showed? >> yeah, because we don't have all the video, you know, nothing's conclusive. we do see at one point an officer pointing a gun in her general direction, but we don't see any officer pointing a gun within 6 inches of her face, which she also claims. so, it shows that the officers were outside for several minutes waiting for her to come to the door. that's what it shows. and it shows they were polite to her when she came out. >> drew griffin. thank you very much. and thanks to all of you. anderson starts now. on november 9th, two days after the election was called the record joe biden. what's the down side for humoring him for this little bit of time, the official asked. no one seriously thinks the results will change. tonight after multiple recounts in multiple stapts after dozens and dozens of failed court channels, tonight we know. the results have not changed.

but there is a down side. this was never about what the president thinks. it's about what he would do. tonight here's what this vein and selfish man who has never honestly demonstrated the ability to put his country before himself is now doing. he is now all in on what he's billing as the big one, a supreme court challenge led by texas pitting state against state, not to mention fantasy and junk science versus facts. >> president donald trump deserves his day in court, the supreme court. and all i can say is god bless texas. >> do you think he practices that? i think he does. the vice president in georgia today, a state that certified joe biden the victor after counting the vote three times, a state with a republican governor and republican election officials all of whom said their election was free and fair. texas attorney general ken paxton is now asking the supreme court to invalidate the votes there, all of them, along with

all the ballots cast in michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin. 18 other republican-controlled states have signed on to this effort. and today more than 100 house republicans got in on it too. following their own amicus brief including ohio congressman jim jordan. >> president trump wins 19 of the 20 bellwether counties around the country, increases his vote with hispanic americans, african-americans, but somehow joe biden who hung out in his basement, who would have a rally and get 55 people when the president would have a rally and get 55,000 people, somehow joe biden gets 80 million votes and wins and gets 12 million more votes than barack obama did. nothing squares with what we know and historically what's happened. >> nothing squares with what we know. congressman jordan is powdering words for word words expressed in the president's brief in the case which said, quote, won 18

of the country's 19 bellwether counties, counties who historically go for the candidate who wins the election, which is also true, but completely irrelevant. for years texas, most of the south, solidly democratic and then it wasn't. that's called voting. that's what happens. and that's what happens when a lot of people vote. and a lot of people voted. the brief also cites president trump's nearly 75 million votes as a record for any incumbent president. yeah, okay. it doesn't mention president-elect biden's more than 81 million votes. nor does it mention the massive turnout for people trying to get trump out of office. 32% of biden's more than 81 million voters said their ballot was a vote against trump. and republicans further down the ticket, by the way, including congressman jordan did just fine. you only hear congressman jordan raising the issue of fraud in his election. he seems fine.

he won. the president didn't win. the brief also claims that no candidate has lost the election after winning ohio and florida as the president did. that's actually false. richard nixon won both in 1960 but lost to john kennedy. the lawsuit itself cites a dubious statistical analysis which the president's defenders have, of course, seized upon lately. >> for president trump to be ahead as far as he was at 3:00 a.m. in these four states and for the vote to swing by as much as it did, the probability of that in one state is 1 in 1 quadrillion. that's 1, comma, 15 zeros to. happen in all four, it's 1, comma, 15 zeros to the fourth power. >> 1, comma, 15 zeros to the power -- that's the county jailly that's assuming the votes would have been exactly the same

z the ones cast election day. we know they weren't. democrats voted heavily by mail in absentee ballot as was discussed for months because the president was railing about that. and in pennsylvania, the last ballots came from heavily democratic counties. the president is arguing he won because he was winning before all the votes were counted. so, that's idiotic, no? i mean, yes? yeah. idiotic. but that is what he is saying. >> the alleged biden margin of victory in several states in entirely accounted for by extraordinarily large midnight vote dumps. you saw them, going up to the sky. all extremely skewed to biden. >> hm, midnight vote dumps. sounds suspicious. but maybe one of the reasons those ballots were counted so late was that

republican-controlled legislatures made it illegal to count them early. yeah. that's not even the lamest argument the president is making. here's what he tweeted just yesterday. at 10:00 p.m. on election evening we were at 97% win with a so-called bookies. i mean, the implication is a bunch of vegas touts tell him it's a sure thing. how could he lose? i suppose from a guy who went broke running casinos or trying to run them or running them into the ground, this may make sense. or maybe he was citing the landmark case, house v. suckers. in any case, one state can challenge the way another state runs its elections? texas republican senator john cornyn said he's struggling to understand the legal theory. i think there's a lot of folks who are struggling to understand the legal theory. in its brief today, pennsylvania

called the texas lawsuit a seditious abuse of the judicial process. and here's what republican congressman adam kinzinger had to say about what the president and his supporters are doing. >> it puts the country in a very dangerous moment in time. what have we taught our children about politics? that it's a noble pursuit or that to win is everything and tweeting and yelling the loudest is the path to victory. we've tribe liezed and dehumanized. >> he began those remarks by saying, quote, repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. the president in the meantime, he's doing just that, over and over again. tweeting today, quote, most corrupt election in history by far. we won. there's no evidence that's true because it's not true. and millions of his followers believe it. and that is sad. the president's brief cites this as a reason the supreme court should rule in their favor. that gets the nub of that.

it's a circular argument, fanning mistrust as evidence. you've got states and citizens at each others' throats. >> when you have more than a third of the electorate that thinks it's a problem, that is not a healthy situation. >> yeah. we can agree with that. sure. yeah, that's not a healthy situation. but who's made those people feel this way? it's the president of the united states. and mr. darden there. especially when that belief is false. so, yes, it's upsetting that so many people believe it, but it is false. and that's just the way it is. it's even worse when a person spreads those falsehoods and exploits those falsehoods in a desperate attempt to overturn the election he lost. there's no chance this latest

strategy to overturn the election will work. but he presses on regardless. he's still making money on this. it's been a huge boone for him. i understand the financial motive. what, other than the financial motive, would be the goal in continuing to pursue this? and is anyone around the president -- i think i know the answer to this -- pushing back on him at this point at all? >> there are some people who have, anderson at various points. but for the most part, his circle has gotten incredibly small. there are very few people he's talking to or listening to. and many people are enabling him in his desire to push ahead with something that both would overthrow the will of the people and would tattoo joe biden in some way in his hopes as some questionable president. and those are his goals. this is somebody who has spent decades suing every problem that came into his life as a way of handling things. he takes everything to the courts. this is the one time he has found something he can't sue,

except he's trying to show that he can. and there's no precedent for this. most legal experts don't anticipate the supreme court will hear this case and they do not anticipate it being successful. but the president at this point just sees this rolling on. he has had support and it's an important point. it's not just the number of states that have signed on, which is less surprising, given how republican attorneys general have sutuck together. but a quarter of house members signed on for this. more republican house members are supporting it than republican house members who aren't. and he is trying to do a show of force with this. that should say something pretty stark to people about the president's grip on his party. this is about power and trying to exert his will and raise questions about biden. that's it. >> it also says something about the spinelessness of the members of congress. what is the mood in the white house? i mean, is -- president trump basically seems to be out of

sight, tweeting lies about the election, not really talking about all the americans who are dying on his watch in record numbers. what is he doing? what is it like in there? do you have a sense? >> yeah, it's grim. i was serious. i know we have way overdone the trough he's isolated over the last four years. he is very isolated at this point. people are avoiding the oval office because they don't want to tell him they disagree with him or they don't want to be yelled at. his mood is dark, snappish. he is in the word of several add view sors over the job. he doesn't feel like doing it anymore. yet he is sowing enormous distrust in the company in the an effort to keep the job. that goes back to what you asked early on. what is this about? it's about delegitimizing biden.

>> the attorney is reporting directly to president trump. what do you know about why he was hired and what his role is? is he just one of the few people who's willing to embarrass themselves and go to court in something like this? and how does ted cruz play into this? >> you answered your own question. he is willing to do what the president ask asking which most of the legal community would not be willing to do. president trump called ted cruz on tuesday night, the senator, asked if this case gets to the supreme court, would he conduct the oral argument on the president's behalf? senator cruz said, yets, we're still aways from that. this obviously has not been agreed to be heard by the supreme court. cruz is one of the few republican senators who is openly embracing this. most texas lawmakers in the suit

originated with the texas attorney general. most texas lawmakers or texas public officials or many of them, anyway, are saying there's no legal basis for this suit. this has nothing going for it. but it has become a witness test about feelty to this president. >> the lawsuit is also pitting various states against each other. you have 19 states attorneys general supporting the suit to invalidate millions of votes. the states targeted by the suit filed briefs in the supreme court pushing back. pennsylvania called the effort a seditious abuse of the judicial process. the white house seems to be all on board with this. they're fine with this even though they're supposedly a big believer in states rights. >> you raise an important point. republicans portray themselves as the party of state rights. this is one state trying to invalidate millions of votes in four swing states, four battleground states. you know, this is definitionally

not respecting the rights of other states. and what they're trying to argue, the case they're making has had no basis that any court has found plausible or validated any of the lower courts. >> yeah, probably would have made it easier for ted cruz to say, yeah, sure, i'll argue this when he goes to the supreme court knowing it is unlikely to get to the supreme court. >> i think it was cause free. >> exactly. thank you. perspective from two cnn political commentators, rick santorum. senator santorum, do you think the people supporting this, the attorneys general, members of congress, president's allies believe this, particularly the members of congress because it seems incredibly intellectually dishonest? >> here's what i believe. i believe that there are lots of legitimate grounds to protest this election. if you look at the state of georgia, for example, the state chairman down there, david shaffer, instead of jumping into

bed with rudy giuliani and sidney powell actually did the homework, which is looking at how many people who voted weren't registered to vote. how many people moved out of the state. how many people were felons. how many people were dead. go through the numbers and see whether there's enough votes there of people who didn't vote legally to overturn the election. and he put a very compelling case together. but you don't hear anything about it because you have all these, what i consider to be, you know, the giuliani, powell, lynnwood, these people out there sowing these conspiracy theories that make no sense at all or running with statistics that have nothing to do with the way this election was conducted. to me, they're complete rabbit holes that are driving people down it. in pennsylvania, was the election conducted overall? yes, but there were places it was not. we lost a senate seat in pennsylvania because the county

decided to count ballots that didn't have a divot. >> let me check for a second. your argument seems to be that you have uncovered a guise, really uncovered the fraud and nobody's listening because all the rudy giuliani gets all the oxygen in the room. i mean, if there was a valid case, you're telling me that the president wouldn't have jumped on this guy -- >> he's on the suit. no, he's joined the suit. and he's on it, and it's going to be heard before the court. and i would say based on the numbers that i've looked at and they're laid out there, there's probably 7 or 8,000 solid votes there that are pretty clear that these are people who should not have voted. >> there have been three recounts in georgia. they've certified the votes three times. so, you're saying they've gotten it wrong. >> they certified the count versus what the paper count was versus what the machine count was. that's not looking at whether the people were actually

authorized to vote. they don't do that. and that's the job of the party or the candidate to do that. in the case of georgia, the state chairman there did that job, and he's come up with a very substantial number and i would enyourj you to get him on your show. he'll walk through it. are they going to win? i don't know. but there certainly are in pennsylvania and all these other states, there are legitimate cases to be made. in the case of georgia there's only about 11,000 difference, 81,000 in pennsylvania. >> all right. paul. >> that's just sad. it's sad. look. i think what's going on in georgia is that there's two senate races coming up january 5th. and republican strategists can't dare cross trump because they're worried trump supporters won't turn out on january 5th. back on texas, by the way, the rumor mill is ken paxton who's under indictment for state securities fraud investigation is facing fbi federal investigation into allegations

from seven of his top aides that he committed bribery and misuse of office. the word back home is he's angling for a pardon. the problem with what rick is saying, it damages our faith in democracy. the acid test of democracy is to concede when you lost. i never told you this story. november 8th, 1994. i was a guy. i was the guy that handed the phone to senator wofford. it was santorum. we lost. we lost by 87,000 votes in 1994. you won by 87,000 votes and harris wofford conceded to you because he was a patriot first and partisan second. joe biden won by 81,000. that's a santorum level victory. so, the notion that you or anybody else can contest it, it's really destructive to our democracy, rick, it is. >> i'm not suggesting that the votes are there in pennsylvania to overturn the election. i'm not suggesting that at all.

i'm suggesting georgia it's possible because the -- if you read, it's significant. it's possible that the court could make that case. my point is that's the way you make the case. and they have not been making that case. they've been using -- anderson, i didn't really disagree with anything you said in your monologue because to me it had nothing to do with what i would consider garden variety irregularities or cheating or people not following the law, which is where most of these irregularities take place. >> rick, the garden variety, that is not what the president is alleging. the president is alleging this massive rigging thing and 100 folks in congress are going along with it. legal experts of all political stripes. this suit has -- the texas suit has no chance of succeeding. just hypothetically say the supreme court does rule in favor of texas. then what happens? have you heard anyone realistically offer a path forward from there? you believe in states rights. the idea that -- does texas have

the right to disenfranchise voters in michigan and pennsylvania and georgia? >> well, the argument is that it's a federal constitutional issue, and therefore the states have a right to -- >> everyone loves states rights until it means holding up states rights and then they're all for federal stuff. >> i'm just telling you what the argument is, that they believe -- i'm not saying i agree with that argument, and i don't think the court will agree with that argument. but what they do in that case is they do lay out a lot of what i would consider very boring garden variety irregularities that i think need to be cleaned up across this country if we're going to have confidence in our elections again. >> boring garden variety irregularities, those occur in all elections. a human makes a mistake. there have now been three certifications in georgia. and in some cases vote talleys have shifted a tiny amount in one way or another, in some

cases in favor of biden more. but again these are tiny garden variety irregularities. that is not what is being alleged, which is potentially tearing apart the entire trust of half of the electorate. >> the georgia vote has been counted. it's been recounted. it's been canvassed. it's been hand counted. it's been audited. and it has been certified by a trump supporting secretary of state and trump supporting governor. it is over. it is what monty python would call a dead parrot. the trump candidacy is over. i think they're trying to juice their vote for this run off. i think it's really destructive of our democracy. they're telling good people, honorable people, that somehow something was stolen from them. and the remedy they're seeking is to throw out 20,492,401 votes across four states.

that's preposterous. you're going to tell 20 million americans that they're not allowed to participate in picking their president because texas doesn't like it. they will be laughed out of the courts. i'm not worried about it being effective as a constitutional or legal strategy. i'm terribly worried about destroying people's faith in our democracy. there are a lot of good people who look to and listen to trump and rick santorum and others. and they have to be told the truth. and the truth is their guy lost. >> i just want to make one final point, anderson, if i can. the fact that it's been recounted is not the point of the lawsuit. the georgia secretary of state did not look at whether people who were dead voted. he didn't look at 4,500 people who moved and registered in other states who then voted in the state of georgia. those were -- no one in a recount looks at those things. those are the irregularities. they have nothing to do with the recount. they have everything to do with who was qualified to vote and how those votes were counted. >> thanks very much.

coming up next, what happens now that the fda's advisory panel has voted to recommend authorization of the first covid vaccine in this country. and bernie sanders on the fight to provide economic relief as millions face grim future this holiday season. some hot cocoa? mom, look! are you okay? head home this holiday with the one you love. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer today for exceptional lease and financing offers at the mercedes-benz winter event.

>>oh my gosh you made it! ♪ did you put some ah, kale in the greens? ♪ we didn't forget about you! welcome to the family. thank you. wooooow. ♪ the light at the end of the tunnel may have just gotten a little brighter. an fda advisory panel recommended emergency use authorization for pfizer's covid

vaccine. again a bright light but the darkest tunnel. another 2,700 deaths reported today so far. that is on top of more than 3,100 yesterday. in other words, two 9/11-size casualty counts in two days. joining us now is dr. leana wen. now the fda advisory committee has authorized emergency use, what happens next? >> first of all what happened today is monumental. the fact we are about to get a vaccine that looks to be safe and 95% effective, that's really incredible. and i also think it's great that this -- the advisory panel met in public. i mean, everybody was able to watch the proceedings. we have all the data. so, that transparency the key. what happens next is the fda is going to be granting emergency use authorization authoritily.

this could happen tomorrow and within 24 hours of that, there will be more than 6 million doses of this vaccine going out to states. we could see shots in arms being given next week. >> and members of the committee voted yes. one abstained. four voted no. do you know why those four voted no? >> yes. i follow this pretty close. i think it's important for people to know that in general everyone was very enthusiastic about the safety and efficacy data for adults. but the way that the question was framed was do you support emergency use authorization for 16 years old and up? and there were some people who disagreed with the idea of 16 and 17 years old being included because they thought these are individuals who tend to not get as sick as older people and there's insufficient data, they thought for 16 and 17 years old. think we should take this in context and recognize that emergency use authorization does mean there are still questions that remain to be answered but overall this is a highly safe and effective vaccine.

>> you were listening for two key points today. should pregnant women receive the vaccine and which groups are warned not to receive the vaccine? what did you learn? >> so, there were a lot of questions raised and i think a lot more questions than answers, which actually may be okay because what i was listening for was i did not want for pregnant women to be excluded from the group that could receive the vaccine. and what i mean is that pregnant women were not initially included in the phase three trial. so, we really don't know about the safety for pregnant and postpartum and breast feeding women. the issue though is that we have 330 health care workers who are pregnant or postpartum. while we're beginning to get some data from the trials of women who got pregnant during the trials, we still don't really know. but at the same time, you don't want to be excluding pregnant women from the benefits of the trial. you may have, for example, an icu nurse, a preps toir

therapist who's at very high risk. i was hoping the fda committee was not going to say don't allow pregnant women to have this choice because that should be a decision she makes between her and her doctor. >> do you know what you would decide if you were pregnant wlr, where you would take it or not? >> see, it's really tough, and i think this is why it needs to be tailored to the individual circumstance. if you are a woman who can easily keep social distancing, you can work from home, you don't need to be around others who have high risk, then you should not be taking this vaccine because in that case, the risks of the unknown risks of the vaccine may outweigh the benefit. on the other hand, if you are in a very high risk profession and you would otherwise have high risk, for example, maybe you have obesity and diabetes and are otherwise at high risk for having severe effects from coronavirus, maybe you do take it in that case. but having that option is important. >> can you explain in layman's terms what the vaccine does and

does not do in terms of immunity and transmission? that seems like a big question. >> it really is because anderson, what we know about this vaccine is the primary end point is it measures what it -- it measures reducing symptomatic illness, meaning that it prevents you pr from getting severely ill. it prevents out from having symptoms of coronavirus which is really important. we want to prevent somebody from getting so ill that they're hospital lieds or die from coronavirus. what we do not know is whether it prevents you from contracting covid-19 in the first place. maybe you could catch coronavirus. you could be an asymptomatic carrier and still transmit to others. it's important to know that even after you get the vaccine, they should still be wearing a mask. they should still be social distancing. they may be protected themselves, but maybe they can still transmit it to others. >> how will -- when we will know if somebody actually -- if the vaccine enables somebody to resist getting infected? is that -- i assume they don't

do experiments where people have the vaccine are purposely infected. >> right. and so that's something that we'll know only by observation over time. and that is one of the things that's going to be studied. but so many other things need to be studied too, including about allergic reactions, including children. so, i think we should see this emergency use authorization as the first of many steps but a really important step because there are 2,000, 3,000 people dying every day. so, there is going to be a massive societal benefit from getting this vaccine out very quickly too. >> dr. wen, appreciate it. what lies ahead with the vaccine. joining us dr. chris murray, director of the university of washington. dr. murray, your new model shows that a half million americans may die from covid by april 1st. it's actually down just slightly from last week but still catastrophic. what accounts for the slight decrease? >> well, what we're seeing, anderson, is this leveling off

of hospitalizations and cases in a whole number of midwestern states. and at the same time, california's shooting up, oregon, washington, new york, unanimously nj a new jersey and a number of other places going up. so, that leveling off in the midwest has brought our forecast down. and then the other thing that's brought it down is that the news from the fda filing by pfizer that just after one dose of the vaccine you get 50% protection. so, that moves up the benefits of the scale-up of vaccine. >> and today obviously was, as dr. wen was saying, a huge day when it comes to the vaccine. people receiving it. i know i asked you this almost every time. but how many lives would be saved if, you know, more people

wear masks? >> well, 56,000 could be saved if we could get mask use up. we're making progress on masks. we're up to about 72% of the nation. >> oh really? that high? >> but if we can get to 56,000 lives. >> i think at times when we have talked over the last eight or nine months or so, it was in the 45% range sometimes. >> no, it's been going up, which is really good news. and we're hoping [ inaudible ]. >> i'm sorry, the audio obviously is cutting out. we appreciate dr. murray's time. coming up next, the president wants credit for the vaccine. the question is what does trump country really think about it?

♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. with zero down, zero due at signing, d'shea: i live in south jamaica, born and raised.

i'm a doordasher, i'm a momma with a special needs child, she is the love of my life. doordash provides so much flexibility. if something happens with her, where i need to be home, i can just log out and just say "okay, my family needs me." i don't have to answer to nobody. i don't want to be nobody's employee. i do what i want, i'm independent. independent lady. that's what i like about it.

as the nation appears on the first night of launching coronavirus vaccine, there are places in the country where

resistance to any inoculations is paramount. one place is in ural tennessee where a pastor is denying the existence of the pandemic itself. >> news of imminent vaccines comes just as covid-19 surges through rural parts of the country. and the political debate is as heated as ever. >> i don't wear a mask when i go in anywhere. >> reporter: we wanted to know if the same resistance to masks would happen to the vaccine. we reached out to greg locke, a pastor in tennessee, whoes grown his congregation by protesting covid control measures. >> there's a lot of sincere people that are doing their best to put out a vaccine, but that doesn't mean i'm going to take it. i don't believe the government is going to tell me when or how i can stick a needle in my arm or my kid's arms. >> reporter: locke says he's moved services outdoors not to limit the spread of covid but to handle all the new people who

came. >> faith over fear. i ain't worried about some fake pandemic. >> i'm not saying the sickness is real. i'm saying the pandemic is not. >> i don't understand what you mean when you say the pandemic is not real. >> the pandemic is not real. >> reporter: what do you think a pandemic is? >> not covid-19. >> reporter: but what do you think a pandemic is? >> i think you're stuck on the pandemic question. >> reporter: why can't you answer it? >> there's no pandemic. covid-19 is not a pandemic. >> reporter: but what is a pandemic then? >> not what we're experiencing. i'm 44 years old. we've not had one in my lifetime so i don't know. this is not it. >> reporter: to be clear a pandemic is a disease that spreads across many countries and affects many people. the world health organization declared covid-19 a pandemic in march. experts say about 70% of people need to get the vaccine to control covid spread. >> it's not been tested enough. we don't know what's going to happen with it later on. it may help now but in the

future it could cause more harm to your body. >> that's not, antivaccination, it's personally a choice. >> reporter: some people told us they'd seen locke on facebook and liked his message. >> donald trump won the election by a landslide and he will be reelected as the president of the united states. >> reporter: we wanted to know how widespread his views are, so we drove deeper into wilson county where there's a covid testing site at the fairgrounds. we met quinton smith who runs agricultural center there. >> you don't go to a fairgrounds where anybody is as proud of their bathrooms as i am. i'm cautious about anybody. i think everybody's excited about there being a vaccine, but i think it's going to be kind of everybody waiting around and watching the first responders and the nursing home folks and if there's any reaction to it. let me tell you what my daddy

always told me, son, don't never believe anything you hear and only half what you say. >> i think it's entirely human to be a little skeptical and a little hesitant. after all, this is a new virus and the human population, this vaccine use us in technology. it's been developed very rapidly, and that makes people cautious. >> reporter: based on interviews and recent polling, pastor locke speaks to an outspoken minority. republicans are less likely than democrats to see covid as a major threat to public health but also that there's a growing acceptance of the vaccinationwide, including among republicans. 60% of americans say they would take it and nearly half of those who are reluctant say it's possible they would get it after others do so. dr. william schaffner who's been working on infectious diseases at vanderbilt since the '60s says in order to overcome vaccine hesitancy, public health officials have to build trust.

>> you have to respect people. you have to respect where they're coming from, hear what they say and then try to respond to their concerns. >> you know, we give shots to cows all the time. and you do get reactions to shots. so, you know, we have give a shot to an animal and it walk out there 20 feet out of shoot and drop dead. everybody's gone respond differently. >> after the first responders take it, when it's your turn, will you take the vaccine? >> i'll probably go on and take the vaccine. >> reporter: how do you feel about the vaccine? >> anything new that has not been proven, i'm not sure i want to be the guinea pig, you know. i really wish there was time for more testing, but there's not. and we're losing too many people too fast. so, we have got to do what we can. i know it's become a political issue at times, but it shouldn't be. this is a health issue. >> the approach to covid has had substantial political overtones. people have attitudes about this, and it will not be easy to

change those attitudes. >> are you going to tell the member of your congregation not to get the vaccine? >> members of my congregation can do what they want to, but they'll watch my videos and know that i'm not getting it. >> so, you expect them to model your behavior? >> i expect them to use their bible and use their brain. >> reporter: cnn, wilson county, tennessee. our next guest can speak to the second of those two items, spent a career working and defeating infectious disease, william haseltine. "my life long fight against disease." great to see you again. you hear people talking about not getting the vaccine. can you talk about what that would mean for everybody if a sizable chunk of the population does not get it? >> well, what we're hoping from a vaccine, of course, is that not only it protects the people who are unvaccinated but it stamps out the virus because it can't jump from one person to

another because there's not enough uninfected people to get to. and that virus then will pretty much tamp down, at least for a while. that's what we're hoping for. that's about 70% to 80%. but there are a lot of variables. the best way to look at this is to say if we're going to get the kind of immunity we need, we need to do two things. we need to control the infection through public health measures, masks, social distancing, limitations on travel and gatherings together with the vaccine. now, how many people need to be protected depends on how big the infection is. it's like a forest fire. how many firefighters you need depends on how big the fire is. the more people that are infected like there are in the united states, the longer and harder it's going to be to get herd immunity. you get immunity that makes this virus really tamp down. >> and given that we don't even know if somebody who gets the vaccine, if that makes them,

makes it impossible for them to get infected or if it just makes the symptoms so little that it's manageable. if they can still get infected and still spread it, then even with the vaccine, the idea of herd immunity -- i mean -- >> well, it's a complicated question, anderson because the polio vaccine doesn't necessarily stop vaccine. it's just very good at stopping people getting sick. and that has really eliminated polio pretty much. the flu vaccines don't stop people from spreading the flu, but they have some effect on modulating the flu. so, there's really a whole series of factors. does it stop transmission? how long does the vaccine last? what fraction of people get infected? and how long is their immunity? those are questions that are going to get answered. but we don't know those answers now. so, the best strategy forward is to get as many people vaccinated as possible and to observe as

many public health measures as possible. and there's another very big question. if as much as 20 or 30 people decide not to take the vaccine, adults, then it's going to be up to children. and you have to remember that those children can't take a vaccine unless their parents tell them it's okay to take the vaccine until they get permission. so, we will need probably because it's very likely 20% of people will resist. we need to begin to test whether that vaccine works in children that do spread the disease to adults. and that's going to take even longer. so, i think the bottom line of this is we need both public health measures, we need vaccination measures and even together given the magnitude of this pandemic it's going to take a long time to get this thing back in the bottle. >> officer haseltine, a appreciate your time. more breaking news, millions of americans facing the end of unemployment benefits the end of this month, congress still at a stand still over the passage of a second round of relief.

i'll speak to bernie sanders about why he is demanding a vote.

♪ ♪ i got it all from you ♪ i'm always pushing through ♪ i know we'll make it to the finish line ♪ ♪ i know you're waiting on the other side ♪ ♪ i'm like you on-demand glucose monitoring. because they're always on. another life-changing technology from abbott. so you don't wait for life. you live it. as the pfizer vaccine moves

closer to reality there's breaking news tonight out of capitol hill about the negotiatings yeas over relief for tens of millions of americans suffering economically because of the pandemic. bernie sanders is dmanemanding vote on a proposal for a second round of checks. are you willing to let the government shutdown if you don't see movement on stimulus checks? >> nobody wants to see the government shut down but i think it would be outrageous and simply unacceptable for members of congress to go home to their families when tens of millions of working class families in this country are facing economic desperation, they don't have the food to feed their kids, they're worried about being evicted, they can't afford health care, they have no income. we have got to address that, and i intend to do everything i can to make sure that we do. >> would shutting down the government, would it -- would it get anything? would it achieve -- >> nobody --

>> anderson, nobody wants to shut down the government. but i think the american people want their government to respond to the terrible crises that they are facing today. you just can't walk away from that. so no one wants to shut down the government. but the government is going to have to respond. we are in an emergency situation. and it would be absolutely reckless and irresponsible to ignore the pain that so many people are feeling. i always get amazed, anderson, when wars come about we have trillions of dollars to spend on wars. we have trillions of dollars to give away in corporate welfare, tax breaks to billionaires, large corporations, but when it comes to the children of this country going hungry, working people facing evictions, suddenly we just can't act. that's unacceptable. that is unacceptable. and if it means that my colleagues and i don't leave washington during the christmas break and nobody wants to get out of here more than i, but i

think that's what we have to look at. we've got to act. >> how did stimulus negotiations get this bad? here we are in december. these crucial measures set to expire. why can't people with good intentions on both sides get it done? >> well, that's a good question. and maybe the answer is up to this point at least there are not good intentions on both sides. let me give you an example. mnuchin, the president's representative, talked to the democrats and talked about a $1.8 trillion package, which would have included what i want to see, what senator hawley wants to see, and that is $1,200 of direct payments for working-class adults, each working-class adult, and $500 for the kids. that's what we did in the cares act. and now suddenly literally we are talking about instead of 1.8 trillion we're talking about 350 billion in new money and about 550 billion to be transferred from unused money in the cares

package. so in other words, what the republican leadership is saying is we're just going to put a very little amount of money into the needs of the american people iet n right now. that is unacceptable. and democrats are going to have to stand up and demand we address the crises facing this country. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell's office said he doesn't see a path to the main sticking points liability protections for businesses aid for states and cities. is there room on your end for negotiations on those? >> well, this whole liability thing is a horror show. it's incredible to me that when you have corporations who have been absolutely irresponsible in the meatpacking industry, other industries, at amazon 20,000 workers as i understand it have come down with the virus, that they will be held immune from any liability. and that to me is absurd. states and cities are in desperate shape. their financial revenue is going down. their tax revenue is going down. they need help.

what i just don't understand is that back in march, in the beginning of this terrible pandemic, congress came together. people forget this. unanimously. democrats, republicans. president trump. we passed a $2.2 trillion cares act which included that $1,200 per person that i'm fighting for. the $500 for the kid. $600 supplement for unemployment insurance. we passed it. and you know what? it was just enormously important to millions and millions of families. we did it then. and today tragically as you report every day the virus situation is worse probably right now than it has ever been. so if we could act unanimously with the president in march, i'm not quite sure why we can't do it today. >> just lastly, i've just got to ask you about where this country is in terms of the president leaving and what the president is alleging. as you know, the texas attorney

general, along with 18 other republican state attorneys general who theoretically know law, are asking the supreme court to essentially overturn the election. the president has reportedly asked your colleague senator ted cruz to make the case for him if it goes to oral arguments. i guess cruz is thinking it's never going to go, so yeah, say yes, that's where the benefit is. but what is going on? >> i'll tell you what's going on. >> how do you work with these people? >> thank you, anderson. now i think you understand a little bit about the complexity of where we are right here in the senate. let us be very, very clear that trump happens among his many, many deficiencies, being a pathological liar and a racist, et cetera, he happens not to believe in democracy. and the fact that you have so many republicans at all levels, you have the majority of my colleagues who have not yet acknowledged that biden won the election. he's, what, 6, 7 million votes, popular votes ahead. he has the same electoral votes

that trump had four years ago. and trump called it a landslide. they haven't even acknowledged biden's victory. so what we are about right now are people who are trying to undermine american democracy, the will of the people, an election. it really is extraordinary. and the day after biden gets inaugurated we're going to roll up our sleeves and figure out how we strengthen american democracy because it is very much under attack right now. >> senator bernie sanders, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. >> up next, the day in perspective. deep loss tempered by real hope in the fight against coronavirus. we'll be right back. hi sam, this is rachel from your dad's oncology office.

unfortunately, we are still limiting in-person appointments due to the pandemic and we'll need to move your father's visit to a later date. we're sorry. hola, papa. american cancer society helpline. how can i help you?

updating our breaking news on the pandemic. a sense of hope coupled with the reality of such deep loss. more than 2,500 deaths reported

so far today. and there are still several hours left in this day. more people will die. that's in addition to a record 3,100 deaths just yesterday. the cdc director warning today we will likely see more than 3,000 deaths per day, more than we had on 9/11, for the next two to three months. think about that. also tonight, record number of people hospitalized battling the coronavirus right now. more than 107,000 patients to any who are in their rooms watching tonight, we wish you strength and a quick recovery. but again, there's at least a glimpse of how this will end. there is hope out there. the vote today to recommend emergency use authorization for pfizer's covid-19 vaccine. the fda is expected to support that decision soon along with the cdc advisory committee on sunday. and that certainly cannot come soon enough. reminder don't miss "full circle," our digital news show. we continue to spend a lot of time focusing on the pandemic on

it. you can watch it streaming live 6:00 p.m. eastern. or watch it there or on the cnn app anytime if you're not sick of me. the news continues. let's hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> sick of you? death first. death first. coop, you this very much. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." first, happy hanukkah to my jewish brothers and sisters. i am meshpucha. i am your extended family. and i wish you a beautiful start to the festival of lights. and the celebration, the remembrance, could not be more indicative of where we are collectively. once more there is unholy darkness descending upon the land. once more there is a struggle by a tyrant to keep power. once more i'm afraid we will need something bigger than ourselves to keep our wicks lit. to burn away darkness in the temple of our democracy. so pray for us, my jewish brothers and sisters.