Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Pentagon: China Could More Than Triple Nuclear Arsenal By 2035; NYC To Remove People With Mental Illness From Streets Against Their Will; Experimental Alzheimer's Drug Slows Disease, But Raises Safety Risk. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired November 30, 2022 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00]

KRISTIN FISHER, CNN SPACE AND DEFENSE CORRESPONDENT: That's really what's important here because one, it's going to allow China to conduct all sorts of experiments in microgravity, and who knows what kind of experiments the Chinese are going to be able to do that the U.S. were not?

And then finally, it's going to give them all of the training that they need to do what they really want, which is to build a base on the south pole of the moon, which incidentally, is what the United States is trying to do, too, with its new Artemis program -- Kaitlan.

COLLINS: Yes, it will be fascinating to watch.

Kristin, thank you.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Kristin.

Well, China is expanding its nuclear arsenal faster than U.S. officials had even predicted. A new Pentagon report found China's stockpile of nuclear warheads has doubled in just two years. Back in 2020, the U.S. estimated this expansion would be achieved within a decade. At this rate, China could more than triple that arsenal by 2035.

CNN anchor and chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto is with us from Washington. Jim, two years? That's it?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, no question. I mean, put this in the category of assumptions that the U.S. and the West have made about China that turned out to be wrong -- and frankly, it's a long list.

But let's look at warheads here because this speaks to China's projection of military power around the world. Right now -- in 2020, rather, the U.S. put the number of total Chinese nuclear warheads in the 200s. It has already doubled in the span of two years. This is a figure that the U.S. did not believe China would reach until the middle of the next decade, so they are moving much faster than the U.S. and the West believed they would. And this is key. They are testing as they go. In the last year, they've tested ballistic missiles 135 times. That is a higher number of tests than the rest of the world combined for ballistic missile technology. Again, you've got the warheads and you've got the missiles that deliver those warheads. They are testing those missiles.

At the same time, they're also testing and perfecting new technologies, particularly a hypersonic missile many times faster than the ICBMs that have been, really, the chief nuclear weapon of war for decades. They tested one last year, flew around the entire planet, and it was accurate. And the key to that was that was faster, too, than the U.S. expected as well. They just did not know China had that technology already and they fear it's ahead of where the U.S. technology is.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: So, Jim, in Washington, how big of a concern are China's nuclear investments?

SCIUTTO: It's a big concern because this goes back to those false assumptions we've had about China for a number of years. For years, the U.S. and the West believed China had a nuclear arsenal. They wanted to keep it small -- a weapon of last resort. Now their fear is they're expanding that arsenal because they want to use it as a way to project power around the world wherein --

Well, let me quote from the report that describes exactly what they're talking about here. "The PRC presents the most consequential and systemic challenge to U.S. national security and the free and open international system."

We talk about Russia and Ukraine a lot -- a major threat.

HARLOW: Wow.

SCIUTTO: But for years, the U.S. has said China's the number-one threat.

And what are they concerned about in the near term? They're concerned that China uses its nuclear umbrella to provide a greater ability to invade that place -- Taiwan.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: The concerns about invading Taiwan are real and they fear that China will hide behind its nuclear umbrella to do that.

COLLINS: Yes.

LEMON: Mr. Sciutto, thank you very much. We appreciate that.

SCIUTTO: Thanks.

LEMON: Good to see you.

So, New York City Mayor Eric Adams ordering the city's first responders to intervene when someone is suffering a mental health crisis. Will this help, or is it going to hurt the rising crime rates in the city? We're going to discuss all of it straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:37:26]

HARLOW: Good morning, everyone. It is Wednesday, November 30. Welcome to CNN THIS MORNING. We have a lot to get to.

First responders, right here in New York City, ordered to intervene when someone is suffering a mental health crisis, and even commit them involuntarily if necessary.

Also, Twitter's former head of trust and safety, this morning, sounding the alarm, warning the social media platform is less safe now under Elon Musk.

And Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes found guilty of seditious conspiracy. We will be joined by his ex-wife, who disavowed the right- wing militia group that she helped create.

LEMON: So, New York City's first responders, including members of the police and fire departments -- they're going to now be expected to enforce a state law that allows them to intervene when someone is suffering a mental health crisis. And here's the important part of this. They're now empowered to potentially commit those people involuntarily.

This is what the mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, has to say about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS, (D) NEW YORK CITY: A common misunderstanding persists that we cannot provide involuntarily assistance unless the person is violent, suicidal, or presenting a risk of imminent harm. This myth must be put to rest. Going forward, we will make every effort to assist those who are suffering from mental illness and whose illness is endangering them by preventing them from meeting their basic human needs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So this is part of an effort to slow the rise of crime in the city. Although the murder rate has dropped over the last year, rape, robberies, and assault have all increased. Crime in general has gone up 31 percent.

So joining us now, Jumaane Williams. He is New York City's public advocate and a former NYC councilman in Brooklyn. He supports the mayor's proposal. And, Andy Bershad. He's a former NYPD detective opposed to this measure. We're so happy to have both of you, and thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

JUMAANE WILLIAMS, NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC ADVOCATE, (D) FORMER NEW YORK CITY COUNCILMAN: Thank you for having us. LEMON: It's interesting -- the former NYPD -- you're opposed to it. And you support what the mayor has to say. So let's -- we'll get to both of them.

But let's talk about why do you support this. Obviously, there's a rise in crime. Murder is down but overall, you see what's happening on the subway. We all watch the news. We see the images that are coming. And we saw what happened politically -- people running on this.

Why do you support it?

WILLIAMS: So, let's be clear. There are parts of the mayor's plan that I do support. In general, I think people -- some people will have to be moved involuntarily.

[07:40:00]

What I am concerned about is some of what the mayor said. And so, any time you have more information about involuntarily being removed, then the care that's actually needed -- then I actually do have some concerns about that.

And so, we are going to be sending a letter, actually, to get some questions -- to clarify what exactly do you mean? Who is going to make decisions and when? Because another concern is if it's a police officer that's making these decisions, we also have some additional concerns.

LEMON: OK.

Andy, why do you not support this?

ANDY BERSHAD, FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE, OWNER, FLYING ACES CONSULTING: Again, like the advocate said, it's not that I entirely disagree -- I disagree with parts of it.

I think to send a uniformed officer to make a determination for possible mental awareness or problems that are going on, we're going to be held accountable. And with the limited training that we're getting, we're trying to put them into a system that clearly needs addressing. Don't mistake that at all.

By putting through with mental health teams that are going out -- and I think the problem is there that needs to be addressed. However, through training, education continued throughout -- not only for the uniformed police officers and EMS --

HARLOW: Yes.

BERSHAD: -- by changing these laws. It's almost kidnapping.

LEMON: Well, just one more thing.

HARLOW: It's almost kidnapping -- it's almost kidnapping.

LEMON: New York -- New York City is -- yes, it's almost kidnapping. HARLOW: Yes. That's his --

LEMON: But this is where I'm going. New York City -- the people in New York City want the crime to stop. They want to see the people with mental health problems -- mental illness off of the subway, off of the streets, and be taken care of. But also, they don't want to be confronted by them as well. That is a real issue for the people of New York City.

You may see it as kidnapping. A New York citizen who wants to be safe will see it as it's time for these people to be taken off the street. They need help and we need to be safe.

BERSHAD: One hundred percent. When I said that it's kidnapping, and serving the city as a paramedic, when I take a patient who is awareness of himself -- if I know my name I'm able to think clearly to some degree, whatever we decide to gauge it at. I have the right to refuse transport from a uniformed police officer.

And I'm like, Mr. Lemon, I'm sorry, you're going to have to come with me. No. My name is Mr. Lemon, this is November, and I would prefer not to go to the hospital right now. But according to the new guidelines, potentially, I have to remove you whether you would like to go or not.

HARLOW: It sounds like one of your concerns also is the cops can't do this, too. We have so much on our plate. Are we going to really be properly trained to do this? Can we -- can we add this?

BERSHAD: I think, obviously, training is paramount. I know that we put it out. Is there enough training to go through it? Are we looking at situations, potentially, when a situation goes badly? If I go to take a patient that doesn't want to go or against their will, now I'm taking them involuntarily. What is the ramifications for the uniformed officer, EMS provider that's going --

WILLIAMS: I also want to say -- Don, you said something that I think is important. And I think New York City residents want to be safe and they want to be able to use the subway, including my 14-year-old and including my wife.

But if you ask them, they don't want police to be arresting people for having a mental health crisis. They want people to get assistance and a continuum of care. The problem with this plan is it doesn't spell out what the continuum of care is.

And so we don't even know how much funding is going into that versus additional police who, by the way, don't have the training to make a determination whether someone should be taken to the hospital.

LEMON: There's a difference between arresting, though, and detaining someone and putting them -- I mean, you're not taking them to jail -- you're offering them assistance.

WILLIAMS: But think about this -- what's happening. You can quote- unquote involuntarily put someone in the hospital for two to three days. What happens after that? LEMON: Right.

WILLIAMS: What's going to happen after that? Are we doing a cycle to pretend we're doing something more than we are?

And so, people want to see -- we see this sometimes with homelessness. You want to solve the problem is different than I don't want to see the problem.

LEMON: Yes.

WILLIAMS: And we want to make sure that people get the care they deserve. What about people who call who are in an apartment or who are in a -- who are in a home?

The main crux of this is we have to divorce a law enforcement response from a medical response, and people need medical care. Law enforcement should be there in case they are called and needing assistance. But the problem many of these plans that are putting the law enforcement first and not putting the care and the continuum of care that's needed.

COLLINS: And that's what's so important about what you said here, is that this is -- these are people who are presumed to be mentally ill and often, as you -- as we've seen play out many times around the country, arresting someone -- even detaining them and putting them in the car -- they view that the same way. That has the risk of escalating the situation.

And I think what you're pointing out here is the gray area. Adams seemed to suggest that yesterday, or he referenced that. He talked about the gray area. But he said it's letting people slip through the cracks.

Do you think he has a point when he -- when he says that?

WILLIAMS: What's -- slipping through the cracks is we don't have the continuum of care. And so the state hasn't reopened almost -- more than half of the beds that we had. What is slipping through the cracks is a plan that doesn't say where is the funding going to be for the mobile crisis team.

There are some good things in there. We don't know if they're going to be funded. We have less respite centers now than we did before the pandemic.

HARLOW: Why? Why did New York City, in its budget last month, cut $12 million from this group called the Behavioral Health Emergency Assistance Response Division, or B-HEARD, that is specifically to go to emergency situations to deal with mental health instead of police?

[07:45:10]

WILLIAMS: So, one is even that program, unfortunately, almost 80 percent of police -- times police were being sent. But the question is why is that being cut? Look, all the questions -- why is almost all the agencies being cut

except for an agency like the NYPD?

LEMON: So facilities being closed. And it's been -- look, I've been living in New York City for a long time. They have been closing facilities left and right for a long time. And also, during COVID, they let people out because they didn't want people --

COLLINS: Mental health facilities.

LEMON: -- until -- yes, mental health facilities. They let people out because they didn't want them possibly getting COVID, right? They didn't want to have a pandemic on their own, much as -- similar to what happened with the nursing homes.

So the issue is -- is what he's saying is that are they not getting at the root of the problem? Is this the back end of it where someone has an issue and then you're coming in on the back end and you're trying to detain, or arrest, or hospitalize them when you should be doing it upfront?

BERSHAD: I think it's a Band-Aid on a waterfall --

LEMON: OK.

BERSHAD: -- right -- to put it bluntly. We're going out and we -- they spoke about multiple times for care, multiple times.

As Mr. Jumaane -- Jumaane said, it's falling through the cracks. How much is it? If we're looking back at well, they've been treated several times and now we're going to look at them long-term. What is the plan for that?

We have criminals, as we talked about. The New York City residents don't want to see criminals but there are multiple criminals that have multiple offenses that constantly get back out. So let's just move it over to mental illness, which is a disease. It needs attention and they need help, all right?

They talked about outpatient care. A lot of the people -- if you go into shelters, they don't want to be there. They don't -- you know, I take this medicine and it makes me feel funny, so I'm not going to take it anymore. And then what happens? Their progression gets progressively worse and then we find them in situations where we hope they don't.

COLLINS: You're a former NYPD detective. I think the key question here is do you think the police can make the right call on something like this?

BERSHAD: I think on a case-by-case basis, I think through further education and enforcement from the department with it.

If I -- if I tell -- again, if I tell a patient that OK, you're going to have to come with me, whether we call it arresting, removing them from custody, or taking away their freedom, all right? One minute I was on the subway platform or in my home, or on the street, and now I'm saying you can no longer do that because I feel that you need to be evaluated.

WILLIAMS: I think the real answer is we shouldn't ask them to. Why are we asking police to make a medical decision when --

HARLOW: But if not them, who?

WILLIAMS: So we have people who are trained to do this. We put out a report just last week updating a report we did in 2019 with a whole infrastructure of how we can get this done.

LEMON: But, Jumaane, when people call 911 and when people have an issue, they don't -- you know, there is -- what is --

WILLIAMS: We shouldn't call 911.

LEMON: What is it that --

WILLIAMS: If someone has a mental health crisis, we need a separate number to call.

LEMON: I understand that.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

LEMON: But when you're -- if you're -- if I'm on a -- I don't know, on the street or in a taxi, in a train, sometimes it's hard. You don't have connectivity there. And something happens, people automatically call 911 and the police are going to come.

WILLIAMS: And this is the problem.

LEMON: That's a reality.

WILLIAMS: Most folks, when they see someone, they'll actually say I think they're having a mental health breakdown. I'm going to say I don't want police.

Now, if you think you need a police officer you should call 911. But if you think you don't, you don't even have the option to call someone else. So you have people who have been killed when they said all I wanted was a medical assistance for my son or for my family member who was having a crisis.

What we should be doing is empowering medical professionals and peers who know what's going on, who understand what's going on, and they can help make the decision of whether or not an officer is needed or whether or not someone needs --

LEMON: I can hear people who are watching now saying that all sounds good but when I'm in the -- when I'm confronting someone or being confronted by someone and my life is in danger, I'm not going through, like, does this person have a mental issue. Does it have -- I'm just speaking for (INAUDIBLE) --

WILLIAMS: I think that's absolutely correct.

LEMON: -- right?

WILLIAMS: But we shouldn't talk about the small percentage of those calls versus what's being talked about now.

COLLINS: Yes, yes.

WILLIAMS: So it's been pretty clear that it's -- that the -- that what was said was that it doesn't have to be someone in danger or someone's life in danger. So it can be a whole spread of things that people can call for.

But New Yorkers -- by the way, as much as people don't understand, they're actually caring. And so, very often, they want someone to get help. The problem is this plan doesn't lay out the help. It focuses a lot on the involuntarily removal. And so we have to get some additional questions answered.

HARLOW: Jumaane --

COLLINS: And the reason this is so --

HARLOW: Go ahead.

COLLINS: -- important, I just wanted to say, is that this isn't just a New York problem. California is dealing with this and so is Washington State --

HARLOW: Yes.

COLLINS: -- and so are many places.

HARLOW: Yes.

COLLINS: This is a big national conversation.

HARLOW: So, guys, we wish we could spend an hour with you. Why don't you come back in a few months? Let's see how this goes, what happens, what needs to change. Come back, OK?

WILLIAMS: We can do it. And by the way, the people who need --

BERSHAD: (INAUDIBLE).

WILLIAMS: -- the care the most are going to be Black and brown New Yorkers because --

HARLOW: Yes.

WILLIAMS: -- because we can't get that care.

HARLOW: Thank you for saying that. Yes --

LEMON: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you.

HARLOW: -- come back. Thank you, both.

BERSHAD: Thank you all for having us.

HARLOW: Ahead, an experimental drug appears to slow progression of Alzheimer's, but there are some really big safety concerns. We'll tell you about them next.

LEMON: That was amazing.

HARLOW: Thank you, guys.

LEMON: I wish we could have spent more time. That was really good.

COLLINS: It was a great conversation.

LEMON: And the thing is that this Kendra's Law says that if someone --

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:54:06]

HARLOW: Is this a possible breakthrough for dementia? There is a new Alzheimer's drug in clinical trial and it appears to slow the progression of the disease. But the treatment is also raising some major concerns about side effects and safety.

Our Elizabeth Cohen joins us now. Whenever you hear that headline, so many people get their hopes up because so many people have family members impacted by Alzheimer's. How promising is it?

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: So, Poppy, we definitely want to temper those expectations. This drug does have some promise. It is in no way a cure for Alzheimer's. It is not going to save the person who you love who has Alzheimer's now.

So let's take a look at what they did in this study. They took about 1,800 people who were in the early stages of Alzheimer's. They were between the ages of 50 and 90. They put them in two groups. Some got a placebo, some got the drug.

[07:55:00]

The ones that got the drug saw a 27 percent slower rate of cognitive decline. In other words, they could interview and sort of test these people and they saw a 27 percent slower rate of cognitive decline.

They also saw that Amyloid levels were lower in the group that got the drug. Those are the plaque -- sort of the classic signs of Alzheimer's. So they found that Amyloid levels are lower.

The million-dollar question here, guys, is this. Those two things -- is that enough to make a difference for someone with Alzheimer's?

So, first of all, it took 18 months to get to that point. It's 18 months to see these improvements. Would you see a difference? Would your grandparent -- you know,

grandfather, grandmother, mother, father -- would they be different? Would they feel better? Would you notice a difference? Would they notice a difference?

Is it worth it considering this risk that I'm going to --

HARLOW: Yes.

COHEN: -- tell you about? And this is a big, big issue.

So they found that folks who got the drug were much more likely to have side effects. They found that 17 percent of the folks who got the drug had brain bleeding, 12 percent had brain swelling. Some of the folks who got a placebo also had those two things --

HARLOW: Yes.

COHEN: -- but a much, much --

HARLOW: Yes.

COHEN: -- smaller percentage.

HARLOW: It's a high percentage.

Elizabeth, thank you very much. For anyone interested, you can go to cnn.com and find out a lot more there -- Kaitlan.

COLLINS: All right. This morning, big news because the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers has been found guilty of seditious conspiracy for the role that he played in the January 6 attack on the Capitol. We're going to speak with his ex-wife who is weighing in about him facing consequences in what she says is the first time.

(COMMERCIAL)

[08:00:00]