Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

New Questions About Train Derailment Near Springfield, Ohio; President Biden Visits Selma To Mark 58th Anniversary Of Civil Rights March; Trump Lashes Out At Opponents During CPAC; Interview With Marc Morial About Bloody Sunday Anniversary; Russia Closes In On Bakhmut After Long Battle; Inside The Panic At FOX News After 2020 Election; The Rise And Fall Of HQ Trivia; Study Finds Even A Little Physical Activity Is Better Than None. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 05, 2023 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:31]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

Just in to CNN, new questions tonight about just what was on the train that derailed yesterday near Springfield, Ohio. The derailment of another Norfolk Southern freight train prompted a temporary shelter in place for nearby residents, and CNN's Polo Sandoval joins me now.

Polo, we're getting some new wrinkles of information about what was on that train yesterday. Very interesting. What can you tell us?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim. In the last couple of hours, we heard from an initial at Norfolk Southern, who is the owner and operator of the train that derailed in Springfield, Ohio, yesterday afternoon, confirming that the train was transporting hazardous material. However, that it was not on train cars that derailed. Roughly 20 of the 212 train cars that were going south from northern Ohio down to Birmingham ended up leaving the tracks.

Officials there saying that this accident happened in an area that does not have any protected water source. And most importantly, according to the state's EPA director, that there was no release of any sort of chemicals into the air, soil, or water. Those certainly continuing to keep a close eye on the situation there.

They're saying, as you're about to hear from that official from Norfolk Southern, that those hazardous materials were on the train cars that were not affected by yesterday's derailment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRAIG BARNER, GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN REGION, NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Yes, sir, there was. There was a couple liquid propane cars on there and a couple ethanol cars. The rest of the train was made up of mixed freight, a lot of steel, finished automobiles, and a lot of the cars that were actually derailed were empty boxcars.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SANDOVAL: So, sure, there were many of those that were empty boxcars, but there were two tanker train cars that were certainly concerning. I should say four of them. Two of them contained diesel exhaust fluid while the other two contained residual amounts of polyacrylamide, which is described as a water-soluble solution, often used to treat wastewater. But again, an important point that we heard from officials there in Springfield, Ohio, is that even those four tanker train cars that ended up being derailed did not have any sort of leakage.

So that's certainly important, and no spillage. But of course the question of why did this happen, especially a month after the situation in East Palestine, Ohio, that is certainly still something that authorities will have to answer in an effort to try to prevent this from happening again.

Because, Jim, as we now know that there were hazardous materials being transported on that train, we now know that it certainly could have been much worse than what we saw play out yesterday.

ACOSTA: Yes. It sounds like it was a very close call for that community there in Springfield, Ohio. All right, Polo Sandoval, thank you very much.

Minutes ago in Selma, Alabama, President Biden linked arms and led a crowd across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. It's the iconic landmark of Bloody Sunday 58 years ago this week. Peaceful demonstrators had just begun their march for equal voting rights for African-Americans on that day. White deputies and state troopers beat them with batons and whips. The moment awakened much of the United States and invigorated the civil rights movement. Moments ago, the president underscored the importance of that day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The forces of hate conspired to demise, but they endured. They forced the country to confront the hard truth and to act to keep the promise of America live.

I was a student up north in the civil rights movement. I remember feeling how guilty I was I wasn't here. How could we all be up there and you going through what you went through, looking at those, I can still picture, can still picture, the troopers with their batons and wands and whips.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: CNN's Arlette Saenz joins us now from Selma.

Arlette, the president is wrapping up his visit there, but he had a lot to say today. What can you tell us?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, President Biden really wanted to highlight two issues while he was here in Selma, Alabama. The first is simply trying to commemorate that moment of Bloody Sunday, which turned into an historic and significant moment in the civil rights movement. The president talked about how it was important that it not be erased from America's history, that they need to ensure that people remember the good and the bad of various moments, and Bloody Sunday being one of those.

[18:05:06]

It was, of course, a very brutal, brutal day, but ultimately did act as a galvanizing moment for so much of the civil rights movement and specifically for voting rights in this country. And that's the second purpose of the president's visit here was really to try to once again renew his call for voting rights legislation to be passed up on Capitol Hill.

Of course there have been efforts over the course of the past two years to get voting rights legislations passed, but ultimately those have floundered. But the president once again pushed and talked about the importance of trying to get voting rights protections enshrined into law.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: Selma is a reckoning. The right to vote. The right to vote, to have your vote counted, is the threshold of democracy and liberty. With it, anything's possible. Without it, without that right, nothing is possible. And this fundamental right remains under assault. Conservative Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act over the years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now during his 2020 presidential campaign, President Biden made trying to pass voting rights legislation one of the key tenets, one of the arguments that he was making to voters, specifically black voters, as he was trying to get elected to the presidency. But those efforts up on Capitol Hill have really stalled.

First Democrats were unable when they had control of both the House and Senate to get voting rights legislation pass, in part due to the Senate filibuster. That rule requiring a 60-vote threshold in order to advance legislation. But now they are facing an even steeper climb as Republicans are in control in the House.

Now, even as the president has pushed for voting rights legislation, there are still many activists who are frustrated with the White House and members of Congress for not getting voting rights signed into law. But the president once again trying to use his position, the power of the presidency, to make that case, and doing it today against the backdrop of a very important moment in civil rights history as he walked across that bridge just as hundreds of activists did 58 years ago.

ACOSTA: All right. Arlette Saenz, it was a very big day. Thank you so much. We appreciate it.

And tomorrow night, don't miss a CNN special with Arlette. CNN Primetime, "JILL BIDEN ABROAD." That airs tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN. Don't miss it.

One day before President Biden's visit to Selma, Alabama, his predecessor headlined the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland just outside of Washington. Over the course of nearly two hours, former President Donald Trump lashed out at Biden and many Republicans, bemoaned ongoing investigations into himself, vowed he won't drop out of the race even if he's indicted, and signaled how he might campaign in the future -- in the coming months to be elected again. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In 2016, I declared I am your voice. Today I add, I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution. I am your retribution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Joining me now, former Trump White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham and Olivia Troye, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence.

Stephanie, let me start with you. You know, it's so easy to blow off Trump's bluster and some of the things that he says. But when he talks about retribution and talking about revenge, what did you make of that?

STEPHANIE GRISHAM, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, you know, it's something I've been saying for quite a while, that this is going to be a revenge tour for the former president. But, you know, I wondered specifically with regard to what he said, who decides who needs the retribution? Who's going to decide who's been mistreated?

I mean what about all the people who suffered or had family members pass away from COVID? Are you going to be retribution for that? You had a hand in that. So I think it was, as you just said, a lot of bluster for him. But it's what his base wants to hear, and I think it's something that should be taken seriously. A lot of people right now, I think, are rolling their eyes and saying that's just Trump being Trump.

But this is important. We need to really pay attention to what he's saying and realize that we're not going to get the same Donald Trump. We're going to get a more angry and vengeful Donald Trump if he should take office.

ACOSTA: Right, if that's even possible. And Olivia, speaking earlier this past week with CBS News, your former boss, Mike Pence, twice declined to commit to supporting Donald Trump. That was notable, if he's the GOP nominee. Listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we'll have better choices, and I really trust Republican voters to sort it out. (END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Yes, that's not really committing to supporting Trump. What did you think of that, Olivia?

[18:10:00]

OLIVIA TROYE, FORMER ADVISER TO MIKE PENCE: Well, I think -- you know, there aren't many of us who hope that there would be a better choice than Donald Trump. But the reality is that that is where the Republican Party is. And like Stephanie said, I don't discount Trump. He is the frontrunner. I think Pence is hoping, hey, I'm a better choice. The choice is me. And I strongly believe that he will run. But I think the reality is that the path to victory there in the Republican lane is very narrow for any of these other candidates outside of Trump.

And I think the Republican Party needs to decide whether they're willing to support someone else and really back that candidate.

ACOSTA: And I guess I want to ask you both just as a follow-up to that, I mean can you believe where we are right now, coming out of CPAC, where Donald Trump -- obviously he won the unscientific straw poll over at CPAC, but he's leading in all of the polls.

Stephanie, as his former White House press secretary, and I know you don't want to see him back in the Oval Office ever again, are you at all surprised that Trump is in this position where he -- I mean Larry Hogan decided today he's not going to run. There aren't a lot of takers in terms of wanting to take on Donald Trump. He may get this nomination again. What do you think about that?

GRISHAM: Well, I'm obviously not happy, and I have committed to doing all I can to try and ensure that that doesn't happen by just talking to people and educating people on who he really is. But, you know, I think that what Asa Hutchinson did was smart. I think that he really saw that he had no path to victory, and I think -- well, I hope that other --

ACOSTA: Larry Hogan.

GRISHAM: I'm sorry, yes. I think other people who are wanting to maybe jump into the race, I hope that they have that kind of, you know, look-within moment because, again, as we've all talked about many times, back in 2016, the reason Trump won the primary was because the field was so big. I do believe if somebody like Ron DeSantis gets in, it's early yet, so these polls -- I know they do have Trump ahead, but I do believe if somebody really gets in and is willing to take him on, I think there's a fighting chance there.

But I'm definitely worried. I'm definitely concerned about, you know, how strong he is still after everything that people have seen over and over.

ACOSTA: Olivia, Stephanie mentioned Ron DeSantis. What do you think? Do you think he could potentially knock Trump out of this spot that he's in right now, which really he's the frontrunner right now? He's the man to beat. I know there's a long way to go, but I mean, many people consider the Florida governor the strongest opponent Trump could face for the nomination. But do you think he could knock him out of that spot?

TROYE: I think it will be very hard. I think once DeSantis gets going, and I don't think he's as appealing. He doesn't have the charisma, so to speak, in quotes, that Trump has, that kind of draw, that fiery brand, I would say.

Look, I actually don't see the two of them as being different people. I know that many of my Republican colleagues will say, oh, DeSantis is so much better. I don't see his politics as very different than Trumpism. He is Trumpism. He's just, you know, got a different cloak wrapped around him. But look, I think it's a possibility. Do I see it? Not right now.

ACOSTA: And, Stephanie, Trump said yesterday to reporters that he's going to run again no matter what, even if he's indicted. What are your thoughts? I mean, do you think that there's a chance that we will see an indictment of Donald Trump, or did the Justice Department, various authorities just kind of miss their chance to do that, to bring an indictment?

GRISHAM: Well, I don't want to say that they missed their chance. You know, as we all know, the wheels of justice move very, very slow. And I do believe truly that the Justice Department wants to do this the right way. I don't believe we're going to see him get indicted. I really don't. I think that at this point, it will all just be political, political, political according to, you know, the Republican Party.

But to answer your question, the fact that he said that, you know, he would continue to run even if indicted, that did not surprise me at all. That was prime Trump. He's doubling down. This is how he says he's completely innocent. And he just, you know -- he doesn't care about the justice system. He doesn't care. He gets away with everything, so why would he be suddenly like, I'm going to drop out?

ACOSTA: Yes, Olivia, quick final thought to you. I --

TROYE: Yes, I mean, what are we going to have? We're going to have Donald Corleone running for the president of the United States if we ever see that day coming? I mean, this is embarrassing if he does get indicted, and that would be the case. But I agree with Stephanie. I see him doubling down.

Look, there's a reason that Jim Jordan and all these Republicans on the Hill have this weaponization of the U.S. government committee. That is all in my opinion part of the strategic plan of how they will spin this.

ACOSTA: All right. Olivia Troye, Stephanie Grisham, sorry to race out of the segment but glad to have you both on again. Thanks again. Great to see you. Appreciate it.

GRISHAM: Thank you.

ACOSTA: All right. Moments ago we saw President Biden cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. Next, a closer look at the state of the civil rights movement today.

[18:15:03]

And later, a bombshell report from "The New York Times" on how FOX News handled the 2020 election. This is a new report according to the "New York Times" that may shock you even more than previous reports. Why executives were worried about a race projection that was right.

And Russia could soon notch a hard-fought win in Ukraine, but just how significant is Bakhmut on the larger battlefield? We'll talk about that coming up.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: Turning back to one of our top stories, President Biden in Selma, Alabama, today to mark the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, a pivotal moment in America's civil rights moment and a rallying cry now for many.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: The forces of hate conspired to demise, but they endured. They forced the country to confront the hard truth and to act to keep the promise of America alive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:20:02]

ACOSTA: The president was joined by civil rights leaders walking across the Edmund Pettus Bridge today to commemorate the 58th anniversary of the -- excuse me, the Bloody Sunday beatings. Marc Morial joins us now. He's president and CEO of the National Urban League.

Marc, great to see you. Thanks so much for coming on.

MARC MORIAL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE: Hey, good to be with you.

ACOSTA: Yes. Good to be with you. What did you think of President Biden's speech today and how he was connecting it to the theme that he's returned to, time and again, about restoring the soul of this country?

MORIAL: I think it was a good, strong message by President Biden. I think going to Selma, being a part of this historic, if you will, annual celebration around voting rights was a great platform for the president to recommit to voting rights. We've been disappointed because we weren't able to pass significant voting rights legislation in this president's first two years in office, and we note that it may be more difficult now.

But, Jim, here's the point. This attack on democracy and voting continues. In 2023 alone, and we're not even into just the third month, there have been 150 more restrictive voting bills introduced in 32 states, bills to eliminate vote by mail, to create a situation where you have longer lines, to further restrict voter IDs in some states to require people to show proof of citizenship when they vote.

So this movement against American democracy and voting continues unabated. I think the test for the president will be for him to use the powers of the presidency, to lobby the Congress, to persuade the Congress and to make a case amongst the American people that this issue is not just about black Americans or Latinos or disabled Americans or young Americans, but that this is about American democracy.

We are, today, spending billions in Ukraine to protect the democracy in Ukraine against Russian aggression. We need to see, and I want to see the same energy, effort, passion, and I think the president began hopefully a new effort today to pass voting rights legislation in this nation. It is simply that important.

ACOSTA: Yes.

MORIAL: Nick by nick since the Supreme Court's decision in 2013 in Shelby, the assault, the whittling away, the erosion of the right to vote continues in this country, and we must stop it because after all, fundamental to America is the system of voting.

ACOSTA: Well, and I want to ask you about -- I want to ask you about the state of race relations in this country right now, and the president touching on that. But just to follow up on what you were saying, it is highly unlikely that we're going to see any of that kind of legislation passing over the next couple of years. What does that do to the president's base of support in the civil rights community, in the African-American community?

Will the frustrations rise to a level where the president might be impacted politically, or are folks savvy enough to realize, well, it's just not in the cards with the way the Congress is set up right now?

MORIAL: Jim, I'm not willing to concede that because I think I'd like to see engagement with Republican members of the House and the Senate, much more aggressive engagement. The president has demonstrated on a number of issues, whether it's infrastructure, his science and CHIPS bill, the ability to build bipartisan coalitions. And I think we want to see Joe Biden use all of his political skills in a very assertive way to try to work to convince the American people and even members of the GOP.

Historically since 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, all the way through the extension of 2005, voting rights has always been a bipartisan effort and a bipartisan exercise and a bipartisan project in this nation. It is only recently that the, if you will, the stain of partisanship and the stain of adverse politics has affected the discussion about voting rights. Can we reset the conversation? I think a good, strong effort is in

order because it is simply that important.

ACOSTA: It's a critical conversation to have. And Marc, we want to have you back so we can talk about the state of race relations in this country and what's happening in our cities right now. Lots to talk about. We'll get you back here hopefully next weekend.

MORIAL: Look forward to it.

ACOSTA: Great to have you on. Marc Morial, thank you so much. Thanks for your time.

MORIAL: Thank you. My pleasure.

ACOSTA: You better take that call.

All right, up next, the battle for Bakhmut and what it could mean for the war in Ukraine if it falls to the Russians.

[18:25:04]

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: Ukrainian forces say they still control a key highway in and out of the besieged eastern city of Bakhmut. They've been battling Russian troops there for months. The destruction in the city now is nearly complete. It is devastating with Russian forces claiming to have Bakhmut surrounded on three sides. Ukrainian officials say evacuations from the city have slowed to a trickle. Up to 4500 civilians remain and officials say only five to 10 residents are leaving each day.

Retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling joins me now.

[18:30:02]

General Hertling, this battle for Bakhmut has been going on for months, and the level of destruction and devastation, we were just showing this on the video a few moments ago, it's just unreal. I know we've seen this time and again in Ukraine. But Bakhmut has really just about been leveled, it looks like.

How long do you think the Ukrainian forces can hang on there, and how important is it to the Russians that they capture this? Should we take this as some sort of pivotal moment if the Russians do, indeed, take Bakhmut?

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, the Russians will certainly take it as a pivotal moment, Jim, but I don't think the U.S. or Ukraine will. They are fighting for the ground. I mean, it's just devastating to see the destruction that has been caused in this city. You just mentioned 4500 people are still inside the city. This is normally a city of 80,000 people. So the amount of refugees, the people who have departed there, is just phenomenal.

But what we see in this is this is the Ukrainian forces taking their toll on the Russian forces. Oleksiy Danilov, who's the head of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, said last Thursday that Russia was losing seven soldiers for every one Ukrainian soldier killed in the city. Seven to one. Prigozhin keeps saying how he's close to being victorious. He's been saying that now for over two months and says the city is almost closed off.

But, yet, last Friday, Colonel General Syrskyi, who commands the Ukrainian ground forces, visited his troops in Bakhmut on Friday, saying that they were doing a great job and they must continue to fight because it's proving to the Russians they can't take one more inch of Ukrainian ground.

Now, if the Russians are successful and the Ukrainians do withdraw from the city, they will have paid just a dastardly price for the gain in territory, which isn't very much.

ACOSTA: Well, I was going to say is this maybe more of a commentary on how the Russians are just clawing for a centimeter, you know, of space on the Ukrainian map? They're not exactly rolling across the countryside despite all of this talk of a new offensive and, you know, the tide of the war is going to change and so on. We're not seeing that, and it seems as though they're putting -- giving it all they've got just to get this one city.

HERTLING: Yes, that's exactly right. And what we're talking about is the will of the Ukrainians to hold on to what they feel is sovereign territory versus, I'm going to just say it, the stupidity of Russia continuing to push bodies into a fight that has been very challenging to win. They have first put the Prigozhin prisoners there, then green troops. Then they put their active, more formally trained soldiers as the third wave, and each wave has been successfully defeated by the Ukrainian force. So it has just been a bloodbath in that small little city.

ACOSTA: And let me talk to you about China for a moment and this draft budget that was released this morning. China unveiled an annual military budget for the year that shows an increase of just over 7 percent, roughly $224 billion. Any incremental move on China's part to increase their military, I suppose, has to be taken note of. Do you take note of it?

HERTLING: I do, but I'm not that excited about it, Jim. I'm certainly not a Chinese expert, but I have watched China. I've been to China several times. And the 7.2 percent increase figure you just cited over the planned defense spending, the thing that concerns me, it marks the first time in the past decade that the Chinese budget growth rate has increased for three consecutive years.

But, you know, President Xi would say there are three reasons for them doing this. Number one, they're concerned about us. They read our U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy that states specifically that Indo-Pacific region faces mounting challenges from the PRC. So China knows that Washington is watching them, and they have placed their primary strategic focus on China.

Secondly, China's learning from the Russian-Ukraine conflict just like we are. So they know they need to adapt their military to face future threats that they're seeing coming out of the Ukrainian war. And then third, they see that China -- President Xi sees the need for increased military strength for its claims in the South China Sea, the east, which we hear a lot about, the East China Sea, and along the Himalayan border with India. So these are all his national security concerns.

But I'll say one final thing, Jim, and that is we've watched, you know, what China weighs. It's their personnel, it's their training and maintenance, and it's equipment acquisition. The personnel stayed about the same in terms of cost. The training and maintenance has increased dramatically. They have not put that much more money into acquisitions.

[18:35:00]

So there's a lot of people at the Pentagon and the State Department watching this. It's troublesome, but it's understandable.

ACOSTA: All right. General Mark Hertling, great to see you as always, thanks so much.

HERTLING: Pleasure, Jim. Thank you.

ACOSTA: All right. Thank you.

New reporting coming in from "The New York Times" said to reveal what executives at FOX News were thinking and why they were concerned about a call they got right during their 2020 election coverage. We'll explain next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: New bombshell reporting today in "The New York Times" about FOX News and the panic that erupted at the network after Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. Network executives feared losing their audience to far-right competitors, especially after FOX was the first to call Arizona for Joe Biden.

Reporter Peter Baker quotes CEO at FOX, Suzanne Scott, about the Arizona call. And here's a quote, let me show it to our viewers. "Listen, it's one of the sad realities. If we hadn't called Arizona those three or four days following election day, our ratings would have been bigger, Miss Scott said. The mystery would have been still hanging out there."

[18:40:10]

CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy is here with us with more.

Oliver, what stands out to you from this very detailed account in "The New York Times"? It really takes us behind the scenes as to what they were talking about, about that Arizona Biden call. OLIVER DARCY, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim. I guess what

stands out to me is this is not how actual news networks operate, right? The thing that's striking is there is certainly a discussion to be had, I think, after FOX News became the first outlet to call Arizona for Biden. That was before anyone else had called it. So there was certainly a discussion to be had about the call itself.

But the portrait painted by Peter Baker in "The New York Times" suggests that they weren't necessarily worried about calling the states for accuracy as much as it offended the viewers' feelings. Maybe they shouldn't have called it so that they could, like you said, or Suzanne Scott, the CEO's quote, keep viewers in suspense.

And so these are things that normally news networks don't take into consideration when deciding whether they should call a state or an election for a particular candidate. It's whether the math is correct. And according to this report, they didn't seem as concerned about that as much as the way it would affect their viewership, which is another way of saying the way it affects their bottom line.

ACOSTA: Right. They didn't seem to be so much concerned about whether they got it right. It was how their viewers were reacting, which should be beside the point. I remember when I was covering election night and how the Trump campaign was just livid with FOX. So I can see why FOX was concerned about that.

But, Oliver, were you surprised to see how the anchors of the network's political coverage were weighing in because there are quotes from them as well?

DARCY: Yes. I think in the past couple of weeks, we've seen a lot of detail about how Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, some of these people were reacting after the election in the wake when viewers were upset. But you don't necessarily expect to see that perhaps from the people who are supposed to be leading the so-called news division over at FOX. And in this report, you see some, you know, some evidence that these people were also concerned about the feelings of individuals, Trump voters who were watching the network.

In one e-mail that "The New York Times" obtained from Bret Baier, who is the chief Washington anchor over at FOX News and the face really of election night over there, I want to read to you what he said. He wrote, "Jay Wallace," the president over at FOX, and he said about the Arizona call, "It's hurting us. The sooner we pull it, even if it gives us major egg, and put it back in his column, the better we are in my opinion."

So you have Bret Baier talking about putting Arizona in the Trump column. Of course it never was in the Trump column because Biden ultimately won that state. Just because he said in another part of this report that it was hurting the viewers' feelings. He said it was -- it became really hurtful having to take this viewer feedback as the face of the network. And so this is really striking to see because it's not Tucker Carlson, not Sean Hannity, but Bret Baier over at FOX really worried about how the viewers were reacting.

ACOSTA: And this report also offered a window into the thinking of FOX boss Suzanne Scott. What did we learn there?

DARCY: Well, as you read this quote that she gave, according to "The New York Times," which obtained this recording, she was talking about things like not calling a race to hold viewers in suspense. And according to this report, the executives also mused whether it would be a good idea just not to call races because it might hurt the feelings of viewers if it's calling for a Democrat, or just to keep the race going on because it would boost viewership.

Again, these are not things that normal news networks actually consider when calling races. They call races as soon as they're confident in the math. But over at FOX, it's obviously another story.

ACOSTA: Right, and I think, you know, if you put this to the side of the revelations coming out of the Dominion lawsuit, where you had anchors, major primetime anchors over at FOX worried about ratings, worried about what this does to their brand and so on, when it comes to covering an election, election results, and so on, facts are facts. The truth is the truth. And the ratings be damned.

I think you have to put the ratings aside and it just seems like they got so ratings hungry over there at FOX that they put aside what matters in all of this.

Oliver Darcy, thanks so much for your time. We appreciate it.

All right. Can you get the health benefits of exercise in just 11 minutes a day? The surprising results of a new study. That's just ahead in the CNN NEWSROOM.

[18:45:01]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: HQ Trivia took the country by storm. The app went from a couple hundred players to two million in just two months -- in just months, I should say. Then just as quickly, it was over. Now the CNN Film "GLITCH: THE RISE AND FALL OF HQ TRIVIA" shows you the wild story of what was happening behind the scenes. Here is a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is HQ, I'm Scott the host.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: HQ Trivia was everywhere.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You could actually win real money.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It just got so popular. The app is not ready to work. And it crashes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that's when the cracks started showing.

[18:50:01]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Russ and Colin were polar opposites. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was jealousy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It leads to chaos.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And the director of "GLITCH" Salima Koroma joins me now.

Salima, great to see you. What attracted you to this story? Were you a big HQ player during the app's hay day? Why do people get so addicted to it?

SALIMA KOROMA, DIRECTOR, "GLITCH: THE RISE AND FALL OF HQ TRIVIA": So, HQ Trivia was this live game show on your phone where you answer 12 questions that progressively got harder and if you answered them all, you win big money, thousands of dollars. And every day millions of people would stop everything that they were doing to play this game and for a while, it was huge. I'm sure they even played it like at the CNN offices, like, you know, co-workers played it together. Students played it together --

ACOSTA: Oh, no, that would never happen. We're hard at work over here.

KOROMA: Oh.

(LAUGHTER)

KOROMA: And the reason why it was so popular is because you got to be a contestant on a game show yourself. You know, you're watching "Jeopardy, your "Wheel of Fortune" at home, and, you know, it'd be nice to sort of be a contestant yourself, and that's what this game sort of offered. They had these great hosts that were funny, charismatic, and it was supposed to revolutionize television.

ACOSTA: And you talked about why people fell in love with it. Why did it fall apart so fast?

KOROMA: So, like I said, the idea was to revolutionize television partly by going back to, like, this appointment television viewing. The days when people would gather around the radio or TV and ultimately, in addition to, like, the technical issues, the glitches, right, not being able to meet the demands of millions of players in record time, there was also a relationship between these two brilliant founders who founded the app. And as their relationship crumbled, so, too did the app. So that's why you sort of see this crumbling of this phenomenon.

ACOSTA: And some experts advanced thought this app was revolutionary, that it was going to change the way people watched and interacted with both television and mobile apps but that never really happened. So what would you say is the legacy of HQ Trivia? Might we see something like that emerge in the future maybe?

KOROMA: Well, I mean, you also had Wordle, right? Like you have this sort of fads that come up.

ACOSTA: True.

KOROMA: Whenever I mention HQ Trivia to someone, they always go, oh, I remember that thing that lasted, you know, this crazy fever dream that lasted for like three months. To me, HQ Trivia represents the hype and excitement of founders becoming these rock stars and then the failure, the big failure, the quick failure. Millions of dollars in valuation that they have to live up to down the drain.

It's a microcosm of what's happened in the tech world in the last decade and it implores us to question how we as consumers fueled this fad culture.

ACOSTA: Totally, and it gets to how we just get addicted to these phones. We find all kinds of new ways to be addicted to these devices. It's just -- there's just no getting away from it.

Salima Koroma, thanks so much. Looks like a great film. Thanks so much for your time.

KOROMA: Thank you.

ACOSTA: Appreciate it.

All right, catch the premiere of the all-new CNN Film "GLITCH: THE RISE AND FALL OF HQ TRIVIA" tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific right here on CNN.

Can 11 days -- excuse me, 11 minutes of exercise a day really make a difference in your health? Dr. Sanjay Gupta has some surprising answers, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:57:51]

ACOSTA: A new study claims just 11 minutes of moderate to vigorous intensity aerobic activity each day can have a big impact on your health.

Here's CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this was a pretty interesting study. I think so many exercise studies sort of look at things in a bit of a binary way. If you do this much activity, you get these benefits and if compared to no activity. And I think what the researchers here wanted to know was what if it was less than the currently recommended amount of activity?

But if you, for example, said what happen to people who do half that amount of activity, how much benefit do they get? And first of all they described the types of activity as brisk activities. Think of these as moderate intensity, walking fast, you know, pushing a lawn mower, playing tennis. Things like that. Things where you can still talk but probably can't sing. They wanted that degree of breathlessness.

They looked at 30 million people through this meta analysis over 10 years and here's what they found. It is pretty interesting. The sweet spot really in the middle there, 150 minutes a week of activity which is what is recommended gave people significant reduction in mortality as you see there, but if you did half that you still got a pretty significant reduction, 23 percent. Even more if you exercise 300 minutes.

And you could see what happens to cardiovascular disease. Do you get as much benefit as you're doing 75 minutes of activity? No, but you're still getting quite a bit. And the same for cancer even. So this was really interesting, trying to give some context as what is the value of even a little bit of activity.

Now, it was interesting. It wasn't sort of a curve where it kept going the more you did always the better. If you start to try and find what was the point of diminishing returns in terms of activity and the benefit on health, you found that around 300 minutes a week typically so double of what is currently recommended, that's when the benefits really started to plateau.

So again, not saying you can't do more activity than that but if it's the benefit of health in terms of mortality and health disease and even cancer, around 300 minutes was the max but 150 minutes is the sweet spot but you get credit, as this studied showed, for doing 75 minutes a week.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: All right. Thanks very much, Sanjay.

That's the news. Reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. I'll see you back here.