Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Congress Set to Certify Election; Fluoride in Drinking Water; New Orleans Security Failures. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired January 06, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Because, again, I'm entitled to have everything stayed, everything put on hold while I appeal the immunity decision.

So we're going to see a back-and-forth happening between Donald Trump and the DA and Judge Merchan and maybe the New York appeals courts starting hours from now and I think continuing right up until the moment of sentencing on Friday, if the sentencing does in fact go off as planned.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, Elie Honig, thanks so much. Good to see you.

HONIG: Thanks, Pam.

BROWN: Coming up: President Biden is traveling to New Orleans following the deadly New York state terror attack. And the visit comes as new details from a confidential report I obtained show how political clashes in the city may have hindered efforts to improve security.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:35:17]

BROWN: I have new reporting today on the terrorist attack in New Orleans on New Year's Day. I have obtained the 2019 confidential report that was done by a private security consulting firm, Interfor International, that called for the immediate installation of permanent barriers, the goal, preventing the type of truck-ramming incident that killed 14 people last week.

But Interfor International says political bickering and infighting compromised security and the immediate improvements it recommended.

In this report, it said -- quote -- "Throughout Interfor's time with the various players in the French Quarter, we were privy to palace intrigue and accusations of agendas and we were repeatedly reminded of each group's red lines lurking around the corner to immediately render any proposal or initiative dead in the water, no matter how insignificant in reality."

And joining us now to discuss this, the CEO of Interfor International, authored that report.

Thank you for joining us.

So, Don, I have obtained this confidential report. I have read through it. Look, today kicks off the Mardi Gras celebration season and the city is asking for federal help to ensure that they can ramp up security and keep revelers safe.

But the backdrop after reading this report makes you wonder about the political dysfunction. What was the level of political dysfunction your firm encountered in 2019?

DON AVIV, CEO, INTERFOR INTERNATIONAL: Well, it's a great question.

I don't think it's anything -- like anything we have ever seen before. I mean, there were so many disparate groups and shareholders and stakeholders that have a role in driving the French Quarter, so, specifically, the French Quarter, not New Orleans in general.

So it was quite glaring to see how many different groups are fighting for the dollars and the policing dollars to protect this 1.1-square- mile piece of land. So it was quite jarring.

BROWN: So, you say it was quite jarring.

How unusual is it that the dysfunction rose to a level that it warranted inclusion in your firm's security report?

AVIV: Well, I don't think that we have ever written a report like that before, so that should stand on its own down.

BROWN: So, just bring us into that. I mean, it was so bad that you felt the need to put it in the report and give it to the stakeholders that commissioned your firm to do this report, right?

AVIV: Correct.

Well, the point of the report was really to highlight issues throughout the French Quarter, security issues, safety issues. And the idea was to lay out a series of concerns, so that they can mitigate them from one by one and work their way down the list. So this was one of the many issues that we identified.

And it's one of the more complicated issues to address for any municipality, but it's unlike anything we have seen in other jurisdictions.

BROWN: And what was your concern, though, at the time, because you worked on this, that that political bickering and the politicking and all the dysfunction would hinder the necessary security measures from being put into place?

AVIV: Right. When you're fighting over dollars in the largest or the most prominent

tourist attraction in the state of Louisiana, there's obviously a lot of attention to it. So, our concerns were, if we were to present a series of recommendations, who would take charge, how would they implement change, who would take -- drive the bus, if you will?

BROWN: And do you know what ended up happening after you handed over that report, what was implemented from it?

AVIV: Unfortunately not.

As soon as we issued the report, I think -- I pretty much believe that's the last we have heard from the French Quarter.

BROWN: Is that unusual to not hear back at all after you put together a report like this?

AVIV: It's fairly unusual. Usually, our clients will work with us to build a program to mitigate concerns, to break down what's necessary, triage everything, and to determine what is most important going forward.

In this situation, it was just radio silence.

BROWN: Huh.

So the French Quarter Management District, which commissioned your firm to do this, says -- quote -- "The strength of our ongoing partnership with the city and the NOPD allows for the results of any studies or reports completed."

Now, we should note, it did not specifically say whether or not the dysfunction and the security lapses flagged in your 2019 report were addressed. But, as a security expert, do you feel like the city took your findings seriously enough?

AVIV: I have no way of knowing what's happened since 2020, in all reality.

And in the back, the behind-the-scenes of the political infighting and bickering, it's very hard for us to determine. But the proof is what we're seeing today. A tragic accident has occurred -- or attack; 14 lives were lost, countless injured. And this is the type of attack that could certainly have been mitigated by implementing specific mitigation tactics like bollards and traffic control.

[11:40:08]

BROWN: And, on that note, I want to show this video.

And, for our viewers, it is hard to watch. But it shows the attacker in the white pickup truck driving around a single police cruiser and over a wedge barrier that wasn't deployed. What is your reaction to seeing that, given the security recommendations your firm made?

And then you have to ask the follow-on question, is there any way to fully prevent terrorists from unleashing terror if they want to do it?

AVIV: Right.

I will address the first part first. Quite frankly, that's a jarring image and it's shocking. The fact that the assailant was able to just scoot around the police vehicle and then right over a closed wedge barrier is shocking. The point of the wedge barrier -- and even if they're not operable, you can manually open those in most circumstances.

So it should have been open in allowing any vehicle to be stopped. The fact that they -- it wasn't, I don't have an answer for that and I can't address that. But it is pretty shocking. So it shouldn't have happened. I mean, quite frankly, if the concern was that a vehicle can get around it, then you use two police barriers or vehicles.

And as we know now, the city of New Orleans does have Archer barriers, which are the smaller barriers, which could have been put in the street to mitigate this type of attack. It should have been stopped at the corner of Canal and Bourbon.

BROWN: All right, and just very quickly, on a terrorist who's hell- bent on a mass shooting or vehicle ramming. Is there really any way to stop that, though, I mean, even with what you lay out?

AVIV: Well, terrorism is quite old in all its iterations and it's very hard to protect unequivocally.

But I would say that the ramming attacks and a lot of these issues, like active shooter situations, can be mitigated or at least prevented to a certain extent. And that's the goal of any security deployment.

BROWN: All right, Don Aviv, thank you very much.

And, when we come back, reviewed scrutiny over fluoride in drinking water, especially for kids. This -- there's this new research out and it shows high levels of fluoride and low I.Q. scores, again, against -- with children. As a parent, this really caught my attention.

So we're going to have a discussion this after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:47:13]

BROWN: New this morning, the results of a years long study on fluoride are out and they're shedding light on how the mineral added to drinking water impacts children's cognitive development.

Meg Tirrell joins us now.

What did this study find, Meg?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Pam, so this adds to a lot of growing evidence in looking at what the connection is between fluoride added to water and the neurocognitive impacts on children in particular, looking at this through the lens of I.Q.

Now, what this government study did is essentially look at the available evidence, more than 70 different studies done around the world. Most of them were done in China none were done in the United States. And what it found is a correlation between higher levels of fluoride and drinking water and a negative impact on I.Q.

When they looked at the total amounts of fluoride in kids' urine, in their pee, essentially, what they found is that for every increase in one milligram per liter of urinary fluoride levels, they found a decrease of about 1.6 I.Q. points.

Now, it's important to note, though, in the United States the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water is about 0.7 milligrams per liter. And that is much lower than the levels that they were looking at in this -- in these dozens of studies.

And so there were two editorials published alongside this study in "JAMA Pediatrics," the journal, and they had completely opposing views about what we should do with this information. On the one hand, one editorial said, this is enough to reexamine our public health recommendations around fluoride in drinking water.

On the other hand, one study said, well, this doesn't tell us anything about the lower fluoride levels in water commonly used in our systems here in the U.S. and so we shouldn't do anything.

So, Pam, this debate continues.

BROWN: It continues, but as I was reading this, so this looked at fluoride levels over 1.5. As you noted out, in the U.S., it's typically 0.7.

But then, as a parent, I'm thinking OK, so 0.7 here and then my kids are also getting fluoride in their toothpaste. So like how much fluoride are they actually getting a day? It's raising all kinds of new questions for me as a parent.

TIRRELL: Yes, absolutely I have the same ones. I have got little kids too.

And what we find is that there was a Cochrane review about this, looking at the impacts particularly of fluoride in toothpaste, which really started to come into effect in a large way in the 1970s. And they did find that the benefit of adding fluoride to drinking water since then has declined because kids are getting fluoride in these other ways.

I did look up the levels. From toothpaste, it looks like the EPA says 0.1 to 0.3 milligrams daily from babies to adults you're essentially getting from toothpaste. And from food, including fluoridated water, you're getting between 1.2 to almost three milligrams per day. That's really hard to put into context.

But the public health argument for including fluoride in the drinking water is that at these low levels, they argue there's no evidence that it's harmful and that is a benefit for everybody, including folks who may not have access to dentists or fluoridated toothpaste, and that it's been really helpful over the decades.

[11:50:11]

BROWN: All right, Meg Tirrell. Thank you.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Finally, this hour: In Atlanta, mourners are in their last full day to pay respects to former President Jimmy Carter. He lies and repose at his presidential library, the Carter Center.

Mourners have been filing past his casket to pay their respects. And they will have that opportunity until 6:00 a.m. tomorrow. The body of the 39th president will then travel to Washington for a national funeral service on Thursday.

[11:55:02]

Well, it is a very big week in the nation's capital happening today.

In about an hour, Congress will convene to count the electoral votes and certify Donald Trump's election victory, this beautiful, snowy scene in Washington very different from what we saw four years ago, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol.

Thank you for joining us. I'm Pamela Brown.

CNN's special coverage with Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper starts right now.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: A live view of the U.S. Capitol as a major winter storm bears down on Washington. That is not stopping Congress from moving forward with finalizing president-elect Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 election, two weeks before he is inaugurated at the steps of the Capitol and four years after this democratic process was threatened and these historic grounds were tainted by violence.

Welcome to CNN's special live coverage, "January 6th: Congress Certifies the Election." I'm Anderson Cooper.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And I'm Jake Tapper.

About an hour from now, a joint session of Congress will tally and then announce the electoral vote count. It is the final step in affirming that president-elect Donald J. Trump won the presidential election of 2024, a political comeback that seemed unimaginable for many Americans on this day four years ago.

Vice President Kamala Harris, as vice president, will preside over the role of -- over the joint session in her role as president of the Senate overseeing the public count of her own electoral defeat. And this is what elected officials have been doing for most of the history of these United States, carrying out the electoral vote certification, whether their won or their side lost.

It is a formality, but it is integral to democracy. It was tradition, until it wasn't. What happened on January 6, 2021, of course, looms large over this day. The contrast between what we saw then and what we're about to see now could not be more stark, with the former and future President Donald J. Trump the center of all of it.

Let's go live to the Capitol now, my colleague Dana Bash.

Dana, on this January 6, we expect to see democracy play out as it should play out.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: We sure do.

And the pictures that you just showed really sum it up, that contrast. Today, there is a lot of security here. This complex is fortified, almost in a way that I have never seen, but you don't feel that way because of that beautiful blanket of snow.

It's kind of bringing a sense of serenity here. And, of course, four years ago, it was anything but serene, never mind the feel of the place, but one of the many differences was there was a vice president who was getting pressured to overturn the will of the people.

This time, we are going to see a vice president who herself was on the ballot to be the -- have the highest office in the land. And she's going to have to be part of the ceremony, oversee the ceremony that is constitutional that makes her loss certified.

And I was in the Capitol, in the House chamber four years ago, when Al Gore had to do -- excuse me -- 24 years ago, when he had to do that very thing.

And, Manu, as I bring you in -- Manu Raju is, of course, here on Capitol Hill as well -- I remember how difficult, Manu, that moment was for Al Gore. You could feel the tension in the House chamber then. People were very angry. It was a different situation.

And I will tell you that I was told that Al Gore and Kamala Harris have spoken since the election. We don't know what they spoke about, but you can only imagine they have a lot in common.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, no question about it.

And we would expect today, Dana, is also Democrats are not going to do what Republicans did four years ago. Remember, Republicans in the House and the Senate objected to the electoral results. And that was one big reason why that was blamed for all the expectation from the Trump mob, that Trump-inspired mob, that they could overturn the electoral results.

Democrats today are not expected to object to the electoral results, I'm told by Democratic sources. Republicans themselves too are not expected to really even say much about everything that happened over the last four years. They're ready to move on and not remember what happened on January 6, 2021.

At the same time, Dana, Congress has already taken steps to make it harder to replicate what happened four years ago. Remember, at that time, just one House member and one senator were enough to force a vote in the House and the Senate to overturn the electoral results.

This, time in the aftermath of January 6, 2021, Congress has substantially raised the threshold. Now one-fifth of the House and one-fifth of the Senate need to agree to have a vote to overturn any of the states' certified electoral results.