Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Lawsuit Filed To Bar Trump From Colorado Ballot; Extreme Weather Imperils Homeowner's Insurance; The Mask Wars Continue; Escaped Convict Takes Refuge in Private Home. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired September 09, 2023 - 09:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:41]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Is the fifth time the charm? I doubt it. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

Four legal threats to Donald Trump have only helped him politically and number five will probably be the same. We'd been through the data so many times but it does bear repeating today. Survey after survey show that Donald Trump's numbers have risen with each of his four indictments and the first GOP debate which he skipped changed nothing as to his hold on the party. Look more deeply at the polls and you find the reason why. Republicans largely share Trump's opinion that the indictments are political.

One recent example The Wall Street Journal earlier this week found that Trump is the first choice of 59 percent of Republican primary voters. That's up 11 percent since April. His lead over his closest competitor Ron DeSantis, just keeps rising. DeSantis is at 13 percent nationally barely ahead of the rest of the field at this point.

Why is Trump so strong despite being indicted four times? Because Republicans largely agree with His claims of election fraud. That same Wall Street Journal story points out this, "Asked about the indictments of Trump, more than 60 percent of Republican primary voters said each was politically motivated and without merit. Some 78 percent said Trump's actions after the 2020 election were legitimate efforts to ensure an accurate vote. About half or 48 percent said the indictments made them more likely to vote for Trump in 2024."

And a new poll from CNN has found that 71 percent of Republicans say Biden didn't legitimately win enough votes for the presidency. These views have held for quite some time. A May poll from Reuters Ipsos found that 25 percent of Americans blame Trump's loss to Biden on illegal voting. And yet that same poll found 54 percent of Republicans think the January 6 Day was the work of violent left wing protesters trying to make Trump look bad.

Some more data, in Georgia, the only state to bring an election related prosecution against Trump, where the former president is being charged with election interference under the state's RICO laws, a majority of likely Republican primary voters, they agree with him. This from the Atlanta Journal Constitution and the University of Georgia when asked, do you believe there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election? Sixty-one percent say yes. In that same poll, Georgia, likely Republican primary voters were asked, if they think politics played a role to indict Trump in that decision in the Peach State, 84 percent said yes, politics played a big roll.

Now two updates. First, an academic conversation has been building as to whether Donald Trump is barred from running under a constitutional clause that prohibits those who engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding higher office? To law professors spent a year looking at the issue and are opining in a forthcoming 126 page law review article at the University of Pennsylvania that the preclusion does apply. You might remember that Ned Foley, a constitutional scholar at the Ohio State University was recently my guest here making that case. There is, however, a difference of opinion among academics.

Among the impediments to the applicability is the question of whether it would apply to a former president and the lack of any judicial finding that Trump has engaged in insurrection. In fact, among the 91 counts that Trump faces, none are for insurrection or sedition. He was impeached a second time by the House of Representatives for incitement of insurrection, but he was later acquitted by the Senate. There are also constitutional issues about denying a candidate ballot access and about denying voters their say, ultimately such a case might reach the Supreme Court.

But guess who believes the 14th Amendment should not be applied? Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of States, yes, the recipient of what Trump calls a perfect phone call as in this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So, look, all I want to do is this, I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have because we won the state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[09:05:04]

SMERCONISH: That call was largely the predicate for the prosecution of Trump in Georgia. And yet, writing for The Wall Street Journal this week, Raffensperger argued the following, "Mr. Trump might win the nomination and general election. Or he could lose. The outcomes should be determined by the people who show up to make their preference known in primaries, including Georgia's on March 12 and the general election on November 5. A process that denies voters their chance to be the deciding factor in the nomination and election process would erode the belief in our uniquely American representative democracy."

Meanwhile, this week in Colorado, a progressive group filed a lawsuit to bar Trump from appearing on that state's primary ballot. The complaint was filed on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated voters by a group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Colorado Secretary of State responded that she welcomed the guidance that the litigation would bring. In most states, the Secretary of State is the chief election official who can decide if a candidate is qualified to run for president in their state.

Now, Colorado isn't the only state where there are active or potential steps to have Trump barred from running for office. Trump's lawyers responded yesterday requesting that a judge move the lawsuit to federal court because it cites a federal law, namely the 14th amendment. So, for prosecutions underway that have been to Trump's political benefit, at least in the short term, now a new challenge looms, which might have the same impact.

I want to know what you think go to my website at smerconish.com this hour and vote on this week's poll question, will the lawsuit to bar Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment help or hurt him politically? My next guest is the Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who also chairs the democratic association of Secretaries of State, she has been a sharp critic of former Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Thank you so much for being here.

So, as I referenced, Brad Raffensperger, he has your job in Georgia. He said it would be essentially un-American to remove Trump this way from the ballot. Do you agree with him?

JENA GRISWOLD, COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, not necessarily. So, I read Brad's op-ed, and it does not cite Georgia law. It does not get into the Constitution itself. And I think it's a good political take. But ultimately, if the Constitution disqualifies the former president, we have to uphold the Constitution.

So I wouldn't say Brad is right or wrong. I would say there are major constitutional questions and also questions of state law and all of us have different state law that should be considered by a court.

SMERCONISH: You know that much of this conversation springs from a forthcoming law review journal at your alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, mine too, have you read it. Do you agree with the conclusion? Are you have the opinion that Donald Trump should be precluded because of the 14th amendment?

GRISWOLD: I am of the opinion that this is a big constitutional question. Section three of the 14th Amendment clearly lays out that if someone swears to uphold the Constitution and then later engages in insurrection or rebellion or aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution, they cannot serve in office. You know, this amendment has been applied before, namely, during reconstruction when hundreds of former confederate soldiers and office holders were removed. So there are some big questions. For example, does the amendment bar someone who would be disqualified under it from running for office or just being seated in office?

Who gets to make that decision? There's also questions about how to consider such disqualification under state law. So I am a big proponent of this needs to go and be decided by courts. And that's exactly what is happening in the state of Colorado. I hope this litigation gives guidance to myself but also other secretaries of state across the nation.

SMERCONISH: What if you're called upon to exercise discretion? You've been very critical of the former president during your victory speech, referencing him stealing the presidency or attempting to do so, the use of conspiracies and lies to incite an insurrection. If it comes down to authority placed in your hands, can you be fair to him?

GRISWOLD: Absolutely. And I think being fair is considering the facts. You know, Donald Trump did incite an insurrection, he did try to steal the election from the American people. Now, that does not mean that at this point a court would determine that that is disqualifying.

And in terms of what would I do with discretion, you know, we're not quite there. On top of these big state and constitutional questions, there's also what process that has to play out. He has not even submitted his paperwork yet to get onto the ballot in Colorado. The Colorado Republican Party has not taken the steps that they need to for ballot access.

[09:10:12]

So the question is pretty mature. And what I hope is that a court will resolve some of these big outstanding questions before we get to ballot certification in December.

SMERCONISH: Quick final question.

GRISWOLD: Or not, excuse me, in January, the paperwork is in December.

SMERCONISH: Understood. Quick final question. You heard my commentary, I think I make a compelling case based on data about how each of the four indictments has been to his benefit politically, and that I anticipate this challenge will do likewise. What's your thought on that?

GRISWOLD: Honestly, this isn't about the politics for me. My job as Secretary of State is to follow Colorado law and uphold the U.S. Constitution. I do agree that there's various ways to hold someone accountable. Criminal charges are about personally holding Trump accountable for his actions and trying to steal the election and all the other actions he's taken. The American voters also will play a huge role.

They've rejected this chaos in various elections. 2018, 2020, 2022. And I'm confident that the American people will once again uphold democracy, safeguard democracy, so that -- this country continues to be one of a strong democracy going into the future.

SMERCONISH: Jena, Griswold, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.

GRISWOLD: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts hit me up on social media. I'll get to some throughout the course of the program. From the world of Twitter -- X, I should say, helps him unless by some miracle all states keep him off the ballot. MAGAs are going to vote for him regardless. Well, if he's kept off the ballot, they'll have no avenue in which to do so. But I just think the logical conclusion is that when you heard the polling data, it's stunning. Like in Georgia, there's no state in the country that has received as much attention in Georgia and yet, the Republican, likely primary voters in the Peach State are lockstep with him in his belief and assertions. So I don't know why the Colorado challenge would be viewed any differently from likely Republican voters. That's what I'm trying to bring out.

But I want you to go vote at smerconish.com. Here's the question today, will the lawsuit to bar Trump from the Colorado valid under the 14th Amendment help her hurt him politically?

Up ahead, Hurricane Lee just the latest entry into our summer of wild climate dynamics, which has included the hottest temperatures ever recorded. Even if you don't believe in climate change or don't live in the hurricane zone, you may still take a serious financial hit as a result of extreme weather. I'll explain in just a moment.

Plus, a storm of a different sort the media s kind S kind sort (ph), following Dr. Anthony Fauci his appearance here last week with me to discuss the rise of COVID and whether America will ever mask up again. The fallout was over a study from the Cochrane Library that's a globally respected independent group that did a wide ranging look on the effectiveness of masks and author of that study. The primary author is here in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:02]

SMERCONISH: Is the issue that will finally force doubters to acknowledge climate change, homeowners insurance? Having just started to dig out from Hurricane Idalia, this weekend we're tracking yet another hurricane, Lee, it's too soon to know whether it will directly impact the U.S. mainland. But also this summer of 2023 the hottest summer ever recorded and by a significant margin. Both July and August were warmer than preindustrial levels by 1.5 degrees Celsius or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Breaching a key threshold that scientists have long world warned the world must stay below to prevent the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

It's also been a record wildfire season in Canada, there's deadly flooding in Greece and yet still some not appreciating the relationship between extreme weather and climate change, including GOP presidential hopefuls Vivek Ramaswamy in the recent debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VIVEK RAMASWAMY, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let us be honest as Republicans, I'm the only person on the stage who isn't bought and paid for so I can say this, the climate change agenda --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

RAMASWAMY: -- is hoax.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is ridiculous.

RAMASWAMY: The climate change agenda is a hoax and we have to declare independence (INAUDIBLE). And the reality is --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoa, whoa, whoa.

RAMASWAMY: -- the anti-carbon agenda is the wet blanket on our economy. And so the reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Governor --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Might the free markets actually disagree? Consider Florida where disasters have pushed homeowners insurance to four times the national average with hurricanes, wildfires, floods and tornadoes leveling homes across the country. As my next guest recently reported in "The Washington Post" under the headline, Home insurers cut natural disasters from policies as climate risks grow. Some of the largest U.S. insurance companies say extreme weather has led them to end certain coverages, exclude natural disaster protections and raise premiums.

It's author, Jacob Bogage joins me now. He's a business reporter for "The Washington Post." Thank you so much for being here.

So, you know, despite extreme weather, the scientists and the politicians, they've not been able to convince some among us of the peril of climate change. But this kind of brings it home in a different way. Don't you agree?

JACOB BOGAGE, BUSINESS REPORTER, "WASHINGTON POST": Absolutely. I think that's the key takeaway here. If you don't want to listen to the scientists, it's your prerogative. If you don't like certain politicians, that's your right as an American, that the free market is going to speak to all of us and that's what we're looking at here. Major home insurers saying, hey, our businesses risk and even this is too risky for us to insure your home against certain natural disasters because of climate change.

SMERCONISH: Jacob, what coverages are they now going to exclude? What are we talking about?

BOGAGE: So we're not looking at every insurance but we are looking at five of the biggest 10 insurance, Allstate Nationwide, American Family, Berkshire Hathaway and there's another but we're on T.V., so here we go.

[09:20:12]

The -- what we're looking at is if you're in hurricane country, for example, they'll still sell you a policy in some areas, but they're not going to sell you coverage that protects you against hurricane damage. So if a pipe burst in your home, probably still insured. If you have a house fire, probably still insured. If wind from a hurricane destroys part of your roof, sorry, you're out of luck.

Same thing, if we look in wildfire country. For pipe bursts in your home, probably covered. If you have wind damage, or hail damage from a storm, probably covered. If a wildfire burns your home down or there's smoke damage to your home, probably out of luck. So that's one way --

SMERCONISH: Right. But Jacob, Jacob, the rub here -- the rub here is that if I'm the lender, right, if I'm the mortgage company, I'm going to insist that you do have that coverage or I'm not going to underwrite your loan. I want to put something on the screen from your piece. And this is for the benefit of people at home who say, well, I'm not in a high risk area, so I guess I don't have to worry.

"Insurance markets," you wrote, "especially those that serve many regions across the country rely on relatively stable risk projections when it comes to natural disasters. By balancing wildfire risk during the late spring in the Pacific Northwest with hurricanes in the early fall in the southeast and winter storms in the Upper Midwest, insurers can spread risk across constituencies in theory, providers can collect monthly premiums from a broad clientele without paying out claims on too many large scale disasters at once."

The point is, and I remember this discussion in the context of the Affordable Care Act, everybody needs to be in the pool so that the risk can be spread and dissipated, right? But ultimately, we're all going to feel the financial impact, you get the final word.

BOGAGE: You're right on the screws, Michael, and this is -- climate change -- the climate crisis is coming for all of us one way or another. When we look at home insurance, we live in a country with a broad risk pool. And so, even if I'm not affected by a disaster, my economy is going to be affected by a disaster. And in this case, it's in home insurance, where your deductible is going to go up, your premiums going to go up or it might just be harder for you to find a policy.

SMERCONISH: Jacob Bogage, thank you for writing the piece. And thank you for being here.

BOGAGE: Thank you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Some social media reaction. What do we have, Catherine (ph), on this subject? Florida had 150 hurricanes since 1850 but the last was due to climate change?

Have you not noted, B-Rad, the uptick in extreme weather that the people far more credential than yours truly attribute to climate change? And on that subject of the risk pool, it reminds me, oh, here's some buzzwords of Obamacare. It always made sense to me. The way we were able to provide coverage for those with preexisting conditions was to get everybody in the pool, including the so called young invincibles. Do you remember that discussion?

It's the same thing here. The only way that folks who are in the path of storms, repeated storms are going to be able to get coverage is if everybody else is sharing that burden. So, the point is, it impacts us all. Yes, the markets are speaking. You don't want to believe, you know, Michael Mann, the climatologist, you don't want to believe all of the data, think about what the markets now going to tell us.

On a different subject, make sure you're going to smerconish.com and answering this week's poll question. Will the lawsuit to bar Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment help or hurt him politically?

Up ahead. The convicted murderer Daniel Cavalcante, who's been on the loose here in the Philly area for 10 days may have made a pit stop in the home of my guest, who happily survived, as joining us in just a couple of minutes to tell the tale.

And last Saturday, I had Dr. Anthony Fauci here to discuss whether America would ever again mask up. Needless to say all hell broke loose when we discussed the hotly debated Cochrane Library mask study. So hopefully to lend clarity to the issue, I've invited the first author of that review, Dr. Tom Jefferson is going to join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:28:35]

SMERCONISH: The mask wars continue. It's back to school time and unfortunately back to a rise in COVID cases which means a rise in precautions which also kicked off a renewed backlash. The number one story at "The Washington Post" earlier this week was this, A few schools mandated masks conservatives hit back hard. It listed a handful of situations, one Maryland kindergarten class, one Alabama junior high school where masks were made mandatory. Even though they were the rare exception politician including presidential candidates quickly made them a lightning rod.

In response to the Maryland Elementary School, Texas Senator Ted Cruz tweeted this, "If you want to voluntarily mask, fine, but leave our kids the hell alone." Missouri Senator Josh Hawley tweeted simply, "Never again." Due to such backlash, the "Post" reported the Maryland school ended up having to boost security and hold recess indoors.

Presidential hopeful Nikki Haley said this to Fox News on Wednesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The parents can decide whether they want their children to go to school when there's a possible outbreak or not. But don't sit there and mask the backup. We're already dealing with kids dealing with stress and depression and anxiety. And these younger kids, they have to see their teacher's faces. They have to be able to know that to learn.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: A group of Senate Republicans unveiled legislation to prohibit federal mask mandates through the end of 2024 on domestic air travel, public transit and public schools. This all amidst a week long media storm about my interview here last week with Dr. Anthony Fauci about whether Americans would mask up again if the CDC -- if the CDC would recommend they do so. Here's one of our exchanges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Bret Stephens in the "Times" talked about Cochrane. Put that on the screen. "The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illness, including COVID-19, was published last month, its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is the lead author, were unambiguous. There is just no evidence that they -- masks -- make any difference."

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, FORMER CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but there are other studies, Michael, that show at an individual level for individual when you're talking about the effect on the epidemic or the pandemic as a whole, the data are less strong. But when you talk about as an individual basis of someone protecting themselves or protecting themselves from spreading it to others, there's no doubt that there are many studies that show that there is an advantage.

When you took it the broad population level like the Cochrane study, the data are less firm with regard to the effect on the overall pandemic. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about an individual's effect on their own safety. That's a bit different than the broad population level.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Within hours, all hell broke loose, Senator Rand Paul tweeted out a clip from the interview saying "Fauci admits that masks don't work for the public at large but still absurdly claims masks work on an individual basis. More Subterfuge."

Immediately after a variety of outlets piled on lending their assessment in their headline writing. "The New York Post" roasted Fauci by saying that he was a fraud and a liar after being confronted with damning studies on masks. "Newsweek" said "Fauci COVID Mask Admission Sparks Furious Backlash." "The Independent," "Dr. Fauci refutes study claiming that masks don't work as COVID concerns rise." "The Daily Mail" getting in on the action, more subterfuge from Anthony Fauci et cetera, et cetera. And, of course, "Fox News" and "Newsmax" then joined in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB SCHMITT, NEWSMAX HOST: Some do not want to let go of the panic surrounding COVID-19, including the mad scientist himself, who is on CNN over the weekend and really pushing back against so much science.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Just like the seasonal flu, scarf lady and Tony the terrible are back and circulating on air.

SEAN SPICER, HOST, THE SEAN SPICER SHOW: This exchange that Anthony Fauci had with Michael Smerconish on CNN literally -- I couldn't believe it. I say sometimes on CNN -- I'm glad they brought it up -- but the way that they let him get away with this.

GREG GUTFELD, FOX NEWS HOST: Follow the science or the follow this loser? Dr. Fauci getting confronted with a damning study on masks.

SMERCONISH: There's a perception out there by many, how many, I don't know, that they won't work.

GUTFELD: Was Smerconish actually also wearing a mask?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The flames were still being fanned Thursday by "Post" columnist Miranda Devine who wrote, masks don't work against COVID-19. Dr. Fauci should use one to gag himself.

Cochrane reports physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses was published earlier this year, an aggregate analysis of scientific studies on the efficacy of masks. Dr. Leana Wen, of the "Washington Post," has called Cochrane a highly reputable source. "Its systematic reviews are considered the gold standard of medical analysis."

So, I thought I would go to the source, the first author of the Cochrane study, and hear his side of the controversy. Dr. Tom Jefferson joins me now. He's an epidemiologist and senior associate tutor at the University of Oxford. OK.

Doctor, thank you for being here. Some quick context. The 2023 publication --

DR. TOM JEFFERSON, EPIDEMIOLOGIST/SENIOR ASSOCIATE TUTOR, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD: Good morning.

SMERCONISH: -- is actually the fifth update. You were -- you would refer to yourself, I think, as the first author. Cochrane is peer- reviewed, and this is an assessment of research by others. Meaning in this case, 78 randomized controlled trials not original research. All true?

JEFFERSON: I have to correct you, Michael, 2020 (ph) was the fourth update. The 2023 is the fifth update.

SMERCONISH: OK.

JEFFERSON: Also, you're right. There are 78 trials but that -- those are not only about masks and they're not all on COVID. In fact, there's only two on COVID. The third mentioned.

SMERCONISH: OK. I'm trying to just set the stage so that I can ask you the key question. Do masks --

JEFFERSON: Sure.

SMERCONISH; -- work, in your opinion, in stopping the spread of COVID?

JEFFERSON: Well, we have got -- as I've said we've got three SARS-CoV- 2 -- three trials on SARS-CoV-2. And none of them showed an effect. It is impossible to show that something doesn't work in this case.

[09:35:04]

And we -- science adopted a probabilistic approach. So, is it's a chance approach. Is it more likely than not?

At the moment, there is no evidence that that is the case, that they work. And which mask against which pathogen, there's hundreds of pathogens. So that's a situation.

Now earlier on, you quoted some of the -- our assessment in some of the trials. And yes, some of the trials are poor quality because they are very, very difficult studies to carry on, to carry out. Logistically, they're very difficult. And sometimes it's very difficult to get people to comply with wearing a mask or washing hands or any of the other interventions we're looking at. So, (INAUDIBLE) of what we've done.

SMERCONISH: So, I'm hoping to bring clarity to viewers because it's very hard to follow as laypeople. It sounds to me, Dr. Jefferson, as you are saying, we don't know. And by the way, when I look at the author's conclusion, and I'll put this on the screen, the author's conclusion from the most recent of these flat out says, there is uncertainty about the effects of face masks.

I don't want people to think that you're here saying they don't work. It sounds to me like you're here saying I can't tell if you they do or they don't work. But please speak for yourself.

JEFFERSON: You're correct. I can't tell you whether they work or don't work. But it's more likely than not that they don't work. OK? Based on -- this is not just against SARS-CoV-2, the COVID pathogens. We're looking at interventions over 78 trials over 50 years. The whole review is over half a million participants in these trials.

Now, the underlying problem that you got there is that people are drunk with certainty. They're told that something works, end of the story. That's not science. What science is about is likely or unlikely to work or we can't find any evidence of it. So, the problem now is communication.

SMERCONISH: But when you say -- but, Dr. Jefferson, when -- Dr. Jefferson, when you opine that in your opinion it's more likely than not that they don't work, that then puts you at odds. And herein lies the confusion with the editor in chief. Put this on the screen.

Karla Soares-Weiser, the editor in chief of the Cochrane Library says -- quote -- "Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that masks don't work, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing helped to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive."

Do you disagree with her statement? JEFFERSON: Dr. Soares-Weiser appears to be apologizing for the misconceptions and misquotes of third parties which is extraordinary. If I had a pound or a dollar for every time I've been misquoted, I'd be in the Bahamas. I wouldn't be speaking to you. Sunning myself in my huge villa.

Being misquoted and misunderstood, unfortunately, and being also in a political forum like this which is not my natural habitat, I don't -- you know, this has become political. You see, the first four iterations -- the first three iterations of the review went completely unremarked. Apart from the 2020 -- the 2020 update and the 2023 updates, they started getting attention simply because masks have become political. So, this is a political menu. I can only tell you what the science is -- reliable science shows with all its limits, what I've just told you. I can't make up stuff.

SMERCONISH: It puts the public -- look -- OK. I understand that. I guess, I would just say this. It puts those members of the public, I include myself, in a very awkward spot. Because on one hand, someone is going to hear this conversation and say, I heard the first author of the Cochrane study say that in his opinion, it's more likely than not that they don't work.

And then somebody else is going to say, well, yes, but wait a minute, the editor in chief of that very same publication and library has a totally different interpretation. And then the left and right will seize upon which element suits their political interest.

You get the final word. But it has got to be just 30 seconds.

[09:40:01]

JEFFERSON: Yes. OK. It's a political menu. It's a political football. It has got nothing to do with science, isn't it? You just described it.

The Cochrane hierarchy has done other things that we will -- in the public (INAUDIBLE) trust the evidence and systematically undermine both the 2020 and the 2023 work. All 12 of us. So, that's my final word.

Now, if your viewers are so interested in finding an answer, they should put pressure on those in power to conduct good quality trials, good quality studies to find an answer and to diminish, decrease the uncertainty that I just described.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Jefferson, thank you. I appreciate your being here.

JEFFERSON: Thanks, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Checking in on social media reaction which I'm told there is a ton just quickly. No, people are not going to mask up again in 2023, 2024. It was hard enough -- well, Ryan, there's the one certainty that I have about all of this. Because there's enough fodder, enough grist for the mill here for people to take away whatever they want to take away. They're going to continue to go on believing whatever they're inclined to do so probably because of their media outlet or politician of choice and that's a shame.

Still to come, the convicted murderer who escaped a Pennsylvania county jail has been on the run for 10 days. Four hundred officers are after him. But my next guest says he had his own run in in his kitchen. What happened when he realized the intruder was the convict.

And please make sure you're going to Smerconish.com and voting on the poll question -- I'd say this week's poll question. There's a poll question every day at Smerconish.com. Today's happens to be, will the lawsuit to bar Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment help or hurt him politically?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:46:06]

SMERCONISH: What would you do if an escaped murderer showed up in your house? My next guest thinks he had that unique experience last week. Today, day 10 of the manhunt for Danelo Cavalcante, convicted last month of first-degree murder in the 2021 killing of his ex-girlfriend, stabbing her nearly 40 times in front of her children. Cavalcante who is 34 was sentenced to life but before his transfer to state prison on August 31st at about 9:00 in the morning he escaped from the Chester County jail about 30 miles west of Philadelphia by crab walking between two walls of the roof. He ran across the roof, scaled another fence and then got through more razor wire.

Neither the tower guard overlooking the prisoners nor the person tasked with monitoring the facility's cameras saw the escape as it happened. The tower guard, an 18-year veteran, he was fired yesterday. By Friday, nearly 400 local state and federal officers were scouring an eight square mile stretch of woods near an area called Longwood Gardens, where Cavalcante was seen around noon on Thursday, one of the eight or nine reported sightings that were deemed credible by authorities.

You're about to hear a one-of-a-kind tale about one such sighting last Friday evening about a mile and a half from the county prison. Ryan Drummond joins me now. Ryan, thank you for being here.

Paint the picture. It's last Friday night. It's close to midnight. You're home. You're in bed. Wife is in bed. Kids are in bed. What happened?

RYAN DRUMMOND, ENCOUNTERED ESCAPED MURDERER IN HIS HOUSE: Thanks for having me on. Yes, so Friday, we were -- even before we went to bed, we were all out in the deck, you know, enjoying our Friday. And we were locking up the house, because we knew that there was a prisoner on the loose. And we have this old French door that was off the side of our deck. And I really struggled to get it locked. And my daughter was very concerned.

I said, don't worry. He's probably nowhere near here. And, of course, why would he ever come to this door?

So, we end up going to sleep. I hear a noise at around 11:30. I walked out of the bedroom. And from my bedroom, I can look down so -- look down towards the living room and the kitchen is off to the side.

And I thought I heard a noise. I went back to my wife and I said, hey, I don't want to freak you out but I think there might be somebody downstairs, grab your phone.

I went back out. I saw that the door was slightly ajar. That's when my stomach dropped. I ran down the hallway to make sure all my kids were accounted for.

And when I came back, I could start to hear, you know, a little bit of shuffling. So, I grabbed any kind of weapon that I could and ironically the only thing that I had there was a picture frame of my wife -- a picture frame of my wife and kids. And when I grabbed it, I did like a frisbee motion. I should go over the head and -- in that moment, I realized how ridiculous this is. Here we have this a guy who is a murderer surrounded by steak knives, because we did have steak that night.

And I looked to my left and saw the light switch and decided to flick the light switch on and off, three or four times. There was a little bit of a pause. And then he flicked the light switch back at me from the kitchen. So, that was kind of the acute moment of terror.

I turn to my wife. I said, he's downstairs, call 911 right now. And at that point, there was a little bit of a pause. And you know, I wasn't sure if he was going to come up the steps. In which I would -- you know, have to go down and there would be a confrontation. And in that moment, I saw him walk out of the kitchen into the living room, not even running, just kind of walking methodically.

He had a white shirt, white bag, white hat and he went out that French door. And by that time, I was on phone with the police and they arrived moments later.

SMERCONISH: Ryan, real quickly because I'm limited on time. Do you think that he was signaling to you, stay where you are and nobody gets hurt? Is that what you interpreted that flick of the switch to be?

DRUMMOND: I do. I do. I mean, I flicked to let him know I know you're downstairs. And I feel like he was flicking back going, yes, I'm here.

[09:50:02]

So, I think you're right there, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Ryan, a lot of local businesses -- quick final thought. This has been devastating for local businesses that have had to close. You've got one top of mind. What is it?

DRUMMOND: Karco. We have gas station, convenience store. There's not a lot around here so they -- he stayed open. He supported the cops. He has given them Gatorades. Let them use the air conditioning as refuge. And he has lost, you know, at this point nine days of customers. And --

(CROSSTALK) SMERCONISH: What a shame.

DRUMMOND: -- local. Yes. Hope they can support him.

SMERCONISH: Good message. What a hell of a story. Thank you for being here to tell it. We appreciate it.

DRUMMOND: All right, thank you.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments, and we'll give you the result of this week's poll question from Smerconish.com. Still time to go vote. Will the lawsuit to bar Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment help or hurt him politically?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:22]

SMERCONISH: All right, here's the result of today's poll question. Wow, very close. Will the lawsuit to bar Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment help or hurt him politically? More than 26,000 have voted and it's 51/49. Shall was say within the margin of error?

Quickly, social media reaction. We will leave the poll up. You can keep voting if you haven't yet voted.

Please stop your crusade against Biden. We all know your aim is to promote Trump through stealth.

You've given me more -- Rajiv, you're giving me more credit than I deserve. I'm just not that sophisticated. I'm really not.

The commentary today was an analysis of whether these continued efforts to bring down Trump legally speaking are actually helping him. And that was the dialogue that I had with the secretary of state of the great state of Colorado.

Hit up Smerconish.com. Vote on the poll question. Remember September 11th, on Monday, the 22nd anniversary. I'll see you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)