orlando bloom, gal gadot will be among the celebrity presenters. again, that's at 8:00 p.m. on sunday. that's it for us. news continues. like to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> big night, coop. have a good weekend. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." congratulations, america. you won. the supreme court told the retrumplicans, 126 house former gop members and trump himself what they all already knew. you have no case because you have no proof. you have no right and you will get no relief. the entire court agreed. let me read. the state of texas' motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under article 3 of the constitution. texas has not demonstrated a judicially cog niceable interest

in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. all other pending motions are dismissed as moot. what does that mean? you have no right to sue because you have no business saying you don't like how another state ran its election, and because there has been no damage to you, because you don't show any proof of anything wrong. which by the way is a decision that is a clear affirmation of federalism, states' rights, which used to be a conservative tenet. you see, that's where you see the death of the republican party into this zombie form of retrumplican. they have forgotten who they are because of their fealty to one man. now, they didn't even need to hear anymore, the justices. it doesn't get any worse than this. you're not even going to get a hearing. you don't deserve one. however, this is a big win if

you love this country and democracy. in that way, it doesn't get any better than this. that's what won, the we over the me of trump. now, the retrumplicans, and those desperate to disown democracy will say wait a minute, wait a minute, two dissented. that is not true. again, we read, the statement of justice alito, with whom justice thomas joins, in my view, we don't have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. they then cite a case. i would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint, but would not grant other relief, and i express no view on any other issue. what does that mean? their note is not about the merits of the case, okay. alito and thomas, this is a little in the weeds, but it matters, because you're going to be hearing this, and you should

be armed with the information to rebut it. alito and thomas have a long-standing dispute back to this case that they site, arizona v california before. they have a different feeling about the supreme court's role in taking cases of interstate controversies, okay. that's about jurisdiction, not about the merits. the key part is the end of this discussion, "but we would not grant other relief, and no view on any other issue," meaning they too see no wrong to remedy, period. it's over. the statement from president-elect biden's team, this is no surprise. dozens of judges, election officials from both parties and trump's own attorney general have dismissed this, his baseless attempts to deny that he lost the election. president-elect biden's clear and commanding victory will be ratified by the electoral college on monday, and he will be sworn in on january 20th. we'll get to that.

but first, where we are. trump was right. this was the big one. it was his big effort with all his cronies to steal the election. now why was he so confident? he was confident not because of the merits, but because donald trump has always believed everyone is like him, transactional, no principles, no integrity. there is nothing to life but your own ambition and how to get what you want. that's why he met with comey and asked for loyalty. that's why he tried to make a deal on flynn. that's why he was okay letting russia help him. that's why he is okay now with having low character people around him. and that's why he thought judges that he picked would side with him. he even told you that, remember? i need justice amy coney barrett for the election. we need them. see, he knew he might lose, and he was thinking of ways to steal, because that's what he does.

but even his three judges proved him wrong, not once, but twice. and in that, what we must conclude is what i hope is obvious. america is better than trump, and we deserve better than how he and the retrumplicans have been trying to crush this country for weeks in the middle of a pandemic that they are not acting on. and you must remember this day and the way that it happened. these are the names that must live in infamy. 126 of 196 members of the house who are republicans. no longer of good name, though. no longer republican, retrumplican. because they chose the power of principle, the worst play, right? power over principle, ambition over america. the worst we've seen since the red scare. and remember, they knew what

they were doing. none came forward with proof. they were all in on a con. among them, it's not some bunch of nobodys, top house retrumplican kevin mccarthy, now living up to his name, another mccarthy, just like senator joe of the red scare scandal. the house minority leader now on board with undoing an election because he didn't like the outcome. a man who railed in 2016 that you can't challenge the vote without overwhelming proof. the man who said this to you about the transition. >> there will be a very peaceful transition. it will be a smooth transition. it will be a smooth transition, regardless of the outcome. no question, no qualms, no concernses. it's going to be peaceful. this nation is designed that way. this nation will have it that way, and that's exactly what will take place. there is going to be a smooth transition, just as it is every

time before. so let me put it all to rest for all of you. it will be a smooth transition, no concern on the outcome. i know this will keep you up at night, but don't worry about it. it's going to be very smooth. >> yeah, you're a liar. of course we had to worry about it because you're a liar. you're just another trump. you're just like the last mccarthy. sir, you have no decency. here at last, have you no decency? and the answer is no. because you chose to attack this race on the basis of nothing but a desire to keep us divided. shame on you. shame on all of you in the middle of a pandemic when we needed you most, you were at your worst. now, some of you will say well, hold on, hold on, suing. that's not so bad. that's how we deal with -- no, no. that's not how you do it. you don't go to sue with no proof. you don't sue in search of a

case. you bring a case and then you sue. and by the way, this isn't over. monday, the electors meet. mccarthy said why would i accept their vote? the guy has no basis of proof for any notion of fraud, but he won't accept it? let me ask you, how is that keeping his oath? how is that not a basis to throw his ass out? think about it. he took an oath to uphold the constitution. the constitution lays out how we do the election. we do the election the way the constitution lays out, and he says he won't accept it? how is that keeping his oath? will the retrumplicans try to pull something there? how about when congress meets on january 6th? you already heard ron johnson say he may not set up. these people cannot be trusted. anybody who would hold up aid during a pandemic to help sabotage a transition just for trump? think of it this way. a party that would hold up aid in the senate because, why?

because they need to protect companies from what? frivolous lawsuits, right? so you want to protect from frivolous lawsuits at the same time that you engage in the most frivolous lawsuit of all time? you cannot trust retrumplicans, because they are just like trump. we know that now. but here's what we don't know. what can you trust? this is a dark time. people would rather get sick than wear a mask. people only believe what they agree with. will this be a watershed moment? will the supreme court show that there is still a line between right and wrong in government, that there is truth, that everything isn't fake if you feel that way? what does tonight mean? and what happens next? we have better minds. ana navarro and michael

smerconish. what did you think? >> i don't like it at all. i think the president got off easy. the answer is a definitive no. last night i told you the best the president could hope for is an outcome without a decision, and he got that. that very terse paragraph that you wrote doesn't lay down the law. and consequently, the recollection of this case is going to be that texas aided by 18 other attorneys general, two-thirds of republicans stood with the president. and i think it's going to foster this perception in some quarters that there was a fix. what i'm really saying, chris, is he should have been spanked by the court, and he wasn't. >> ana? >> well, i disagree. and part of why i disagree is because it was a unanimous decision by the nine supreme court justices, including the ones that have recently been appointed by donald trump. this is right now a

conservative, a republican, a conservative supreme court. nobody can allege that there is a bunch of liberals running amok in the supreme court who judged against, came down against donald trump. but i -- you know, i also see it as our checks and balances in this country working. so the executive might be run by a madman right now. there might be 126 servile republican congress people backing him up, and 18 attorneys general. but the checks and balances, the judicial, the supreme court, despite being overwhelmingly conservative right now stood firm and defended the constitution. and, you know, did what we all knew was going happen. swat away a meritless complaint and suit. i mean, it's just -- it was so obvious. i think any high schooler could have told you the state of texas has no standing in telling the

state of wisconsin, michigan, georgia, and pennsylvania what they should do with their voters. i mean, it's just ridiculous. >> let me put something up on the screen. i was going say hey, where are all the other republicans now who didn't sign on saying enough now, you're making us all look bad. let's do what we're supposed to do. but we're not hearing that. and not only are we not hearing that, we're hearing this. put up what we just saw from the head of the texas republican party. perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the constitution. michael? >> ballots, not briefs, determine the outcomes of an election. those are the words of the third circuit. when they looked a the pennsylvania challenge a couple of weeks ago, they issued a 21-page opinion. i wish the supreme court had taken the same opportunity. i get it. monday is the meeting of the electoral college, as you

pointed out, so time is of the essence. but how much stronger of a message it would have sent if those six conservative members of the court had weighed in, offered an opinion, and picked apart the way legal pundits have uniformly done the case that was being asserted by texas. >> maybe. >> that's what i'm saying. >> maybe, maybe. however, what happens then? once you let it in the door, you have arguments, you have all the workup. you have all the spin. you have dissenting opinions. who knows you get a cleaner kill than this? what i'm saying is this guy from texas, the head of this republican party just said that you should have a succession over this. and no there are no republicans saying you should fire this guy. not fair. congressman ratzinger, adam, what is the congress' name? kensinger, forgive me, it's covid brain. he said lincoln settled this. but ana, where is the rest of your party saying whoa, whoa, this texas guy is nuts? >> they're a bunch of coward

ostriches hiding with their head in the sand, hoping that somebody lets them know when this is over. what we've seen from the republican party in the last few weeks is the most shameful thing. i never -- you know, there has been so many low moments for the republican party in the last four years. but what we've seen in the last four weeks takes the cake. i got an email this morning, a text this morning from a friend of mine, life-long republican, huge donor, has given millions personally and through his company, telling me i am changing my party affiliation because i'm outraged by this. and i just can't be part of this anymore. republicans are losing people. listen, chris, when you're a congress person, when you get introduced anywhere, they call you the honorable congress person so and so. i have never seen more dishonor on display than what we have seen from those 126 congress people. there are some idiots. there are some bumbling idiots in congress, but most of them are smart, and most of them know

better. and what they are doing is lending themselves to this sham and this scam so that donald trump does not issue mean tweets against them in their primaries in the next year, year and a half. >> i hear you. >> and because they are shaking in their boots. you know, it's a scam and a chara charade. and if you don't have the spine to stand up against trump, you don't have the spine to stand up to represent your constituents. >> michael, last word to you. >> it's not just that it's a loyalty test among republicans. i mean, that's a glass half empty analysis. donald trump is their meal ticket. and by the way, he feeds them well. i made the argument to you before, chris, despite losing at the top of the ticket, republicans had a very good cycle. and that's the reason that they signed on. >> yep. strong point. you know, i've gotten calls too from people who were office holders and republicans, and they say hey, don't hit me with that trump republican thing. that's going stick.

i don't want it. my answer is simple. then do your job and start talking about freeing up relief, and you better stand strong when those electors meet, and you better stand strong when it's time to certify that vote. and if you don't, silence equals acceptance, and you're going get hit with the same stick, because we need to get to a better place. we're killing ourselves right now. ana navarro, michael smerconish, bless you both and thank you. safe weekends. >> thank you. >> thank you. pennsylvania was one of the states under assault from retrumplicans. we have its attorney general here. he had strong language in his rebuttal. he said this was seditious abuse of the judicial process. what does he think now? next. and doug. and if we win, we get to tell you how liberty mutual customizes car insurance so you only pay for what you need. isn't that what you just did? service! ♪ stand back, i'm gonna show ya ♪ ♪ how doug and limu roll, ya ♪ ♪ you know you got to live it ♪ ♪ if you wanna wi...

[ music stops ] time out! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ tonight, i'll be eating a veggie cheeseburger on ciabatta, no tomatoes.. [hard a] tonight... i'll be eating four cheese tortellini with extra tomatoes. [full emphasis on the soft a] so its come to this? [doorbell chimes] thank you. [doorbell chimes] bravo. careful, hamill. daddy's not here to save you. oh i am my daddy. wait, what? what are you talking about? ...little things... ...can become your big moment. that's why there's otezla.

otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. are your asthma treatments just not enough? then see what could open up for you with fasenra. it is not a steroid or inhaler. it is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. it's an add-on injection for people 12 and up

with asthma driven by eosinophils. nearly 7 out of 10 adults with asthma may have elevated eosinophils. fasenra is designed to target and remove eosinophils, a key cause of asthma. it helps to prevent asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can reduce the need for oral steroids like prednisone. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection, or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. could you be living a bigger life? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. ♪ ♪ you're all, you're all i need ♪ ♪ you're all, you're all i need ♪ ♪ as long as i got you then baby ♪

♪ you know that you've got me, oh! yea...♪ ♪ john adams said we have a government laws and not of men. boy did that just come under attack. you know what would have happened if this had gone the other way? oh, it was never going to happen. you don't know that. you don't know that. they could have decided to hear it, and then who knows what

happens. that's how we were back in 2000. there was obviously a litigatable issue there and there were problems with the machines and the counts and all that. i'm not saying the case did or didn't come out the right way. but there was a shock that it was taken at all. so nothing's ever for sure, especially today, especially with someone like trump playing with minds. a conspiracy carrying the weight of the white house. 19 states, more than 100 members of congress. but thank god the institution today. america won tonight. without democracy, this country is nothing. but what should the consequence be to the men and women who tried to bring it down? and what happens next? pennsylvania attorney general josh shapiro brings unmatched perspective from inside this fight. first of all, congratulations. >> thank you, chris. >> i will let people in on a little bit of off the record talk. after the interview last night, i said no pressure, it's just the entire democracy resting on your shoulders. and it's kind of true.

what do you think of the result? what do you think of what the aftermath should be? >> well, look, chris, i'm very happy, obviously, that the court ruled the way they did. we asked the court to quickly rebuke texas and trump and their enablers, and they did. they stood for the rule of law. our institutions held, and yet again we have a court of law that has seen through what this president is trying to do in this country and instead of siding with him, the courtsided with the rule of law. now those who enabled him, that's a whole other story and a whole other conversation. i would just say in terms of how i'm feeling tonight, obviously i'm happy, but i'm also sad and angry. i'm sad at how the situation has devolved. i'm angry at this president. i'm angry at the people that are enabling him. and boy, oh, boy, chris, do we have a lot of work to do in this country to repair the damage

that he's inflicted here. >> amen, amen. obviously -- not obviously. josh is jewish. we're going through the festival of lights, hanukkah second night. and i used it as a metaphor last night, not just because i wish you well as my jewish brother, but we need something bigger than ourselves, the strength of the collective maybe. >> yeah. >> to come together to get us through a dark time. do you think this is over? there are a couple of other cases out there. what happens on monday when the electors meet? what happens when congress meets on the 6th to certify that vote? >> well, let me give you a legal answer, and then let me give you kind of a real life answer in the world of donald trump. legally, it's over. i've been saying that for a while. once the states certified and then come monday the electors will ratify, and then of course joe biden will be sworn in on january 20th. that is the truth. what we don't know, of course, is what donald trump is going to do next. and rest assured, if he tries to

do anything that impacts the will of the people of pennsylvania, the will of the people in this country, i'll be there to defend their rights and to defend the will of the people. but in terms of what comes next, i think we have to ask ourselves, and really question how 17 attorneys general and 120 some members of the u.s. house jumped so quickly on a junk lawsuit that ultimately would have hurt them in the long run, yet they can't get their act together -- >> explain how. how would it have hurt them? just so people know. >> just take this to its logical conclusion. if the supreme court would have bought texas's ridiculous argument, that would have meant that going forward, any state could invalidate the votes of any other state if they happened to disagree with the result. it would have been the end of our representative democracy, which is why i called it what it was, a seditious abuse of the judicial process. that's exactly what transpired

here. >> and a lot of republicans won congressional seats. they either held or won new ones. and if the vote had been invalidated, so would their elections have been, you would have to think logically. what do you say to those men and women, by the way, who joined this, who say hold on, we have a right to sue. that's all we did here. we just played it out. what do you say to them? >> i think they're spineless. and in some cases, i think they're just downright stupid. think about this for a second, chris. there were members of the pennsylvania congressional delegation that signed on to texas' ridiculous lawsuit that would have invalidated their own elections. they ran at the same time donald trump and joe biden did. they actually went to court to undermine their own elections. you really have to stop and ask yourself what has happened in this country. we have a lot of work to do to repair this damage. and i think a lot of people need to look in the mirror, a lot of people who signed on to this and

ask themselves did i take an oath to the constitution, or did i take an oath to donald trump? because right now they're acting like all they do is serve donald trump, not the people of this country. >> now i don't think this should happen. i don't think it will happen. i don't think we're in a good enough place to even consider this kind of line of integrity in our public service. but in a different world, you bring a lawsuit that you know is frivolous. and by the way, i don't know why any of these suits weren't sanctioned as frivolous, not one of them. none of these lawyers, none of these suits. they get thrown out of court, they keep doing it, and no one cease it as frivolous. i think it's the definition of frivolous. that's on the bar, i guess. but don't you see a world where people who tried to do this in full knowledge of its falsity might be breaching their oath to uphold the law and the constitution by trying to sabotage it and may expose themselves to removal? >> i think there are real questions about whether or not these people that signed on

breached their oath of office. i think there are certainly questi questions about whether the lawyers involved in this case should be sanctioned. questions i'll share with you here tonight, chris, that we are carefully reviewing in the office of the attorney general here in pennsylvania to determine whether or not we should attempt to bring sanctions against these lawyers. these are serious things. you are not permitted under the rules of professional conduct to waste the court's time, to file frivolous lawsuits, to knowingly lie in court. all of those things were done by the lawyers that brought these cases and by those who enabled him. >> josh shapiro, keep lighting candles, brother. we need it. we need it right now. thank you for lighting the way tonight. the best to you and your family. thank you, sir. >> thank you, chris. same to you and yours. >> now look, two big different sides to this story, right? two big sides to this country. 126 house members wanted their

names attached to this forever. they believed that they were trying to right a wrong. only one of them decided to come forward and speak about it, and he deserves to be heard. we have a representative from california to talk about what happened tonight and why he was part of it, next. ♪ may your holidays glow bright and all your dreams take flight. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer today for exceptional lease and financing offers at the mercedes-benz winter event. try optum perks. it's a new way to save up to 80%. and everyone can do it. it's from optum,

a health care company that's trusted by millions of people. you don't have to sign up for anything. just go to optumperks.com. and get a coupon to use at your pharmacy. that's it. i opted in. i opted in. you can, too. opt in and save big today. but before we sign i gotta ask... sure, anything. we searched you online and maybe you can explain this? i can't believe that garbage is still coming in. that is so false! frustrated with your online search results? call reputation defender today to join tens of thousands who've improved their online reputation. get your free reputation report card at

reputationdefender.com or call 1-877-866-8555.

help the world believe in holiday magic.thing and this year was harder than ever. and yet, somehow, you all found a way to pull it off. it's not about the toys or the ornaments but about coming together. santa, santa, you're on mute! just wanted to say thanks. thanks for believing.

this is cnn breaking news. >> all right. just making sure i know what i talk about here. good. cnn now confirms that the fda has officially given the green light for the emergency use authorization. you'll hear the eua, that's what it is, for the pfizer coronavirus vaccine. it's approved. this means we could just be hours away from the final hurdle to be cleared.

what is that? we'll discuss. but what happens after that, that's what matters. the first covid vaccine shots will be administered. let's say can be administered to americans within days. i say can instead of will, because there are a lot of logistics here that you've got to get right. let's bring in chief dr. sanjay gupta and top public health expert dr. lena wen. thank you both for doing this on quick notice. sanjay, we're not surprised by this. what does this mean? >> well, this is expected. the fda advisory committee recommended this yesterday. now this pfizer-biontech vaccine is authorized under emergency use, which means that the vaccine itself which has largely been in these cold storage in kalamazoo, michigan will start to get distributed all over the country, various locations all over the country. at the same time, almost simultaneously this weekend, now that it's been authorized, the cdc is going to make the formal

recommendation, sort of what you were just talking about, chris, the who, what, when of the vaccine. there is a lot here. i'm just reading the fda notice here. >> i know. they're printing it out for me. that's what you hear behind me. i don't know why they're printing it out for me. it's not like i can read it right now. but what are the high points? >> the basic thing is it talks about the fact that it reviewed the entire application, how long the application has been reviewed, what sort of specific things they were looking for, and basically, at the end, and it's a pretty sizable document here, they're going to have some specifics about how they determined at the end of the day based on the totality of the evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks and that, you know, this is a very effective vaccine at preventing illness from covid-19. so that's basically it. there may be some other restrictions in here. i want to read this more carefully about things that lena and have i been talking about. >> take a look at the document. let me bring in lena just to get her reaction about where this is.

i had dr. fauci on last night. i said a lot of alphabet soup involved here. you know, the fda has talked to the cdc after the cdc had already talked to the fda. and now after this approval it has to go back to the cdc. why so much alphabet soup? what is the virtue in this process? what is the virtue in not streamlining it? >> i think there is great virtue to having external scientists review everything that's going on, considering the record speed that it got us to where we are, and the fact that i think it's just really amazing. we need to take a moment and just consider that we are having this mass casualty event every day here in the u.s. but now we have this vaccine developed in record time that can in time really save us and save our country and save the world from this awful pandemic. and this is really a monumental moment for us. but we also need to make sure that every safeguard was followed. and that's what all these scientists and all these committees are here to do. >> i'm with you. i mean, look, at its basis, this

is an emergency use authorization, which is already showing that there is some kind of risk here. and we have a messaging issue. you know, you're about 60-30 or so right now with people wanting to take the vaccine, and it's important that they have trust, and it's important that they know it's done the right way. i agree with all that. here is my concern going forward while we let sanjay peruse the document. we are assuming there is going to be a problem with people wanting to take this vaccine, but i will tell you, doc, and i said this about covid, that anecdotally, i was hearing it was around a lot earlier than january. now i've been proven right. i got savaged by my brothers and sisters in the media. i was right. once again, i am hearing from all over the country that the demand is going to be huge for this vaccine, even in the states that trump won, because he told them the vaccine is a good thing to take, that he made the vaccine happen. and are you worried about that, that they're holding up the relief bill right now in congress. there is money in there. i think right now it's $6 billion. there is no talk of a separate vote on just that money to get

it out the door for the vaccine, that we won't have enough vaccine for the demand, and you'll start to have people be desperate in this country in thinking that someone's not taking care of them. that a concern? >> it's a huge concern, because now that we have this resource available, a lot of people are going to want it, which is great, except that we now need to produce hundreds of millions of doses of this vaccine and distribute it. part of what i'm also worried about is lack of funding for local and state health departments. state health departments have requested $8.4 billion in order to run their vaccination programs. they've gotten i think $200 million so far. >> mcconnell calls it a blue state bailout. you red and blue states all over the country asking for this money because they've run through, they don't have their revenues from taxes because obviously everybody is in a downturn economically. and if they don't have both pieces of the puzzle, money for the manufacturing directly out the door soon, and money to

support the local governments who will be doing the distribution, that's the potential? >> i mean, then we would see that all the speed and urgency that we've put into the scientific development process will not translate to actual distribution. and i think to your point earlier, i do agree, there are a lot of people who want access to the vaccine. i think there are a lot of people who are hesitant as well. and many of the people who are hesitant are from communities that are particularly hit hard by the pandemic. so we have to make sure that we don't just have a free-for-all where it's only people who are wealthy who are able to access the vaccine and people who are disadvantaged are being hurt even more. >> yeah, that can happen two ways. one is when people pick winners and losers, there can be a bias, and we're going to have to watch that and it's going about the hard to do because it's going to be on a legal level and state level all over this country. but a big question mark i think will be turned into an exclamation mark when people start to see that people are getting the vaccine, if there aren't a lot of side effects, if

you aren't having a lot of allergic reactions, people are going to realize this is your best bet. all right, sanjay, are you back in the game? what do you have for us? >> yes. in is a nine page document, and it talks a lot about the specific criteria that the fda evaluated in issuing this emergency use authorization. they spend a lot of time in this document also talking about the fact given that it's an emergency use authorization, there's got to be a lot of post release screening. they're to have a reporting system in place for anybody who may have any side effects or safety concerns about this, and they're going to continue collecting data on this for two years. there is also a request that the pfizer still put out educational materials to people, that they handle all the cold chain storage that we've been talking about for some time. so there is a lot of requirements. none of these are surprising. the fact that this will continue to be studied, that was expected. this is an emergency use authorization. the fact that they will continue to look for these side effects and educate consumers as they

learn new things about this vaccine, that was expected. also, that they've got plans in place to both handle the cold chain storage. it needs to be kept very cold. most people know that now, if they know anything about this vaccine, and they've got to be responsible for that. and also have got to continue to provide evidence that they're able to manufacturer this vaccine safely at scale. you know, manufacturing for tens of thousands of people in a clinical trial is one thing. manufacturing hundreds of millions of doses with the same quality control standards, that's a different level. so they've got continue to show evidence of that. so there is a lot in here, but there is no surprises that i'm seeing. what we also -- i think we're going get some more clarity from the cdc when they make these recommendationsis this going to be recommended for people who may be pregnant, for example, or is that something that requires a conversation between a woman and her doctor if she is high

risk to have that conversation. is it going to be not recommended for people who have severe -- have had severe allergies in the past? some of those things i'm going to want to know, you know, and we might hear about that over the weekend. but the bottom line, as leana was saying, chris, i didn't think we'd be having this conversation this year, to be perfectly honest with you. it's remarkable how quickly this has gone, but i want to be clear. i don't think that in terms of the trials and then the evaluation of the data on effectiveness and the evaluation of the data on safety, i don't think any corners were cut here. >> good. >> i know a lot of people were concerned about the speed of this, but this is good data, and that is a safe and effective vaccine, from what we're looking at here. >> hey, i have a question that i hear from a lot of people. leana, maybe you know the answer, or if not, sanjay, or both you. which one do i take? if the pfizer is out there and the moderna is out there, can i take both of them? can i split it? can i take one? do i have to take the booster

shots? let's deal with the first. leana, can you take both vaccines? or what are you supposed to do? >> it's not recommended that you take both vaccines. and also in the beginning, we are so limited in supply, you should take whatever vaccine you have access to. and initially, people are not going to have a choice. it's whatever your doctor's office or pharmacy has access to is the vaccine you get. and frankly, they're very similar. it's a similar mechanism of action, and they are similar in terms of safety and efficacy. so take what you can get. and don't mix the two either. if you get the primer from the first type of vaccine, get the same booster from that vaccine as well. >> sanjay, we have never done anything like this before. and just in the follow-up capacity, you know, i had the former head of the cdc on, acting head of the cdc, and he said well, look we do 80 million vaccines a year. we know how to do vaccines. yeah, but not with follow-ups. how do you even keep track of the people? how do i don't make sure they

get the follow-up in the right window, and what happens if they don't? >> this is going to be a real challenge. and frankly, i think the states in terms of how they're logging the inventory and how operation warp speed is basically delivering to the states, that seems to have a lot of -- they're really coordinating that. but for the individual person, they're getting these vaccination cards. they have qr codes on them. that's supposed to give them information what they got, when they're supposed to get the follow-up. but chris, look, this shouldn't scare anybody, but it's going to be bumpy. this is the first time we're doing something like this. i'm surprised there is not a more technological sort of feature you can just have it on your phone and everything is done in some 2020 sort of way. nevertheless, we know about these vaccination cards. i think we even have some images of those cards. you raised another question, chris, about the prime dose, the first dose, and then the booster. people are going to get the reminder to get that. but if we had this graphic, i want to show this graphic real

quickly. we're looking at the pfizer data. this is going to come up. this is an issue that comes up. the red line is in the placebo group. infections continue to go up. you can see that pretty clearly. what that blue line is, i find very interesting. this is after one dose. at about ten days, you saw a significant flattening of new infections. now it was just a few-week period. and what pfizer and others will say is there just wasn't enough time to really determine how effective just a single dose was. but you are hearing this discussion point come up quite a bit saying, look, we're in the middle of a pandemic. we obviously have a much greater demand than supply. should these doses be going out as soon as they're manufactured as opposed to holding half the doses for the booster dose for those same patients. should you, for example, give the vaccine to 40 million people as quickly as you can, or do you give to it 20 million people, hold 20 million in the freezers of these doses, and then give that?

we don't have a clear answer on that right now. i didn't see it in these documents. maybe we'll hear from the cdc. >> i don't think they know. we'll start to get answers this weekend. because they'll start shipping -- when the cdc gives the final approval and they start shipping this stuff out, we'll see where it goes, which states, what kind of ratio supply, and what those states do with it. and we're going have to all work together about what we hear, about what's being done right and what's being done wrong. the more we check it early on, the better we'll be long-term. this is good news. thank you for being here with me to discuss a potential positive for us going forward. all right. big breaking news tonight on two fronts. we are now one step away from the vaccine starting its distribution course around this country. a long way to go, but that is the beginning of a potential end to this virus crushing us the way it is. and we have the supreme court crushing this retrumplican bid to overturn this election. both are in the news. now, we're joined by one of the

only republicans who would come on to discuss about why he put his name on this failed effort. why did he do it? what does he make of this news and getting the money for this vaccine? let's discuss. where are we, how do we move forward, next. humira patients,...

...this one's for you. you inspired us to make your humira experience even better... with humira citrate-free. it has the same effectiveness you know and trust, but we removed the citrate buffers, there's less liquid, and a thinner needle... with less pain immediately following injection. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. and you can use your co-pay card to pay as little as $5 a month. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections,... ...including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened,... ...as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems,... ...serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common... and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections,... or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. the same humira you trust with less pain immediately following injection. if you can't afford your medicine, abbvie may be able to help.

that selling carsarvana, 100% online wouldn't work. but we went to work. building an experience that lets you shop over 17,000 cars from home. creating a coast to coast network to deliver your car as soon as tomorrow. recruiting an army of customer advocates to make your experience incredible. and putting you in control of the whole thing with powerful technology. that's why we've become the nation's fastest growing retailer. because our customers love it. see for yourself, at carvana.com. this season, ♪ harkspoiling your petsntal has never been easier... when you use free same-day delivery at petsmart.com powered by doordash, or buy online and choose contactless curbside pickup. the season of spoiling is here. petsmart.

trump's attempt to overthrow the election failed. what about the people who went along, went along with the suit that was just thrown out as base 126 signed off on the brief, think about that, only one would come on. does he accept the end? will he work on relief now? congressman from california will join us. >> thanks for having me, happy hanukkah. >> thank you, the idea of accepting the supreme court's decision, do you? >> well, certainly, this is a set-back for the case that was being made by texas, and you know, it really boils down to

there's a hot of things being said about it. what you are looking at, does texas feel harmed doing clean elections and all the other states that joined doing clean above board elections and others areas that were doing sloppy elections. they feel theirity vo itvoters are the trump voters being harmed in the other states. was it about having a clean election process, where i have been a state legislator in california as well. even if crazy california, when the governor there tried to do it by edict of having all mail ballots the legislature said no, no, we have to affirm that because that is what the constitution requires. it's similar, it's what texas felt harmed by with other states that did not do that. you saw it in pennsylvania, under what is called axe 77, the election had to be completed by 8:00 p.m. on election night, all ballots turned in a court ruled we will let a few more come in after that.

other states as well. what you are looking at is really upholding the power of the legislature, which is the immediate advice of the people that people elect in the republic we have. >> i guess the issue, the supreme court said you have no standing. why? texas feels its voters were affected not the bar as we both know. that as what you say the politics. you feel a certain way. litigation is about facts. you know -- you have no proof anything was done wrong. you mention pennsylvania, from a lot of litigation, those laws were passed by the legislature and reviewed by their supreme court. you have to move past that phase, with 6-3 conservative, three judges trump put on there, do you accept the results? >> we don't kn-- there's a lot

time between here and there, i will see what happens on that. i have certainly accepted elections in the past. a lot of people did not accept trump elections. including your network. all day every day. >> you got any proof that anything was done fraudulent in any eelection? >> you mknow i don't have proof that men landed on the moon, because i was not there. >> really? >> do you believe the world is round? >> i think we have proven that. >> have you been all the way around it? >> what we are getting down to, is i have to trust the people doing the investigating. my colleagues from the other states and trust there's something there. we have seen the pictures in michigan where they are putting up boards to not allow people to see elections and not allow -- >> it was all litigated, they had a chance to bring out proof on all of it. i'm giving you a chance to show you are a man of honor and you can accept that it's a country

of laws. the answer is no. >> that's the laws we are talking about is the legislators. >> you have no proof, you have seen no proof of any substantial fraud. >> can i answer my own question or do you want me on the show? >> i think you are dodging it. have you seen proof that there was substantial fraud that should overturn this election? >> i have not been in a courtroom to look at the proof myself. i see it on the news, i see it in reports and my colleagues and i look over. so, i guess if i'm not holding it myself, does that qualify me or not? i have to believe what is out there, the documents that i have been able to look at. >> every court that reviewed it, said it's not been presented with proof of a substantial nafrm. liberal judges and conservative judges and some of them picked by trump himself. >> it's a tough deal, they have done it in a compressed amount of time, we saw the court ruled texas does not have standing. i know a lot of people have been frustrating over the term standing. you say, well we have been harmed by this had, courts rule, you don't have standing on that. >> standing mean you have not

been harmed so you don't have a right to sue. that's what it means. >> well, there's not been the opportunity to show the harm. >> you did have an opportunity, you submitted briefs. they looked at them and said, this does not support a claim of harm. that's what it means and i think you know this. so, my question now becomes, will you start doing the job? and act on getting relief money? at least get the vaccine money out the door or are you going to hold on and trying to take care of trump even after he has lost? >> well, chris, it is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time. >> yeah, well, where's the relief money. >> i'm standing in the senate, and the house is trying to come together on this. we want the relief funding down. so we need mrs. p and our side to agree on the levels. we have half a trillion dollars that is prooapproved, all we hao do is change the date on the

document. it can goright out? >> why doesn't mrs. p allow us to do that and get it out the door. we can do it right now. >> it's about where you want it to go. and who it's going to benefit and how it is -- this is what i don't understand what happened. in march, you put together 2 trillion dollars, you get the together, the left, the right, the reasonable, the president, everyone on the same page. now worse cases, worse hospitalizations, worse economic need and you cannot agree on anything, why? >> the democrats in the house came up with something calls the heroes act which was not too heroic, it was 3.5 trillion dollars worth of spending with a bunch in it that had nothing to do with the relief from the wuhan virus, we have a problem that we are going more and more in to debt for things that are not happening. helping the businesses and combatting the virus. >> what was it going to. >> >> there was only $10 billion going in to businesses. let's focus on what will help fight the virus and help their

jobs. >> why not give the people direct checks, wouldn't it help more than anything else? >> we did last time. >> why not this time. >> your side said no. >> we have talked about $600 ones. at the end of the day, i see people in my district that are talking about don't send $1200 checks open our businesses back up. they know how to wear protective gear. >> do both. >> pardon? >> do both. >> well, we will see, that's what we have to battle through. >> you will see in you are in the middle of a pandemic, it's an emergency, it's a crisis. >> we have to come to agreement around this place, when the two sides are so far apart, you know, you got your result with the result for president, so maybe it will be easy yeariier agree. >> you are part of the brother, you don't agree with the guy in texas, that says is you should put together a group of states and fight on your own, you don't believe that bs, do you? >> we have a piece of california that wants to divide away from

california -- >> you are not part of it, are you? >> no, i'm not part of dividing the country. >> you know what i call you guys, signing on to an effort where you know there's no real proof and it would not go your way, i see it as beneath the dignity of what you are supposed to be doing. i call you retrumplicans because you put him before the party. >> i do not want to get in to name calling. >> you can call me whatever you want, want. >> it's not productive. let's get down to what we are talking about. we joined the law that texas put forward because they felt they were harmed. it takes time, you don't put everything on the table. >> you have to have enough to have a lawsuit, you know it, doug. you know you don't start a lawsuit in search of proof. you have proof and you then search and start a lawsuit. and you know that. it's called a frivolous suit. >> there's 70 million people,

and it's bipartisan, there's people had that feel there's funny businesses with the he election. >> it's because you are saying there's funny business with the election and you have no proof. >> what pictures are you seeing? >> i'm not seeing the pictures. >> well, turn to a different network. find the pictures. you know, they are out there had. >> no, they are not. you had one case. >> okay, they are not out there. >> you are talking about pictures that were boreding up what they were doing, the office was afraid of the people outside, yelling and screaming. >> because they were not letting both sides come in and review the ballots. >> it was litigated and found multiple times to not have been a fundamental compromise of any right of survey and you know this. so, my point is, will it end now for you guys? will you get back to just dealing with the pandemic, instead of creating one? >> well, we have been working all the time, trying to come to agreement on this. so, i guess, we won't have that to worry about, as. but, you know, we will still see

where it develops. until january 20th, it may not be over with. but you know, we know the eelectric tors will do their business on the 14th. should some other thing come out, i agree, the ground is getting smaller for this conversation. but, you know, i don't know what it would be at this point. >> me either, it's supposed to be over. >> there's people in that want us to ask the questions. people want to have confidence in the elections. >> hey, if you want them to have confidence, don't lie to them about what happened, and we will be better on thank you for coming on and making the cause. i hope it gets more progressive. >> i'm a sicilian, so i figured i had to be on the show. merry christmas. >> merry chriss mass, s -- me christmas. cnn, d-lemon. right now. >> those tickets