Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Grass or Turf in the NFL?; Georgia Election Officials File Lawsuit; ICE at Olympics; 'Washington Post' Layoffs. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired February 04, 2026 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:02]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Well, Jeff Bezos, a billionaire, is doing this apparently to increase profitability as the justification for this.

What is your message to Jeff Bezos in this moment, Sally?

SALLY QUINN, CONTRIBUTOR, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Well, he's got to know that not just -- is, I'm not the only one who's sad.

And it's so clear. We all know that he's one of the richest men in the world. And so it just seems heartbreaking that he doesn't feel the paper is important enough to bankroll. And we're just losing so many readers and so many subscriptions.

And when Jeff took over, he basically said this buying "The Washington Post" with a sacred trust. And it is a sacred trust. And we all felt -- he said, we had a huge runway. And we all felt that the runway was not going to end, that he would support the paper no matter what.

And he talks about how this is a business and the business is not thriving, it's not making any money. And that's true. But a lot of the reason is because so many people canceled their sub -- 300,000 people canceled their subscriptions when they -- when he yanked the Kamala Harris endorsement from the editorial page.

And then, after that -- and the editorial page went much more conservative. More and more people have backed out. So that's a huge amount of money we lost. And it just seems to me that making all these cuts, although they say it's for the good of the newspaper and the newspaper would thrive once we have had all these cuts, how can you do that if you don't have the content?

And if you don't have the great reporters, you don't have any good content. Who is going to want to buy it?

BROWN: Sally, you make a very valid point. And it's really important to hear your perspective about all of this. Thank you so much.

And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [11:36:55]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now, with just two days until the Winter Olympics opening-up ceremonies take place, Italian leaders are working to quell concerns over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's presence, ICE presence at the Games. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTEO PIANTEDOSI, ITALIAN INTERIOR MINISTER (through translator): ICE does not and will never carry out police operations on our national territory National. We will not see anything on Italian soil that resembles what has been seen in the media in the United States.

The concern that has inspired the controversy of recent days, which this information allows me to definitively dispel, is therefore completely unfounded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The White House reiterating, Italian leaders saying it's common practice for ICE agents to be there.

Joining us now the former acting chief of staff of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, Deborah Fleischaker.

Deborah, thanks so much for joining us.

From your experience, is this common practice to send ICE agents to Italy for the Winter Olympic Games?

DEBORAH FLEISCHAKER, FORMER U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: So it actually is very normal for this sort of thing.

I think it goes to the misunderstanding about the full scope of what ICE is and what it does. People understand it to be immigration enforcement. And that is one-half of what ICE does. That's called ERO, enforcement and removal operations.

ICE also has a second part of it called Homeland Security Investigations that focuses on transnational crime. So they would normally go to this kind of major international event to support U.S. operations there, counterterrorism, trafficking, those sorts of items.

BLITZER: But you understand why the Italian government, the leadership there, are so upset about this.

FLEISCHAKER: Absolutely.

I think it's hard to look at what's happening here understand that that's ICE and think that the U.S. is going to send those people to -- those agents to Italy for the Olympics.

I think, to the extent that the people being sent to the Olympics are Homeland Security -- are -- sorry -- are HSI officers, agents, I think that that makes perfect sense. I'm not aware of the immigration enforcement side participating in that sort of international event previously.

And I -- it would raise red flags to me if they were also going.

BLITZER: Very important point, two parts of ICE that are involved.

What kind of role do you think these agents who will be sent to Milan, to Italy, for the Winter Olympic Games, what kind of role will they play when they're deployed abroad?

FLEISCHAKER: I think they will be part of the large U.S. law enforcement operation that's there.

I think they will coordinate with the other agencies that are there, and there will be other U.S. agencies there doing the same sorts of work, making sure that people are safe, the counterterrorism, the counterfeiting and the trafficking work that HSI specializes in.

BLITZER: Will ICE agents also be deployed to the Super Bowl in the San Francisco Bay Area this coming weekend?

FLEISCHAKER: Absolutely. They always are.

BLITZER: They are?

FLEISCHAKER: Yes.

BLITZER: So there's no problem with that?

FLEISCHAKER: Again, I think it depends on what they're doing.

BLITZER: What are they doing at the Super Bowl?

[11:40:00]

FLEISCHAKER: Normally, they would be doing the same sort of work that they're doing at the Olympics.

They would be doing counterterrorism. And, for example, there's always a spike in prostitution. So, trafficking issues are really quite important at big national events like the Super Bowl.

To the extent that they're deploying immigration enforcement at the Super Bowl, that would be a different issue and that would raise different concerns.

BLITZER: Because I'm sure a lot of undocumented immigrants who live here in the United States and have been living for a long time, if they hear that ICE agents are going to be at the Super Bowl, they may be reluctant to actually go to the game.

FLEISCHAKER: Absolutely.

BLITZER: Yes.

All right, Deborah Fleischaker, thanks so much for joining us.

FLEISCHAKER: Thank you.

BLITZER: Pamela.

BROWN: All right, coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM: Nearly two years after his conviction in the hush money trial, President Trump's lawyers are still fighting to get it thrown out -- why they say the case never should have moved forward in the first place.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:45:02]

BROWN: We have more breaking news this morning.

Officials in Fulton County, Georgia, have filed a legal challenge after the FBI confiscated all files related to the 2020 election. The administration is pursuing President Trump's false claims that voting fraud costs him that race.

Fulton County officials are challenging illegality of last week's seizure.

So let's bring in CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. He is a former state and federal prosecutor, as anyone who watches this show knows so well. He's on all the time.

So, Elie, help us understand this. Republicans in the White House insist there's nothing wrong here or illegal about conducting an investigation. How do you think this legal challenge will be received?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Pam, we will find out.

This is the beginning of a legal challenge to this search warrant. Now, it appears that Fulton County officials are bringing what's called a motion for return of property. I say appears because we have the statements from Fulton County officials, but the actual court proceedings are under seal at this point, so we can't see them in the public.

But what this is, is a motion to challenge the search warrant. Now, these motions are fairly rare and they're difficult to win on, but certainly not impossible. What Fulton County is going to have to show here is that there was a callous disregard of a constitutional right and that they or others will be injured if the property here, the ballots, are kept away from them.

So, DOJ is now going to have to go into court. They're going to have to answer this complaint and they're going to have to defend the validity of their search warrant. I think Fulton County is going to say this is a politically motivated investigation. this was an overly aggressive, overly broad search warrant.

And I think they're going to argue that there's privacy interests at stake here with the thousands or hundreds of thousands of voters with their identifying information that's been taken away.

BROWN: I also want to turn to something else that's happening on the legal front.

Lawyers for President Trump are back in court. They're trying to get his hush money conviction overturned. A judge has already turned down Trump's efforts to make this move twice before. How did we get here today?

HONIG: Well, it's been a long and winding road, Pam, but I have to say things are trending in Donald Trump's favor here.

Now, of course, Donald Trump got convicted on the hush money case a long time ago, back in May of 2024. After that, the U.S. Supreme Court came out with its immunity ruling, basically giving broad immunity to the sitting president.

Donald Trump then said, OK, some of the evidence used against me at the hush money trial had to do with when I was president. Therefore, I'm entitled to the benefit of the immunity ruling. Therefore, the case against me was invalid, and I'm entitled to go over to federal court.

As you said, the federal district court judge has twice rejected this claim, said I don't think you have a good immunity ruling. However, back in November, a Court of Appeals, a federal Court of Appeals with two Obama nominees and one Biden nominee rejected that. They basically said, we don't think you have done it right, district court judge.

We actually think Trump may have a valid immunity argument here, and rather than outright rejecting the district court judge, they sent it back to him to redo his work. And that's what's happening today. So now this district court judge has the case back before him, and the Court of Appeals has told him you didn't really do the math right here on the immunity question.

So if Donald Trump wins this, then he will be very much on the path to having his hush money conviction overturned. There's more to come, but things are trending in the president's direction.

BROWN: All right, I want to ask you about one more thing here, Elie.

So our reporting team found that a Justice Department review found that Ed Martin, who works at DOJ, improperly handled grand jury materials that were part of an investigation targeting Trump's perceived political enemies. It's part of the reason he was pushed out of DOJ headquarters early this year.

But he is still serving as a pardon attorney in this administration. What is your reaction to that? I mean, from a legal point of view, isn't it a crime or could be a crime to share grand jury information with someone who's not authorized to receive it?

HONIG: It's a great question. It's hard to justify essentially anything that Ed Martin has done in his brief and ignominious term at the Justice Department. He's been unqualified to be a prosecutor from the start.

And now you're seeing what happens when a novice is given this type of power. Evan Perez and Paula Reid's reporting is that he shared classified information, grand jury information with outsiders. Now, I have seen that DOJ has flatly denied that. I guess we will see. I'm certainly going to bank with Evan and Paula on this one.

BROWN: But hold on. They were really careful with the wording. Elie. They said there's no current investigation.

HONIG: Yes.

BROWN: But our reporting was that it had happened previously and that the finding was he had shared it. I just want to note that, because, here in Washington...

HONIG: Right.

BROWN: ... they can be very crafty with the statements they put out, right?

HONIG: OK. So maybe that's how they're trying to thread this needle.

BROWN: Yes.

HONIG: But if Ed Martin did share grand jury information, whether in a past investigation or a current investigation, yes, there is a crime associated with that, if it's done willfully and with bad intent.

Now, is Ed Martin going to be prosecuted? I certainly wouldn't hold my breath, not with this DOJ. But it certainly does help explain why he's now on his way out of the Justice Department, apparently, in the upcoming weeks and months. So it's a big deal if Ed Martin did in fact do that. And we will see where the truth lies eventually.

[11:50:09]

BROWN: We sure will.

Elie Honig, thank you, as always. Great to see you.

HONIG: Thanks, Pam. All right.

BROWN: Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, there's more news coming up, a follow-up on a story we have been covering. Artificial turf versus natural grass, which is better? Which is safer? It's a growing debate in sports.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta standing by to join us live. He's got your questions and he will answer them when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:55:03]

BROWN: So, when the Seahawks and Patriots take the field this weekend for Super Bowl LX, they will play on grass, not artificial. And that might not mean much to fans, but it can be a big deal for players. In fact, 92 percent of them prefer grass.

Well, we asked you to send your questions about artificial turf versus real grass.

BLITZER: Good point.

CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, is joining us now to answer some of those questions.

Sanjay, earlier in the week, you had a great report on turf versus grass. We have got questions that a lot of viewers sent us for you.

Sarah from Colorado asked this question: "My daughter has seen a shift from playing soccer on mostly grass fields to almost all turf fields. How do rates of minor injury compare on these two surfaces?"

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this was probably the most common sort of question we got, youth soccer, in particular, looking at turf versus grass.

I think the headline is there's not a big difference if you look at the data during games. So when people are actually playing games, soccer on turf versus grass, injury rates are pretty similar. But where it got kind of interesting, though, when we looked into this data had more to do with practicing.

When you're doing practices on grass versus turf, they find that the injury rates are actually higher on grass for practices versus turf. And the thinking here seems to be that grass is harder to maintain. So, for youth soccer, they may not have as much money, as many resources to spend on that, grass harder to maintain. You get divots and things like that, which can cause injuries.

So overall, for games, not a big difference. But if you're a parent, you really got to inspect the surface field that your kid is practicing on as well.

BLITZER: And another viewer named Mike is asking this question, Sanjay: "Are the types of injuries consistent across both types of fields?"

GUPTA: OK, so great question, really important question.

First of all, I will just preface by saying there's lots of data on this. I got fascinated in this because the NFL said this has become a huge health concern for players. But, really, since '72, they have been collecting data on turf versus grass.

Early data, clearly, the injuries were greater on turf. As turf has gotten better over the last several years or a couple decades even, the injury rates are similar. But the types of injuries, to this question, are different.

So, turf much more likely to have foot and ankle injuries, whereas with grass, knees and hips are about the same with turf and grass, but other injuries, concussions, dislocations, things like that, actually higher on grass. So, overall number of injuries, similar, turf versus grass, but types of injuries clearly very different.

BROWN: All right, finally, Anna from Liberty, Missouri wants to know: "My understanding is that artificial fields in all sports are dressed with ground tire rubber. You see some kind of particles line up during games. Aren't rubber tires classified as a carcinogen?"

GUPTA: Yes. yes, again, a common question and a valid concern.

There's a guy named Nick Pappas, who's the guy that's responsible for basically determining the surfaces for NFL stadiums, turf or grass. He picked the grass, for example, for the Super Bowl this Sunday. I asked him specifically this question, the concerns about toxicity. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GUPTA: What's the concern about toxicity? When I was looking in this, they said, if I touch this stuff, I should wash my hands immediately.

NICK PAPPAS, NFL FIELD DIRECTOR: Yes, sure.

From our perspective, working closely with the manufacturers, working with our own specialized individuals on the NFL and the NFLPA side, we don't have any concerns over toxicity right now.

There's obviously -- any time you're out in the elements, you're within whatever's around you. But, here, whether you're inside or outside, we haven't run into any concerns with toxicity from a crumb rubber perspective or any of our natural infills or the various infills that are out there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUPTA: The term he used there, crumb rubber, that's the stuff you see flying up when you see a player getting tackled, for example. That crumb rubber comes from recycled tires. Those recycled tires contain certain chemicals.

And in the past, those chemicals have been known to cause cancer in some cases. So, that's -- so it's a valid concern. But I think the point Nick is making is that after decades now of looking at this, you're not seeing a population level changes in cancer rates or other problems as a result of exposure to turf.

So, valid concern, but not really a problem right now.

BLITZER: All right, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, as usual, thanks very, very much. Appreciate it.

GUPTA: Thank you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Best in show at the 150th Westminster Kennel Club dog show is the Doberman pinscher.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Penny, the Doberman pinscher with Andy Linton.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Good girl, Penny. The Doberman dazzled the judges and beat nearly 2,500 other pooches to win best in show at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show.

Penny is the fifth Doberman to take the top prize. The reserve best in show went to Cota, the Chesapeake Bay retriever, who was top dog in the sporting group. Then there was the toy group. Cookie, the Maltese, was the big winner.

[12:00:05]

And Lhasa apso J.J., which is short for Jingle Juice, was tops in the non-sporting group. Congrats to all of those doggies.

BLITZER: I love that name Jingle Juice.

BROWN: Jingle Juice, it's a great name.

BLITZER: Yes, it's a cute name for a dog, Jingle Juice.

BROWN: Oh, my God, look at that dog. That dog needs to be in Westminster Dog Show. That is Bingo, Bingo Wright, Brown-Wright.

BLITZER: I love those dogs, yes.

BROWN: That is my dog, for everyone to know. He's 5 years old now.

BLITZER: And what's his name?

BROWN: Bingo.

BLITZER: Bingo.

BROWN: Bingo.

BLITZER: Oh, really?

BROWN: You don't know about Bingo? He's my fourth child basically. All right.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: You're a good mom.

And, to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning.

BROWN: "INSIDE POLITICS WITH DANA BASH" with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts now.