this opportunity that we have had, and it took the quarterbacks before us to pave the way.

And so for us to be in this moment on this stage and be able to show where we've come as a league, this would be just the start of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And joining us now to talk about the significance of tomorrow's matchup, former ESPN host-turned "L.A. Times" columnist and host of the podcast "Life Out Loud" with L.Z. Granderson.

L.Z., great to see you as always. Thank you so much.

Why did it take so long for the NFL to reach this milestone, do you think?

L.Z. GRANDERSON, COLUMNIST, "L.A. TIMES" & HOST, "LIFE OUT LOUD" PODCAST: That was the plan. That was the design.

I'm not trying to be cynical, but, I mean, let's talk about the history of the league from its very beginnings.

I mean, we had the Kennedy administration having to force the franchise in Washington to integrate.

ACOSTA: Wow.

GRANDERSON: I mean, so, you know, current NFL owner whose picture, you know, is that scene in which there was horrific racial violence.

[17:39:59]

When you think about the history of the NFL and why it's just now getting to this position, it's because it's a byproduct of the American society. And there are a lot of aspects of society in which black leadership still isn't embraced.

ACOSTA: And both of these quarterbacks were absolutely the best quarterbacks who were on the field this past season. I mean, they both just had amazing years. And it's one of the reasons why the Super Bowl is shaping up to be just an incredible contest.

But, you know, L.Z., one of the things that we're not seeing enough of is the hiring of black coaches in the NFL. And I think it goes right to the point you were just making is that this league has just been slow to make progress on this front.

GRANDERSON: Yes, absolutely. Now, I will say that it's important to note that while I don't think that the league is doing everything that it can, that it's worth acknowledging that it's been doing a lot.

I think that is important as we acknowledge the history that's being made. The history didn't happen here in a vacuum.

We also have the first black female agent representing a quarterback in the Super Bowl. That was intentional. Right?

We have the youngest two quarterbacks starting in the Super Bowl. That was intentional, trusting young people to take leadership.

And so I think it's important to acknowledge that the NFL has made some progress. But obviously when it comes to head coaching, and still in the conversation of black quarterbacks, there's still a lot of work to be done.

ACOSTA: And this is such an important subject I want to ask you about. Yesterday, we learned that 10 former NFL players are suing the league's disability program.

The lawsuit alleges that the NFL and Roger Goodell used biased doctors and contractual loopholes to deny injured players disability claims.

I mean, it comes on the tail of so many just devastating injuries that we've seen over the past season that, really, I think, brings this issue to the fore, does it not?

I mean, these players, they need health care, they need important medical care after they leave the league.

GRANDERSON: Absolutely. And, you know, one of the things that has come out of, you know, what the NFL has been doing since the murder of George Floyd is that the league was using "race norming" as a method to indicate, you know, how much compensation should be given to retired players.

They since have ceased doing that. But for years, you know, they entered into this conversation in terms of compensation for retired players with the supposedly scientific belief that black players were going to be not as smart as the white players.

It was called "race norming." And they just recently ended that.

It doesn't surprise me, Jim, that this lawsuit has come to pass. You have to have individuals like this, courageous enough to take on a league as powerful as the NFL.

But I do believe -- and I just spoke with Commissioner Goodell at an LGBT event posted by GLAAD. I do believe the league is trying to make changes but, like many changes with something this big, they're just slow coming.

ACOSTA: Who do you have tomorrow? What's your prediction?

GRANDERSON: You know, my heart is going with Kansas City, my head says Philly.

ACOSTA: Oh.

GRANDERSON: I think they both have something to prove.

Yes, yes. I think Patrick Mahomes is tired of you guys making these comments about how he has been passed up, and it really got underneath the skin. I would not be surprised if he balls out tomorrow. Though, on paper, it looks like Philadelphia is the better team.

ACOSTA: And I feel like Patrick Mahomes is teeing himself up to be, I mean, this next generation's Tom Brady.

If he wins tomorrow, he's going to be on that path. He is just a remarkable athlete.

L.Z., great to talk to you. Thank you so much.

GRANDERSON: Thanks for having me, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right, appreciate it.

For some viewers, the big event tomorrow doesn't start until halftime. That, of course, is when the one and only Rihanna takes the stage.

CNN's Chloe Melas joins us now with a preview of this year's highly anticipated Super Bowl halftime show.

Chloe, what can we expect to see tomorrow? We have to admit some of the viewers, they're really just watching for the commercials and the halftime performance.

Not me. I'm a sports fan. I'm a football fan. I love the football. But not everybody.

CHLOE MELAS, CNN ENTERTAINMENT REPORTER: OK. But me, right?

ACOSTA: Yes.

MELAS: So I must say, much to the horror of many people watching right now, I had to double check to see who was playing tomorrow night because I'm only focused, I know, doesn't that scare you.

ACOSTA: OK.

MELAS: What I'm excited for is entertainment, obviously. And Rihanna, it has been seven years since she has toured. It has been seven years since she's put out an album. She just had a baby a few months ago, her first child.

And she is going to get up there, and she is going to perform a medley of her hits.

And she talked earlier this week at a press conference about how hard it is to put her career into just 13 minutes, and how hard it's been to pick songs.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RIHANNA, SINGER: Oh, my god, there are probably about 39 versions of the set list right now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow.

RIHANNA: Yes. I think we're on our 39th. I mean, every little change counts, whether I want like a guitar cut out, something muted, something added, or just put in a whole new song or take out a whole song.

[17:45:08]

Like every time I make a change, something has to be updated and that's a new version.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELAS: So in this interview, she also talked about the fact that, you know, she did just have a baby. And how when she got the phone call, she was like, are you really sure.

And she said she's had this burst of energy, it's all she's thought about. She hasn't thought about her birthday. She hasn't thought about anything going on in her life, obviously other than her family.

It's all been Super Bowl. You hear that from so many of these performers, Jim, that it's all consuming, there's so much rehearsal that goes into it.

She's not the only artist you're going to see tomorrow night. You're going to see country superstar, Chris Stapleton, singing the national anthem. You're going to Baby Face at one point, Sheryl Lee Ralph (ph).

You're going to see a lot of faces. There's something for everybody.

But I've got to say, I think Rihanna, she's going to knock it out of the park, knock it out of the stadium.

ACOSTA: Very good. And I'll hold you to that Super Bowl prediction. I won't ask you who's going to win the game, but that's a very good prediction.

I think Rihanna, no question about it, is going to score huge tomorrow night.

Chloe Melas, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Tonight, Canada says it ordered a high-altitude object to be shot down over Canadian airspace. It comes just a day after the U.S. shot down another object over Alaska. More on this to come. Stay with us.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:56]

ACOSTA: Why is it that so many people in power seem to get away with anything?

Our next guest has the answer. He's a seasoned prosecutor and faced corruption head on for over a decade. He's also the author of "Untouchable, How Powerful People Get Away With It."

Joining us now is CNN senior legal analyst and author, Elie Honig.

Elie, we've talked about this subject in various ways for so many months now.

We've learned this week that state-level prosecutors at the Manhattan's D.A. office are now presenting evidence to a grand jury over Trump's hush money payment to Stormy Daniels back in 2016.

You have some brand new reporting in your book about this. What did you find?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So I think it is really important for people to see behind the curtain of prosecutorial decision making.

Two years ago, federal prosecutors across the street from the Manhattan D.A. at the Southern District of New York, my former office, looked at the exact same case. Remember, they indicted Michael Cohen for this. But to this date he's the only person who has been charged. So one of

the questions that led to this book is, how could that be? How could Donald Trump or anyone else never be held accountable?

What I found was that the feds considered charging Donald Trump. They thought they had the evidence. But they were frayed for political reasons for what they phrased to be one person as, quote, prudential concerns.

So I think it is an example of where you have this result that is not complete justice where Michael Cohen goes to jail, Donald Trump slips through completely untouched. And I give the reasons why in the book.

ACOSTA: It sounds as though the old expression, "No one is above the law," is not true, based on what you were describing in your book at times. Maybe if that's too much of an overstatement. Feel free to correct me.

But much of your book focuses on Trump. And as a case study, you know that Trump was protected by the Justice Department policy that said a sitting president cannot be indicted, even though there was substantial evidence against him for campaign finance violations.

You write, "It simply doesn't feel American to slap handcuffs on a president."

But what about, no one is supposed to be above the law?

HONIG: Well, we prosecutors do like our cliches and that's one of them.

I argue in the book that it is not always true. I've come around to a sort of real-world vision of what prosecutors do.

Yes, they should be making decisions independent of politics and sort of locked off in a vacuum. But, non, that's not the reality.

When you look at the protections we give to presidents and former presidents, formally and informally, it makes it really difficult to go after them.

And Jim, I do note in the book -- I dug into this -- a surprising number of developed democracies have, in fact, prosecuted presidents or former presidents or prime ministers and come out without devolving into chaos or civil war.

Israel, Italy, South Korea, South Africa, many others have done this and they're fine.

Yet, in America, we are -- maybe for good reason, maybe for bad, I'll leave it up to the reader -- hesitant to do this.

ACOSTA: And you write in your book -- we can share this with the viewers -- "The SDNY's draft indictment left no doubt Trump wasn't merely a bystander or an unwitting beneficiary of the campaign finance crime. He was the driving force behind the scene, and likely criminally liable for it."

And yet, officials scrubbed nearly all the details about Trump from the indictment. That has been written about in other books. Other folks have talked about this.

What is that all about?

HONIG: This one really surprised me, Jim, when I dug into it. There was a point when the Southern District of New York a detailed indictment of Michael Cohen.

But it would have completely laid out the course against Donald Trump. The bosses at what we call main justice, DOJ headquarters in D.C. saw it and said, absolutely not, take all of that out of there.

And by the way, there is the story of how Donald Trump became individually sort of infamously instead of co-conspirator one or co- defendant one.

It is a story of how the centralized power in D.C. really overstepped into New York, into the Southern District of New York and made sure they didn't do anything that even harmed Donald Trump politically.

[17:55:00]

ACOSTA: Well, and, Elie, there's been talk of so called weaponization of the Justice Department. It sounds like they helped get him off the hook.

HONIG: Yes. If Congress wants to look into weaponization of DOJ, I would suggest they start with Bill Barr, with the Donald Trump Justice Department. I wrote my first book about how Bill Barr completely politicized DOJ.

And I think this is an example of almost defensive weaponization of DOJ where steps were taken to take evidence and information out of court documents in order to protect a political person, in this case, Donald Trump.

So I don't expect this particular committee to go down that road. But I think if they want to look anywhere, they should start there.

ACOSTA: It sounds like utilization.

All right, Elie Honig, thank you very much.

And check out this very important book from our friend Elie Honig, who is with us so much, "Untouchable, How Powerful People Get Away With It."

I have a feeling it will have a lot of people talking.

Elie, thanks so much.

In the meantime, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said a fighter jet has shot down an unidentified object that was flying over Canada. We've been tracking this story over the last hour or so, and we'll continue to track it. We'll have the latest next.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)