never got that chance. here's what he told gary last month. >> it's been a great life, and these -- these tears in my eyes are happy tears. they're not sad tears, to know that how many people really care. >> so many people care. he was a greeter at walmart for 20 years. keith was a widower. he had nearly 40 children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great great-grandchildren. how incredible is that? he was 88 years old, and our hearts go out to his family and every family impacted by this pandemic. now more than ever, the world needs heroes. join me and kelly ripa for the 14th annual cnn heroes. it's this sunday night 8:00 p.m.

angela bassett, orlando bloom, gal gadot will be among the celebrity presenters. again, it's at 8:00 p.m. on sunday. the news continues. let's hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." congratulations, america. you won. the supreme court told the retrumplicans, 19 rogue a.g.s, 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 cognizable 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, you know, case that they cite, arizona v. california and 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's 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's 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 nobodies. 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 onboard 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 questions, no qualms, no concerns. 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's going to be a smooth transition just as is it 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, i mean that's not that 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 it 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 to certify that vote? you already heard senator ron johnson said he may not accept it. 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. so, smerc, what did you think of

the decision and how it was articulated by the court? >> i don't like it at all. i think the president got off easy. the answer to your question is a definitive no. last night i said to you that the best the president could hope for was an outcome without a decision, and he got that. i mean 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's, you know, 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 minions, congresspeople, republican congresspeople backing him up and 18 attorney generals, 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 to happen. swat away a meritless complaint and suit. i mean it's just -- it was so obvious. i think any -- any high schooler could have told you the state of

texas has no standing in telling the states of wisconsin, michigan, georgia, and pennsylvania what they should do with their voters. i mean it's just ridiculous. >> look, let me put something up on the screen. i was going to 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. we're now hearing this. put up what we just heard 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 outcome of elections. those were the words of the 3rd circuit when they looked at the pennsylvania challenge a couple of weeks ago, they issued a 21-page opinion. i'm saying i wish that the supreme court had taken the opportunity. and 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. that's what i'm saying. >> maybe, maybe. however, what happens then? once you let it in the door, once you have argument, you have all that workup, you have all the spin, you have the variability among justices. you have dissenting opinions. who knows that you get a cleaner kill than this? what i'm saying is this guy from texas just said that you should have a secession over this. and there are no republicans saying you should fire this guy. congressman ratzinger, adam -- what's the congressman's name? kinzinger, who i love. it's covid brain. forgive me brother. he said this is not right. lincoln settled this. this guy should be gone. but, ana, where's the rest of your party saying, whoa, this texas guy is nuts?

we're one country. >> 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. you know, there's 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, lifelong 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 congressperson, when you get introduced anywhere, they call you the honorable congressperson so and so. i have never seen more dishonor on display than what we have seen from those 126 congresspeople. 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 or year and a half. >> i hear you. >> and because they are shaking in their boots. but, you know, it's a scam and a 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. 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. >> mm-hmm. yep. strong point. you know, i've gotten calls too from people who are officeholders and republicans, and they say, hey, don't hit me with that retrumplican thing.

that's going to stick. i don't want it. my answer is simple. then do your job. then 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 to get hit with the same stick because we need to get to a better place. ana navarro, michael smerconish, bless you both and thank you. safe weekends. >> thank you. pennsylvania was one of the states under assault from retrumplicans. we have its attorney general here. he was hoping it was going to turn out this way. he had strong language in his rebuttal. he said that this was seditious abuse of the judicial process. what does he think now? next. renew active. only from unitedhealthcare. ♪ think it ♪ solve it ♪ try and crack it ♪ breathe it ♪ calm it ♪ and renew it aarp staying sharp is part of renew active. get medicare with more. if you have type 2 diabetes and risks for heart disease,

you could land in the hospital with heart failure. for people like you, farxiga does more than lower a1c. farxiga also helps prevent hospitalization for heart failure. do not take if allergic to farxiga. symptoms of a serious allergic reaction include rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing. stop taking and seek medical help right away. tell your doctor right away if you have red color in urine, or pain while you urinate, or a genital area infection, since a rare but serious genital infection may be lifethreatening. do not take farxiga if you have severe kidney problems or are on dialysis. other serious side effects include dehydration, genital yeast and bacterial infections in women and men, urinary tract infections, low blood sugar, and sudden kidney problems. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis, which is serious and may lead to death. answer the alert. ask your doctor if farxiga could do more for you. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

>> tech: every customer has their own safelite story. this couple was on a camping trip... ...when their windshield got a chip. they drove to safelite for a same-day repair. and with their insurance, it was no cost to them. >> woman: really? >> tech: that's service you can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ ...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. now every bath fitter bathbath fis installed quickly, safely, and beautifully, with a lifetime warranty. go from old to new. from worn to wow. the beautiful bath you've always wanted, done right, installed by one expert technician, all in one day. we've been creating moments like these for 35 years, and we're here to help you get started. book your free virtual or in-home design consultation today.

john adams said, we have a government of laws and not of men. boy, did that just come under attack. do 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. they could have decided to hear it and who knows what happens. that's how we were back in 2000. there was obviously a lit gabrielle issue there and there were problems with the machines and all that. i'm not saying the case did or didn't come out the right way, but there was a shock it was taken at all. nothing is 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 stood. america won tonight. without democracy, this country is nothing. but what should be the consequence be for 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, a.g. it's just the entire democracy resting on your shoulders. and it was kind of true. what do you think 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 court sided with the rule of law. now, those who enabled him, that's a whole other story and a whole other conversation. but i will say just, you know, 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 he's inflicted here. >> amen. amen. obviously -- not obviously. josh is jewish. we're going through the festival of lights, hanukkah's second night. 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 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, but 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, you know, 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 to -- >> explain how. how would it have hurt them just so people know? >> i mean just take this to its logical conclusion. if the supreme court would have bought texas' 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 they won new wu ones. and if the vote had been invalidated, so would their elections have been. what do you say to these men and women who say, hold on, we have a right to sue here. we just played it out. that's all we did. 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. you know, they get thrown out of court. they keep doing it, and no one sees it as frivolous. but that's on the bar, i guess. but don't you see a world where people who try 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 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 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. 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 different 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. ok, just keep coloring there...

and sweetie can you just be... gentle with the pens. okey. okey. i know. gentle..gentle new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a short list of quality candidates from our resume database so you can start hiring right away. claim your seventy five dollar credit, when you post your first job at indeed.com/home. ♪ birds flyin' high, you know how i feel. ♪

♪ breeze drifting on by you know how i feel. ♪ ♪ it's a new dawn... if you've been taking copd sitting down, it's time to make a stand. start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy. and save at trelegy.com. no uh uh, no way

come on, no no n-n-n-no-no only discover has no annual fee on any card. bundle auto and home, and save up to 25% with allstate. bundling just feels good this time of year. saving is easy when you're in good hands. call a local agent, or 1-800-allstate for a quote today.

>> announcer: 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 or let's say can be administered to americans within days. i stay can instead of will because there are a lot of logistics here you've got to get right. let's bring in chief doctor sanjay gupta and public health expert dr. leana wen.

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 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, the who, what, when of the vaccine. there's a lot here. i'm just reading the fda notice here. >> i know. they're printing it out for me. that's what i hear behind me. what are the high points? >> the basic thing is it talks about the fact that, you know, 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 sizeable document here, there's 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. >> mm-hmm. >> from covid-19. so that's basically it. there may be some other restrictions in here. i want to read this more carefully. >> take a look at the document. let me bring in leana just to get her reaction about where this is. i had dr. fauci on last night, and i saudid a lot of alphabet soup involved here. the fda has to talk to the cdc after the cdc had already talked to the fda and now after this approval, 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 got us to where we are and the fact that -- i mean i think it's just really amazing. we need to take a moment, i think, 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 about people wanting to take the vaccine, and it's important that they have trust, and it's important they know it's done the right way. i agree with all that. here's my concern going forward while we let sanjay peruse the document. we are assuming there's 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 anecdotal 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'm hearing 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. are you worried about that? they're holding up the relief bill in congress. there's money in there. i think it's $6 billion. there's no talk of a separate vote on that money just 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 and thinking that someone's not taking care of them. is 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 also 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, about $200 million so far. >> mcconnell calls it a blue state bailout, but you have 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's 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, what's the potential? >> i mean then we would see that all the speed and urgency that we've been 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. many of the people who are easy

ha tant 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. >> that can happen two ways. one is when people pick winners and losers, there can be a bias. we're going to have to watch that, ask it's going to be hard to do because it's going to be on a local level and a state level all over this country. but a big question mark will, i think, 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, people are going to realize this is their best bet. sanjay, are you back in the game? what do you have for us? >> it's a nine-page document, and it talks about the specific criteria that the fda evaluated in issuing this emergency use authorization. they spent a lot of time in this document also talking about the fact that given that it's an emergency use authorization, there's got to be a lot of post-release screening. they're going to have a

reporting system in place, you know, 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's also a request that the pfizer still put educational materials to people, that they handle all the cold chain storage that we've been talking about for some time. so there's 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 manufacture 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 to continue to show evidence of that. so there's a lot in here, but there's no surprises that i'm seeing. what we also, i think we're going to get some more clarity from the cdc when they make these recommendations is, is this going to be recommended for people who may be pregnant, for example, or is that going to be something that requires a conversation between a woman and her doctor if she's high-risk to have that conversation. is it going to not be recommended for people who 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 can't believe -- 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. i know a lot of people are concerned about the speed of this, but this is good data, and this 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. the idea of, hey, which one do i take? if the pfizer is out there and the moderna isout here, can i take both of them? you know, can i split it? can i take one? do i have to take the booster shot? let's deal with the first part. leana, can you take both vaccines, or what are you supposed to do? >> yeah, so 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 your pharmacy has access to is the vaccine that 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. 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. he said, 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 you make sure they get the follow-up within the right window, and what happens if they don't? >> yeah. no, this is going to be a real challenge. and frankly, you know, 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 -- and they're really coordinating that. for the individual person, they're getting these vaccination cards. they've got qr codes on them. that's supposed to give them information about 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 that. i'm surprised there's not a more technological sort of feature, you can just have it on your phone and everything's done in some 2020 sort of way. nevertheless, you know, we know about these vaccination cards. i think we even have some images of those cards. you raise 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 have this graphic, i want to show this graphic real quickly. we're looking at the pfizer data because this is an issue that comes up. the red line is in the placebo group. infections continued 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? for example, give the vaccine to 40 million people as quickly as you can, or do you give it to 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. >> i don't think they know. we should get answers this weekend. 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 of supply, and what those states do with it. and we're going to have to all work together about what we hear, about what's being done right and what's being done wrong. because the more we economic it

early on, the better we'll be off long-term. dr. sanjay gupta, dr. leana wen, this is good news. thank you for being here with me to discuss a potential positive going forward. big breaking news tonight on two fronts. we are now one step away from the vaccine starting its distribution course around this country. 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.

experience clean in a whole new way. now roomba vacuums exactly where you need it, and offers personalized cleaning suggestions for a clean unique to you and your home. roomba and the irobot home app. only from irobot. thanks for supporting me all those years hello scott hahaha surprise! word on the street is you're pregnant woah, how does ice-t know? so you are a super cool mom and definitely loved what up though, it's big snoopy d-o-double-g tell ya, let's go, get after it! hey ashley, i wish you a very merry christmas and a happy new year you're literally the best for getting me this, thank you

get out of here! are you serious?! don't just buy a gift make a cameo spread the word! make a cameo 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? . . . i had hiv, it was difficult for . . . . . . me to accept. i decided . . . . . . hiv doesn't define me. my name's dimitri. and i'm on biktarvy.

biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment . . . . . . used for hiv in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill . . . . . . biktarvy fights hiv to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low . . . . . . it cannot be measured by a lab test. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a build-up of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, . . . . . . if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're living with hiv . . . . . . keep loving who you are. and ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you.

the election failed. what about the people who went along, went along with this suit, that was just thrown out as baseless? only one of the 126 members of congress we could reach would talk about this. 126 signed off on this brief. think about that. only one would come on. does he accept biden? will he work on relief now? congressman, thank you. >> thanks for having me. happy hanukkah. >> thank you. the idea of accepting the supreme court's decision, do you? >> well, certainly, this is a setback for the case that was being made by that -- by texas. and, you know, it really boils down to there's a lot of things being said about it. but, what you're looking at is, does texas feel harmed doing

clean elections and all the other states that joined doing clean, above-board elections, do they feel, are the trump voters being harmed in different states? so, what it came down to, was it a clean-election process? i have been a state legislator in california, as well. and even in california, when the governor tried to do it by having all-mail ballots, legislature said, no, no. well, it would be very similar. that's what texas felt harmed by other states that did not do that. you saw that in pennsylvania, under what's called act 77. the election had to be completed by 8:00 p.m. on election night. all ballots turned in. a clerk ruled, well, we'll just let a few come in after that, other states as well. so, what you are looking at is really upholding the power of the legislature, which is

immediate voice of the people we elect in this public we have. >> right. i get the issue. the supreme court said, you have no standing. why? because, you said it in a very interesting way. texas feels its voters were affected. not the bar, as we both know. that's what you say in politics. you feel a certain way. litigation is about facts. you know what you show. they have no proof that anything was done wrong. you mentioned pennsylvania. as we know, from a lot of litigation, those laws were passed by the legislature. reviewed by its own supreme court. the legislature never moved against it. so, i think you have to move past that phase because you don't have a good case, as we just heard from the highest court in the land, 6-3 conservative with three judges trump put on there. do you, now, accept that biden is president-elect? >> well, we still don't know what the intelligence folks have in there. but, come january 20th -- >> they don't have anything. >> -- then, i guess we'll accept it, at that point. but, there's still a lot of time between here and there. but certainly, i have accepted elections in the past.

whether they've been -- gone my way or not. there's a lot of people that didn't accept trump's election there for four years, including your network there every day. >> well, hold on. let's do it a different way. i think this is an easier way. you got any proof anything was done fraudulent in any election? >> you know, i don't have proof man landed on the moon in 1969. i wasn't there. >> really? >> yeah. >> do you believe the world is round? >> i think we've proven that. >> have you been all the way around it? >> i have to trust the people that are doing the investigating, my colleagues from other states, and trust that there's something there. we have seen pictures in michigan where they are putting up boards. >> it was all litigated. they had chance to bring out proof for all of it. look. i am giving you a chance to show that you are a man of honor and that you can accept that this is a country of laws. the answer is no. but the answer is no, you have no proof. you have seen no proof of any

substantial fraud. >> can i answer my own question? or do you want me to be on the show? >> i think you're dodging it. i'll ask it, again. have you seen proof that there was substantial fraud that should overturn this election? >> i have not been in a courtroom to look myself. i guess, if i'm not holding it myself, does that qualify me or not? i have to believe the documents -- >> but every court out there has said, liberal judges, conservative judges, some of them, picked by trump, himself. >> right. that's a pretty tough deal. they have had to try to do all this in a compressed amount of time. the court ruled texas didn't have standing. i know a lot of people have been frustrat frustrated over that term standing. like, we've been harmed by this. >> standing means that you haven't been harmed. so, you don't have a right to sue. that's what it means. >> well, there hasn't 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 to try to take care of trump, even after he has lost? >> well, chris, it is possible for us around here to walk and chew gum, at the same time. >> but you haven't. >> well, we have the senate, which i am standing in their room, and the house trying to come together on these. we want to get the relief funding done. so we got to get mrs. p and, you know, our side, to agree with the senators on what the level's going to be. we have half a trillion dollars that's already approved. all we had to do was change the dates on the document, and that money could go right out. >> it's money that you guys didn't spend, the first time. >> right. so, why doesn't mrs. p allow us to -- to do that and get that right out the door? we can do that, right now. >> it's about where you want it

to go, and who it's going to benefit. this is what i don't understand about what happened. in march, you come together, you put over $2 trillion. the left, the right, the reasonable, everyone's on the same page. now, you have worse hospitalizations, worse economic need, and you guys can't agree on anything. why? >> democrats in the house came up with something called the heroes act cowhich wasn't too heroic. it had a whole bunch in it that was nothing to do with relief from the wuhan virus. okay? so, we have a problem in that we are going more and more into debt for things that aren't actually helping. either, helping the businesses and -- or employees. >> what was it going to? >> there was only about $10 billion going into businesses. why don't we focus all our efforts on -- >> why wouldn't you give people direct checks? wouldn't that help just about more than anything else? >> well, we did it last time. >> why not in time? >> well, i think we're trying to

come to an agreement on that. >> your side says no. >> well, we've talked about $600 ones. at the end of the day, i see people out there in my district that are talking about don't send $1,200 checks. just open our businesses back up. >> do both. >> pardon? >> do both. >> well, we'll see. i mean, that's what we have to battle through here. >> you'll see? you are in the middle of a pandemic. this is an emergency. it's a crisis. >> we have to come to an agreement around here. okay? you got your election for president, so maybe after january 20, it will be easier to agree on things, right? >> first of all, it's not we got the result. it's not me. you're part of this country, brother. you don't agree with that guy in texas saying you should put together a group of states and fight on your own, do you? you don't believe that bs, do you? i'm asking, you don't believe that, do you? you're not part of that, are you? >> no, i'm not part of dividing the country. >> you know what i call you guys? i believe signing on to an

effort where there's no real proof and you knew it probably wouldn't go your way, i see that beneath the dignity of what you are supposed to be doing. i call you guys retrumplicans because i think you put him before your own party or your own people. >> it's not productive. so, let's get down to what we saw in front of us. we felt that texans -- we joined the lawsuit texas put forward because they felt like they'd been harmed. >> they felt but you knew they had no proof. continue. >> it takes time. >> but you got to have enough to have a lawsuit. you know this, doug. you know that 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 frivolous suit, otherwise. you know this. >> actually, it's a bipartisan thing because if you look at the polls, there's a lot of people that feel like there's a lot of funny business with this election. >> that's because you guys keep telling them there's funny

business, without proof. of course, they're going to believe it. i'm not seeing the pictures. that's my point. >> you got to turn to a different network, then. find the pictures. you know, they're out there. >> no, they're not. >> okay, they're not out there. >> you are talking about pictures of them boarding up what they're doing. that office was afraid of the people outside, who were screaming and yelling. you had courts -- >> because they weren't letting both sides come in and review ballots. >> it was litigated and found, multiple times, to have not 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've been working, all the time, trying to come to agreement on this. so, i guess, we won't have that to worry about, as much. but, you know, we'll -- we'll still see where this develops. until january 20th, it may not be over with. you know, we know