Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Mom Who Lost 2 Sons To Fentanyl Speaks At Border Hearing; State Dept. Official: No "Definitive Answer" On Where Covid Originated; Closing Arguments In Murdaugh Trial Could Begin As Early As Tomorrow; McCarthy Grants Jan 6 Defendants Access To Capitol Security Footage; McCarthy Defends Giving Tucker Carlson Early Access To 1/6 Footage; Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Fights To Make Runoff In Chicago Mayoral Primary. Aired 2:30-3p ET
Aired February 28, 2023 - 14:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:30:00]
JESSICA DEAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, no question about it, Bianna and Victor. This was a hearing for the Homeland Security Committee. And they're seeking to highlight what they see as the Biden administration's failure on the border.
They're also seeking, of course, to build a case to impeach the Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.
Despite of the politics involved in this, the fact remains that overall deaths for synthetic opioids were up 40 percent in 2022.
And this Michigan mother, Rebecca Keissling, her story of losing two sons to Fentanyl overdoses highlights what so many Americans are going through all across the country.
Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REBECCA KEISSLING, LOST SONS CALEB AND KYLER TO FENTANYL OVERDOSES: I mean, it's unbelievable. You would think that one death from Fentanyl coming across the southern border would be enough to sound the alarm.
But 100,000 die every year and nothing is being done. Not enough is being done. Numbers are going up, not down.
And you talk about children being taken away from their parents, my children were taken away from me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: It's very hard to listen to. Her sons took Percocet, thinking that's what it was. Instead, it had deadly levels of Fentanyl in it.
And just a very, very small amount of Fentanyl can be deadly pretty much immediately. That's just how powerful it is.
The Biden administration has taken some steps, including sanctioning one specific cartel, Bianna and Victor, recently,
Also, we do know there have been record numbers of seizures of Fentanyl as it has crossed over the border.
But the fact remains that so many families, as we mentioned, have faced this sort of loss, this heartbreaking loss. They were talking about that today.
And again, the House GOP really hoping to highlight this issue as they seek to expand their majority -- Victor and Bianna?
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST: Just unimaginable the pain that mother was expressing she's going through.
Jessica Dean, thank you.
VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: One day after the Energy Department announced it now believes a lab leak in China most likely caused the Covid-19 pandemic, a top State Department official told a House committee that the U.S. Intelligence Community still does not have a definitive answer on Covid's origins.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL KRITENBRINK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EAST ASIA & PACIFIC AFFAIRS: If you look at what elements of the U.S. Intelligence Committee have said, some have pointed to say they come down on the question that it looks like it was naturally occurring.
Some have come down on the other side of that. Some have said we don't have enough evidence to judge.
Again, I will say, in conclusion, the Intelligence Community does not have a definitive answer on the Covid origin question.
President Biden has directed from the beginning of this administration to take all necessary steps, including all elements of the Intelligence Community to get to the bottom of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Michael Osterholm is of the director for infectious disease and policy research at the University of Minnesota.
And Alina Chan is a molecular biologist and a scientific adviser at the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard. She's also the co-author of the book "Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19."
Welcome to you both.
Alina, let me start with you.
(CROSSTALK)
BLACKWELL: I asked this question of a national security expert and I want it from a scientist's perspective. How much credence should we give to a low-confidence conclusion of the most likely source from the Energy Department?
ALINA CHAN, MOLECULAR BIOLOGIST & SCIENTIFIC ADVISER, BROAD INSTITUTE, MIT & AUTHOR: Well, I think what was just said is correct, is that they're still investigating and they don't have any definitive evidence for a natural or lab origin.
But I do think it's significant that both the DOE and the FBI have assessed this most likely started in a lab.
BLACKWELL: Michael, they did not -- the Energy Department did not release the evidence, the reason behind this.
But three sources tell CNN that the shift was based, in part, on information about research being directed at the Chinese Center for Disease Control at Wuhan on a coronavirus variant around the time of the outbreak.
This conclusion, low confidence as it is, is in the minority. Knowing this additional detail, does that give you any more confidence in their conclusion?
MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH & POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Well, let me first of all start out by saying I've been agnostic on what the source it. I don't think we can say it with any clear definition what it is.
But I think one of the things that's missing is the context in the last 36 hours about what this actually means.
If you look at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, they are the ones that define what things like what low confidence level means.
I don't know if most of the public is aware, but ow confidence generally means that the information used in the analysis is scant, questionable, fragmented.
Or that a solid analytic conclusion cannot be inferred from the information or that the I.C., the organization, has significant concerns or problems with the information sources.
When you hear that definition of "low confidence" -- and this is what we've been touting over the last 36 hours as it's been released -- how much confidence does that give you that it changes anything? I think that's the real challenge we have.
[14:35:00]
BLACKWELL: That's importance context there, the definition of low confidence. Because there was low confidence from four agencies in the Intelligence Community on the other side of this argument that it was naturally occurring and transferred to a human.
Alina, let me come back to you.
If this is actually, at some point, the Intelligence Community can reach the point of high confidence that it was a lab leak, then what? What's the consequence? What does it mean?
CHAN: So, there is one agency is the I.C. that has a moderate confidence assessment and that's the FBI. The assessment is moderate confidence that this pandemic started in a lab.
So I don't think we can look at any of this that we know how the pandemic started.
But it's clear that we're entering the fourth year without a credible open investigation of the origin. And this hasn't changed. There should be a bipartisan investigation this year leaving no rock or stone unturned.
There are many things we still need to understand. Who were the earliest cases? Were there any affected animals at the market, in the supply chain? And what were the Wuhan lab scientists working with, what virus had they found and what experiments are they doing?
So it's quite plausible that we can find information regarding this. It's just that we haven't seen an open investigation.
BLACKWELL: Yes, Alina, sticking with the "no rock unturned" metaphor here, some of those rocks are China's rocks and they're not going to turn them over for the U.S.
Is it possible that we will ever get to a definitive answer without full cooperation from the Chinese?
CHAN: I think it's very possible. If you look at previous outbreaks of mysterious origin, it's just a matter of time.
So there are certainly people who will know, or have evidence, that can tell us more definitively, how it started.
But, let's say, if the pandemic did start from a lab, it's quite possible that there were communications or documents exchanged between China or U.S. execs and those are looked into.
BLACKWELL: Michael, is any of this enough to impact the degree of cooperation between U.S. scientists and Chinese scientists, the joint research or the funding for research between the two?
OSTERHOLM: Well, I think this has obviously created a very high and very thick wall in terms of trying to foster that collaboration.
Let me say at the outset, we've have the top-10 criminal cases that have never been solved despite extensive efforts. This is going to be one of those in a sense.
Because even if the Chinese came forward and say nobody in the lab had been infected, that they didn't have this virus in the lab, would anybody in the world believe them?
So, I think we have to move on. And I worry that we're wasting time getting prepared for the next virus to hit us where both lab leaks and the potential for spillover are possibilities. That's what we ought to be spending our time doing right now.
I promise you that in 10 years from now, we won't be any closer to solving where this virus come from than we are now, except we'll burn resources and energy that could have gone into getting us prepared for the future.
BLACKWELL: Alina, do you agree with that, throwing good money after bad, in searching for the definitive answer to the source?
CHAN: I love that pessimist. I do think that maybe waiting for the truth to come on either through perhaps an investigation that has subpoena power or perhaps through a whistleblower.
So, I actually think that the way to prevent future pandemics depends on finding the origin of this pandemic.
When you have a plane that crashes, you try to find a moment-by-moment playout of what happened in order to prevent the next plane crash or learn how the plane could crash in the future.
In the same vein, with the pandemic, you need to find out what series of events led to this happening and you need put in countermeasures in each one of these places where there might be risk.
In the case of a possible origin of this pandemic, I think it's very hard to persuade the community of scientists that do this is risky work to have actual changes unless you show them that this pandemic started from a lab.
BLACKWELL: Alina Chan, Michael Osterholm, thank you both.
[14:40:15]
GOLODRYGA: The jury is set to visit the property where Alex Murdaugh's wife and son were killed, but not before hearing graphic testimony from a forensic pathologist on the killings. We're live outside the courthouse, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: In the double murder trial of Alex Murdaugh, we've learned new details about his alleged financial crimes, along with the defense's two-shooter theory.
All right. Right now, the prosecution is bringing forward new witnesses to rebut some of the defense's testimony.
GOLODRYGA: CNN's Dianne Gallagher is live outside the courthouse in Walterboro, South Carolina.
So, Dianne, what have we learned from today's testimony?
DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, Bianna, right now, on the stand, this is the sixth rebuttal witness that the state has called today. This is Dr. Kenneth Kinsey. He's the person that put together the
crime scene analysis and narrative that the state has used to talk about what happened on June 7th, 2021, the night that Paul and Maggie Murdaugh were killed.
His testimony just beginning. But we've got through a whole host of other witnesses that the state brought out, including a pathologist, as well as an expert in cell phone technology that the defense tried to get disqualified.
There was a moment, though, this morning with a former sheriff of Hampton County, South Carolina, that called back to Alex Murdaugh's own testimony last week.
They asked called to question blue lights that Alex Murdaugh had put on his own vehicle.
[14:45:00]
And when he was on the stand, he said he had gotten permission from the sheriff. That sheriff took the stand today.
Here's what Alex Murdaugh said and the response from the sheriff today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: Did you ask the sheriff of the town if you could do that?
ALEX MURDAUGH, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER OF HIS WIFE AND SON: I did.
UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: Who was that?
MURDAUGH: I believe it was T.C. Smalls.
UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: Did you ever have a conversation with Alex Murdaugh about him asking you permission, or even telling you about installing blue lights in his private vehicle?
T.C. SMALLS, FORMER HAMPTON COUNTY SHERIFF: No, sir. I never had a conversation with Alex Murdaugh. As a matter of fact, I never had a conversation with anyone in my 39 years about installing blue rights in your personal vehicle.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: Now, we do want to point out, those blue lights didn't necessarily have anything to do with these murders, per se.
But it's part of the state setting up this idea that Alex Murdaugh cannot be trusted. And the idea that he, potentially, under oath, to the jury, may have lied or misrepresented himself there as well.
BLACKWELL: All right, Dianne Gallagher watching, I guess, the final days of testimony there in the courthouse to the jury. Thanks so much. GOLODRYGA: Still ahead, Speaker McCarthy is doubling down on his
decision to give Tucker Carlson access to capitol footage from January 6th. And that's not the only person he's sharing it with. We'll have our new reporting, up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:50:57]
BLACKWELL: We're just getting this into CNN. Kevin McCarthy is granting January 6th defendants access to the thousands of hours of capitol security footage from that day.
The House speaker has already given the footage to FOX News' Tucker Carlson.
GOLODRYGA: CNN's Manu Raju is following this on Capitol Hill for us.
Manu, I know you just caught up with the speaker. What did he tell you?
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, he is defending his decision to give early access of this video to Tucker Carlson.
He said it is not unusual, in his view, of giving an exclusive, any network getting an exclusive, comparing it to past reports at CNN and other networks and saying that it is essentially nothing different.
There is something different here in that Carlson has been someone who downplayed the January 6th attack.
Giving him early access prompted a lot of concerns on Capitol Hill, given how severe the attack was on that day on January 6th, 2001.
And when I asked Kevin McCarthy directly about the concerns about giving it to Tucker Carlson first, he pushed back and contended he just wants to provide some transparency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(CROSSTALK)
RAJU: Are you not at all concerned about the fact that Carlson is downplaying this attack? You thought it was a serious attack --
(CROSSTALK)
RAJU: -- was a very serious attack?
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): That's why I -- I think sunshine matters. I don't care what side of the issue you are on.
That's why I think putting it out to the American public, you can see the truth. You can see exactly what transpired that day and everybody can have the exact same --
(CROSSTALK)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: So he's contending that he would provide this for the whole public once Carlson, first, has the opportunity to release it.
Now, there is no real timeframe yet. He said that he initially thought there's about 14,000 hours of security footage.
But now they're reviewing all the security footage, he says it is about 42,000 hours of footage that they are now going through.
He said they're looking -- going through this with capitol police first to ensure that no security is compromised.
And I asked if he consulted with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell about this. He said no.
And McConnell, I just asked moments ago, about whether he has concerns of McCarthy's move to give it to Carlson. He did not say directly. Only thing he's concern about the security of the capitol.
And, yes, this comes just as McCarthy himself and the House Republicans are giving access or indicating that January 6th defendants can review security footage as part of their efforts to defend their case.
McCarthy, I just asked him about this. He claims this is nothing different than what was allowed under Speaker Pelosi.
I reached out to Pelosi's office to see if they gave any access to defendants to defend themselves by looking at the security footage. I have not heard back yet.
But McCarthy claims it is nothing different, as Democrats seem concerned about this whole situation.
GOLODRYGA: Well, you'll recall that Republican Party membership, we reported, was even surprised when we first told the news that he had given this information and video and footage.
BLACKWELL: Certainly, some security concerns there.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
Manu Raju, thank you.
[14:53:53]
BLACKWELL: Millions of students who are carrying the debts of college are watching the Supreme Court closely today as justices hear arguments about President Biden's student loan forgiveness program. We're live outside the court for the latest developments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CHANTING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:58:33]
GOLODRYGA: Voters in one of the nation's largest cities are heading to the polls right now. Chicago's Mayor Lori Lightfoot is seeking to survive the first round in voting in her bid for a second term.
BLACKWELL: CNN's Omar Jimenez is following today's primary.
The mayor is facing eight challengers. Tell us about this race, and especially what voters are saying.
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, for starters, this is going to be a fight. You mentioned it, we got nine total candidates. One of them has to meet a 50 percent threshold of voters.
Because that's likely not going to happen, we're really looking at the top two who will then go into a runoff.
And so that's the major question: Will the incumbent, M Lori Lightfoot, be among the top two? She's seen as one of the top-four contenders.
But we're on the other side of what she has described as a once-in-a- lifetime set of challenges -- challenges that have translated to the minds of voters.
Take a listen to some of the few we talked to.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EILEEN DORDEK, CHICAGO RESIDENT: The issues that are most important to me right now are equity as a city. This is a city that has disinvested in some neighborhoods for decades. And it is really important to keep the momentum that has been going for a little while to have better investment throughout the city.
SAM ELLIOTT, CHICAGO RESIDENT: She's a member of two, count them, two minority groups in the political sense. And that's why I've been so disappointed in her because she hasn't really come through nearly as well as I had hoped she would.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[15:00:05]
JIMENEZ: And that last voter is someone who is crucial in this. He told me he was -- he voted enthusiastically for Mayor Lori Lightfoot in 2019.
