now, the white house repeatedly has warned russia over the last few weeks that a russian invasion of ukraine would have severe, severe diplomatic and economic consequences. what did administration official told politicaltratio official told politica will come in the midst of a, quote, moment of crisis between the two nations. we'll have a lot more on that coming up later in the show.ha but we start tonight with a moment of crisis of our own right here at home.a take a look at this map. this is a map tracking community transmission of covid across alt 50 states. blue and yellow there on the screen means low to moderate. orange means substantial. m red means high. and as you can see in this picture, every single state, every single one, is red. community transmission of covid is at the highest recorded level in every state in the country as of this night.e now, the u.s. yesterday just

recorded its highest ever single-day record for new covid infections. with new cases drawing less of a curve and more of a straight vertical line. new cases in the last two weeks are up by 126%. the world health organization said today they're anticipating a, quote, tsunami of new cases worldwide over the next few weeks.s e o q but so far, thankfully, we have not seen a tsunami of new hospitalizations and deaths along with the spread of omicron.at the hospitalization rate is, in fact, upn over the last two weeks, but only by 11%, much below the rate of new infections.lo daily deaths remain essentially flat.hs now, today the head of the cdc stressed that that might be a good sign, that the omicron go variant is potentially more mild than previous iterations of the virus. p even so, such an astronomical caseload, regardless of how sick people get, means a serious disruption to everyday life. we're already seen that across the country. t

take for example, new york city. officials at the subway had to suspend the entire subway line. so many people were out due to covid, there were not enough people to drive the trains around this city. in cincinnati, there are so many firefighters out because of covid that the city there had to declare a state of emergency today to try and help alleviate the shortage. airlines cancelling more than 900 flights again today due to covid staffing problems as well as the weather.in in d.c. today, the smithsonian was forced to close four different museums. and "the washington post" is reporting that that is a large reason why the cdc shortened the isolation period to quarantine

people for asymptomatic covid because so many people will test positive at once that it will be literally impossible to keep society functioning. today the white house's top infectious disease expert, anthony fauci, was asked about what our priorities should be as a nation, whether it should be trying to tamp down the number of infections to try and stop the disease from spreading, or if we've entered a new phase of this pandemic where we as a society learn to live with the virus with as little illness, death, and social disruption as possible. m at what point do we cross that a ts todise a are we there already? joining us now is dr. anthony fauci, the nation's top infectious disease doctor, chies medical adviser to president biden, and the director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases at the nih. dr. fauci, i know you're one of, the busiest scientists in the country right now. it is an honor to have some of your time to help us understand what's going on. i know a lot of people have a lot of questions so we appreciate your time, sir. and there has been plenty of

criticism of this new cdc guidance from some public health experts, specifically because of the lack of testing requirements to come out of it. putting that aside for a momentc there's also been a lot of criticism from the general public, i'm sure you've been following that. people have been following public health guidance closely for the past two years in order to stay safe and healthy, people who have specifically come to trust you most of all, and some of them are responding to this guidance ono isolation with confusion, nervousness, and some new distrust. what would you say to them this evening, sir? >> i would try to explain, which we've been trying to do most of the day, why the cdc made that decision. it is very clear right now that when you look at the original guidelines for people who get infected, you put them into we've been trying to do most of

we've been trying to do most of isolation for 14 days. many people with this new omicron variant get asymptomatic infections. and as you just showed, multiple examples of the rather severe disruption of society from people who are out of work because, in fact, they are infected. so they were trying to strike a balance. how do we do good public healtha principles at the time we don't have to get to the point where you're forced to essentially shut the country down?t and the decision was made that for people who were asymptomatic, that they should go into isolation for five days. and if they remain asymptomatic, they can get go back to their function, provided they consistently wear a mask. and when they said part of thata was the thing that i think has caused the controversy, is that the cdc said that at that point you don't need to do an antigen test. ccd people question why. the reason is if you look at the risk of transmitting infection from a person who is infected

during the first five days of that period versus the second five days, most of the risk is segregated in those first five days. m and so the risk is very, very low of transmitting, as you get into days 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. and the tests that are used, the antigen tests, don't really have a good predictive value as to whether or not you're transmitting. they have a good value early on to say if you're infected. tanti but 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 days later, whether it's positive or negative, we have no studies at all that have shown, and in fact the original fda approval of thn test was not for the purpose of determining if multiple days te following infection that you are able to transmit.

and for that reason, the cdc said it was not necessary to have a test, because the risk is low. so that's the explanation for that policy. >> so allow me just to button up this for a moment, because last thursday, the cdc released new guidelines for health care workers who get covid, and they have to isolate for seven days. and then they have a negative gu rapid test before they can leave isolation. and i think that begs the question, why? why seven days for health care workers and five for the rest of us?, se why do they test out of isolation while the rest of us do not? you touched on that y wh specifically, but is this based on specific scientific data, is this data published, or is it internal to the cdc? >> it's internal to the cdc. there's no specific data one for the other. they made a judgment call on that. and likely, if you look at the juidelines, that it can go back to five days for the health care

workers, too, if they really need that. >> if you have been exposed to the coronavirus and need to quarantine, there is a different guidance for people who are vaccinated and boosted than for the unvaccinated, but if you are infected and need to isolate, the recommendations don't change, depending on whether you're vaccinated or not. can you explain that for us? >> yeah, if you're infected, you're infected.ai whether or not you're vaccinated or not vaccinated, you're infected.nf when you talk about exposure any quarantine, if you are a person who is vaccinated but not boosted versus a person who is a not vaccinated, because of the greater degree of protection that you would have gotten from being boosted, they're treating people who are vaccinated but not boosted as the same risk as those who are not vaccinated at all, and that's because right now, with omicron, there's a great deal of difference in the

level of protection that you get from being boosted following vaccination versus following vaccination alone. >> i want to ask about being contaje contagious and transmissibility.ag you explain that the reason we do not need to test for people who are positive after five days is because the science says the odds of being contagious after those five days are low. dr. walensky has given a few additional reasons. she said a couple of times today that a pcr test could give someone who had a covid positive result for up to 12 weeks. cth so is a pcr test not a good barometer either for transmissibility and isolation? how can people actually tell if they are contagious in the cycle of having covid? how do you measure that if not with pennsylvania cr test or an antigen test? >> that is a very good question,

because pcr doesn't measure replication competent virus. it measures viral particles, nucleic acid. so, in other words, i could be infected, have cleared the replication-competent virus from me, butre i can continue to be positive with a pcr for several days after recovering and not being transmissible at all. so although a pcr is good to tell you, am i infected, yes, i am infected. but the very fact that it's positive for, as the cdc director said, for several days and even weeks later, it doesn't give you any indication of whether or not you're transmissible. and i think that's the understandable confusion that people have about testing. testing saying whether you're infected or not versus are you infected plus transmissible. the only way you can tell if

it's transmissible, if you can show that there really is live replication virus in you. and the tests don't measure that. they measure the presence or absence of the virus. and the virus could be dead, inactive virus that doesn't transmit. son' it's entirely understandab why people get confused over that, so that's why i try to explain it to people, to hopefully clarify that. >> yeah, i certainly appreciate that. i'm sure a lot of people do as well. i know this is anecdotal, my whole family recently caught covid, we're all positive on antigen tests. i i'm the only one who took a pcr test.hifa i'm the only one, i assume, included in the national case count now.on are we as a country too focused on cases when in reality use of rapid tests means we're probably -- we don't have an accurate assessment of cases ana we should be focusing on hospitalization rates and death rates?be

>> that's a very good point. and we are really moving in that direction. it becomes even more relevant when you're dealing -- and we hope, as you mentioned early on, one of the positive encouraging things is that it appears that omicron, from data both in south africa, the uk, and accumulating data here in the united states, indicates that it very well might not be as severe. and many people, from studies that are going on right now, who get omicron have either no symptoms or minimally symptomatic.thre so you get down to the core ou issue of what are we trying to do, what are we trying to prevent.ha we're trying to prevent people from getting sick. so if you have a virus that can give you a lot of infection, really almost like a wave of ve infection like we're seeing right now with omicron, what becomes more important is the

number of people and the percentage of people who are sick enough, for example, to require hospitalization. so your point about might it be more important as we now merge into possibly a less severe in virus, which it looks like it is right now, that the critical parameter is how sick people get, do they have to go to the hospital, what is the deaths, as opposed to what is the absoluteh number of positive tests and infected people that you have. very often you can't just forget about the number of people who are infected, because that's the forewarner of what might happend with hospitalization.er but as you get further on and see less severity, clearly hospitalization is the important thing. >> and i want to ask specifically about hospitalization. one of the recent concerns, i'm sure you're getting asked a lot about this, how do you explain the sudden increase in , hospitalizations among children? i mean, if omicron is less

severe in 15% to 20% less likely to send somebody to the hospital, why are we seeing this sudden increase in children at hospital with covid? >> well, that's a good question, and there are two things that contribute to that. first of all, quantitatively, you're having so many more elt v people, including children, who are getting infected. and even though hospitalization among children is much, much g lower on a percentage basis than hospitalizations for adults, particularly elderly individuals. however, when you have such a large volume of infections among children, even with a low level of rate of infection, you're r going to still see a lot more children who get hospitalized. but the other important thing is that if you look at the children who are hospitalized, many of he them are hospitalized with covid as opposed to because of covid.

and what we mean by that, if a child goes in the hospital, then automatically get tested for covid. and they get counted as a covid hospitalized individual. when in fact they may go in for a broken leg or appendicitis or something like that.fa so it's overcounting the numbere of children who are, quote, t' hospitalized with covid as opposed to because of covid. >> let me ask you, if i can, sir, about something president biden said on monday, and that was there is no federal solution to this, this gets solved at a state level. i'm curious from your vantage point, obviously, do you agree with the president's assessment that this is going to be solved on a state level?etr, because you obviously work for a federal agency and you have to approach this on a federal level as opposed to piecemeal solutions, state by state. >> yes. t what the president meant, and i think some people took it out of context, he meant that we need

to synergize with the states. the federal government alone will not solve the problem. working with the states the way we are doing right now, and what the president expressed during the meeting that we all had with the governors a couple of days ago, that's what he meant, that we as a federal government are not going to do it alone. we need to do it together.g that's exactly what he meant by saying it's not a federal solution. >> and let me finally, sir, just ask you, because we are seeing all this new guidance suddenly as cases are exploding, we appreciate you explaining some of the reasons behind that this evening, but mostly this variant is less severe than previous b variants.se the guidance is based on science but also what people are willing to tolerate after two years of the pandemic, that's according to dr. walensky. what does all of that indicate l about where we are in this

pandemic? have we lost control of this virus because of people's behaviors after two years and because of the evolution the virus? do we need to act as though this virus is endemic now and not pandemic? ayman, you've asked several questions, so let me try and briefly give an answer to each of these. we haven't lost control of it. this is a formidable outbreak. it is unprecedented, the likes m of which we have not seen in pr well over a hundred years. we have very good tools against it. we are fortunate enough to have a highly effective and safe number of vaccines. one of the things that's very disconcerting about all of thist is the number of people measured in tens of millions of people in this country who are eligible to be vaccinated who are not getting vaccinated. that makes it very difficult to

get a very comprehensive control of this virus, when you have so many people who could be protected, who choose for a variety of reasons not to be.d, so the first step towards really getting better control is getting people to realize that not only for their own ir protection and the protection of their family, but also for a communal responsibility, to try and get us as a nation out of this terrible pandemic that we're in. and the only way we're going to do that is to all pull together and recognize that the common enemy is the virus. and there's so much degree of divisiveness in this country, ne that's the last thing in the world you want to have when you're trying to fight a pandemic that is of historic proportion as this one is.

so if we start there, we'd be much better off than we were right now. >> it's a pandemic that is not discriminating against red and blue states in this country or informed or uninformed. s dr. anthony fauci, the nation's top infectious disease doctor, chief medical adviser to in president biden, and the director of the national institute of allergy and infectious disease at the nih, thank you so much, sir, for your time tonight. it is always a pleasure. thank you. we have a lot more ahead here tonight including that phone call happening tomorrow between the president and russian leader vladimir putin. what does russia want, and how should the u.s. respond? stay with us.yo hph sp

when you have xfinity xfi, you have peace of mind built in at no extra cost. advanced security helps keep your family protected online. pause wifi whenever for ultimate control with the xfinity app. and family-safe browsing gives parents one less thing to worry about. security, control and peace of mind. with xfinity xfi, it's all built in at no extra cost.

i have some video that i want to show you. it is taken in the past week in eastern ukraine, near the russian border. it shows ukrainian troops practicing how to use javelin antitank missiles that they actually got from us here in the united states. then i want to show you this video taken around the same

time, showing russian troops right across the ukrainian border, on the russian side, doing their own military drills. now, both of these videos, we should note, released by their countries' respective militaries. essentially they're puffing up their chests here, showing they're getting ready or at least preparing for war. u.s. intelligence officials believe there are anywhere between 70 to 100,000 russian troops currently deployed at the ukrainian border. and the ukrainian government, for its part, apparently feels outmatched in this possible fight because they've begun training thousands of ukrainian civilians in combat medical skills in case their military is overrun. an official from the biden administration told "the washington post's" david ignatius last week that the u.s. is actually weighing plans on how to support that exact kind of civilian insurgent force if,

in fact, russia topples the ukrainian government and for some reason a guerilla war begins inside ukraine. defense secretary lloyd austin has ordered a u.s. navy aircraft carrier and five warships to stay in the mediterranean close to the potential conflict, close enough for them to operate out of. meanwhile you have the state department. it is making its rounds, contacting all of our allies in the region to try and reaffirm international support for ukraine sovereignty and the consequences should russia face if it does in fact invade ukraine. today secretary of state antony blinken speaking with his ukrainian counterpart to assure him of america's commitment. we learned today that tomorrow president biden will speak by phone with russian president vladimir putin in what for the u.s. will be an attempt to get russia to de-escalation. the call came at president putin's request and the white house says president biden will

make clear that in part, quote, we are prepared for diplomacy and a diplomatic path forward, but we are also prepared to respond if russia advances with a further invasion of ukraine. threatening overtly that the u.s. and allies are prepared to impose sanctions on russia far, far beyond what was implemented the last time russia invaded ukraine in 2014. and that the u.s. is prepared to help ukraine defend its territory if, in fact, russia invades. now, russia already has a bit of a blueprint for this. of course, you may recall they invaded and annexed a part of ukraine back in 2014 and are clearly still incredibly aggressive in all of this. if russia wasn't sufficiently deterred by the international response in 2014, what can we do differently this time around? what can the u.s. do?

joining us now, ben rhodes, who was deputy national security adviser for president barack obama back in 2014 when russia invaded ukraine. as i mentioned there, russia has a little bit of a blueprint for this from back in 2014. to some extent i guess we do too. what worked for our response then and what should we approach differently that didn't work back in 2014, since the annexation of crimea has not been overturned? >> well, first of all, i think an important difference now to then is that the annexation of crimea happened very quickly. the pro-russian president of ukraine fled to russia shortly after this rule, and very quickly in response, vladimir putin essentially moved asymmetric forces into crimea and claimed it for russia. we responded to what had already happened. what the biden team is doing differently is based on the real

warnings we're seeing with the russian buildup on the border with ukraine, they're taking advantage of this window of time that exists before a potential invasion. i think when you looked at what ultimately halted russia's advance in 2014 after they moved into a couple of eastern provinces of ukraine, it was a combination of truly multilateral sanctions on russia, but not just the u.s. acting alone, but the u.s. aligned with europe and other countries, which increases both the diplomatic and economic costs to russia, but also a face-saving off-ramp for putin. this is not someone who is ever going to admit defeat. his whole image at home depends on this nationalism on issues like those around ukraine, and so there were diplomatic efforts to russia, american, and ukrainian concerns. it will have to be a combination of things that has a chance of halting this russian aggression. >> as i mentioned, ben, there was a senior administration official that briefed the press today that president biden is expected, will warn president

putin that the u.s. is prepared to respond to a russian invasion of ukraine with harsher economic sanctions than in 2014, perhaps even defending ukraine, though, not specifically what that entails. in practical terms, what would that actually entail? you would have to think that in president putin's mind there is a calculation that he knows america will not come to war against russia to defend ukraine. everything else they can withstand. >> you just put your finger on the basic problem here. look, they can put more sanctions on russia. they can try to do things to totally cut russia off from vital technology sectors like semi-conductors, like the inputs that you need for smartphones and aircraft. that's what our allies around the world are about, making sure you can line up incredible pressure on the sanctions front. the problem is, ayman, that may not be enough. vladimir putin has been on a 20-year trajectory of becoming

more aggressive. he's been on a trajectory of invading and occupying part of georgia, a former soviet republic in 2008 that he wanted in russia's sphere of influence. he invaded ukraine in 2014. the problem here is it's core to putin's project to prevent the expansion of nato to ukraine. and he may just care about this more than we ever would when it comes to putting troops on the ground. and so the thing that the biden administration has to be careful about is not raising the tensions to a point that putin can't back down without having to feel like he has to do something militarily in ukraine. that's why this is so delicate and dangerous. >> yeah, i guess. and finally on that point, we'll see what happens tomorrow when this phone call happens, but i guess we'll have to wait and see how that call plays out and where things go from here. ben rhodes, thank you so much for joining us tonight, i greatly appreciate it.

still to come tonight, the january 6th investigation is planning to present its findings to the public in the new year. we're going to be joined live by a member of the january 6th committee, coming up next.

here's the striking visual out today. this is the forthcoming january cover of "the economist." it's hardly a lefty rag, but their new cover pulls no punches. look at it. "walking away: the republican party and the democracy." and it's really hard to argue with the premise of that. the new poll out this week finds that over 70% of republicans believe the big lie that joe biden's victory was illegitimate and the election was stolen from donald trump. it would be one thing if this poll were some outlier. but over the past year, polls have consistently shown that a majority of republicans in this country do not believe joe biden is the legitimate president of

the united states. let that sink in for a moment. in fact, the percentage of republicans who believe that actually has been rising over the past year. this latest poll from the university of massachusetts, amherst, also has some striking findings on republicans' attitudes towards the january 6th attack on the capitol. republicans blame the events on antifa, the capitol police, and weirdly here, nearly a third of republicans blame the democratic party for what happened on january 6th. meanwhile, over half of republicans oppose law enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of the capitol attack. and three-quarters say we should just, quote, move on from investigating the events. now, one researcher who conducted the poll said, as we close a year that featured a shocking attack on the u.s. capitol and persistent baseless claims by the former president and his sycophants that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, we continue to see republicans and democrats living

in diametrically opposed realities. so here is the challenge. trying to bring all americans into one shared reality about january 6th. that is a tall order. but that is one goal of the congressional committee investigating the january 6th attack. and the committee is reportedly going to begin making its case to the public early in the new year. "the washington post" reporting this week that the committee is planning a dramatic presentation of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering by trump, his allies, and anyone involved in the attack or the intent to overturn the election results. a senior committee aide tells "the post," quote, we want to tell it from start to finish over a series of weeks where we can bring out the best witnesses in a way that makes sense. the committee is discussing a rough timeline that includes public hearings starting this winter and stretching to spring,

followed by an interim report in the summer and a final report ahead of the midterm elections. hanging over these plans is the question of whether the committee's work will result in criminal referrals to the justice department for anyone involved in january 6, up to and including donald trump himself. joining us now is representative zoe lofgren, democrat of california and a member of the january 6th committee. congresswoman, thank you so much for joining us this evening. i want to ask you about these weeks of hearings that your committee is planning for next year. first, is it true that that's the plan? what can you tell us about that, and can you give us any sense of what these public hearings will be about and who some of the witnesses might be? >> not at this point. what we want to do is to gather a comprehensive set of all the facts we can find that tell the complete story about the events leading up to the january 6th event and tell that in a way

that is credible, that's true, and understandable. that involves a series of hearings with witnesses to tell the story of what happened, and i think it's very important. if we just do an investigation, write a book, and put it on a shelf, we will not have accomplished our goal of having the american public have the opportunity to really tune in to what happened, fully understand it so that we can make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. >> so allow me to expand on that for a moment. what do you see as the committee's top priorities once you reconvene in the new year? is it the investigation? as you just said, it's not just about writing it in a book and putting it on a shelf. it's about the messaging of getting what you find out back to the public, which includes 70% of republicans, we ran through the numbers there for

you. >> right. well, i do think we have to have the truth, and the truth needs to be sdprad in a way that's credible in all sectors of our america. that is a very important element. obviously we have a legislative purpose as well, as we understand more clearly on the 6th and what happened leading up to the 6th. it informs us as to what legislative remedy should be undertaken as well as perhaps some administrative ones. so, you know, there's a lot to do. the investigation is not complete. we've interviewed over 300 witnesses. we've got over 35,000 documents. and, of course, we're hoping to get many more documents from the archivist that will shed further light on the events leading up

to the 6th. so the investigation isn't done. but we want to make sure that when we're ready to lay out the facts, that it is coherent and in a chronological order so people will be able to see the truth. >> the chairman of your committee, bennie thompson, told abc news that the committee would be happy to hear from house republican leader kevin mccarthy and would actually consider sending mccarthy a formal request to appear. do you think that's likely to happen? and how important is it for the committee to hear from mccarthy? after all, he did speak with the president as the attack was unfolding on january 6th. >> well, i think it would be important to listen to what kevin mccarthy has to say. he has, in fact, indicated publicly that he has nothing to hide, that he would be willing to talk further. and i hope that he lives up to that.

we know from other republican members who related the conversation he had with the president, that he had some communication. i would like to ask kevin about that. and i expect if he has nothing to hide -- and i'm not suggesting he does -- that he would want to come forward and make sure that we understand all the facts as he knows them. >> congressman zoe lofgren, member of the january 6th committee, thank you so much for your time tonight. i greatly appreciate it. more importantly, have a very happy new year. up next, an unexpected ruling from a federal court that is bringing an enormous settlement deal with one company synonymous with the opioid crisis in this country. it is bringing that to a halt. and bringing hope to the victims of the crisis. we're going to tell you about that next. we're going to tell you about that next.

do you struggle to fall asleep and stay asleep? qunol sleep formula combines 5 key nutrients that can help you fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer, and wake up refreshed. the brand i trust is qunol. if you visited the temple at

the metropolitan museum of art in the last few decades, you were greeted by these signs welcoming you to the exhibit, the sackler gallery for egyptian art and the sackler wing. but in response to a national reckoning over the sacklers' role in the opioid epidemic, the met has said it will remove the sackler name. the epidemic has claimed the lives of over a half million americans over the last two decades. that company and the family behind it, the sacklers, have been sued over a thousand times for falsely marketing their superopioid to maximize their profits when they knew, when they knew it was being dangerously abused. nearly every state in the country sued the company. and faced with that onslaught of lawsuits, purdue pharma filed for bankruptcy in 2019.

it became apparent that the sacklers siphoned off $10 billion from the company following the guilty plea in 2007. now here's the thing. after a long process, a federal judge in december approved a deal that not only allowed purdue pharma to file for bankruptcy, but it served as a settlement for hundreds and hundreds of lawsuits against the company with the sackler family personally contributing towards that settlement. one caveat that angered several of these states and victims of this crisis, the bankruptcy deal, it would shield the sacklers personally from civil litigation in exchange for that $4.5 billion contribution they would have to make. now, after a group of those dissenting states and localities appealed that bankruptcy deal, a federal judge in new york city just this month vacated it, saying that the provision

protecting members of the family from civil litigation made the deal null and void. attorney general merrick garland applauded the judge's decision. in fact, he said, we are pleased with the district court's decision invalidating the purdue pharma bankruptcy plan. the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to deprive victims of the opioid crisis of their right to sue the sackler family. the decision to toss out that deal is not over yet. the sackler family says they vowed to appeal it. and this likely could go all the way to the supreme court. one of those states that opposes the bankruptcy deal that protected the sacklers is the state of connecticut. the attorney general for the state of connecticut explained why it's so important to sue the sack lers. he said, quote, this is a seismic victory for justice and accountability that will force the sackler family to confront the pain and devastation they have caused.

connecticut will not allow billionaire wrongdoers to hide behind the bankruptcy code to shield their blood money and escape justice. joining us now, mr. attorney general, it is great to have you with us. i greatly appreciate your time. i know you believe that victims of the opioid epidemic should be able to sue the sacklers personally. talk to us about why you believe this settlement is so important that the bankruptcy court wanted to allow to go forward. >> because we need justice and accountability. that's what this decision represents. it's a huge victory for justice and accountability for what is the worst public health crisis in america, covid notwithstanding. this was a huge victory, this decision, for the morning 1,400 families in connecticut who this holiday season had an empty chair at their dining room table or in their living room.

for the more than $10 billion in damage that the opioid and addiction crisis has caused the people of connecticut every single year, and hundreds of thousands of people and billions upon billions, estimated $2 trillion in damages across the country. and we're fighting for the two moms in my office just about a couple weeks ago. between them, they lost three sons. that's why we continue this fight. >> i know that purdue, and i'm sure you're aware, they have promised to appeal the bankruptcy plan. given this new decision and die animalic in court. how soon can this happen? i know that you have maintained that there is no reason to wait. but this could take a while. >> yeah. we're in it for the long haul. we're ready to fight anywhere, any place, any court. if the sacklers and purdue appeal in the second circuit, we'll go there and beat them there. if we go to the supreme court,

we'll beat them there too. there's no justice and no accountability in this deal. let's be clear. you said in the opening segment the sacklers took out $11 billion. i'm sure it's a lot more than that. let's assume that's the right number. under this deal they say they'll pay $4.2 billion, but they'll pay it over nine years. let me tell you what that really means, what the math amounts to. that means the sacklers will pay just about 5% on their money for nine years and then they buy themselves a lifetime of immunity. i pay more than 5% on my car payment. and as far as i can tell, while people are dying here in connecticut and across the country because of their craven greed. not a single sackler will have to sell a boat or house or a piece of art or a piece of jewelry. they will feel no pain while thousands and thousands of people across this country are dying. >> all right. connecticut attorney general

william tong. we'll have to leave it at that. thank you for your time. i appreciate it. happy new year to you, sir. thank you. we still have one more very important story to get to, and that's straight ahead. don't go anywhere. that's straight ahead. don't go anywhere.

statue created by danish sculptor in 1997. the year that authority over hong kong was passed from the united kingdom to china. made of metal and concrete, it stands about 26 feet tall. it depicts 50 torn and mangled bodies, memorializing the lives lost during the tiananmen square massacre in beijing. at its base you can see the inscription there in red, "the

old cannot kill the young." the artist had hoped the statue would serve as a, quote, a warning and a reminder to people of a shameful event which must never rekur. it is a monument to the 1989 democracy protest and it stood as a symbol to the pro-democracy movement, not just around the world. but last thursday in the early hours of the morning, the university of hong kong removed this monument from its campus. and then the next day, two more universities and hong kong followed suit and removed their monuments of the massacre. it is just one of many anti-democratic acts people have witnessed as it kozes up to the communist party in beijing. look what happened today. seven staffers at one of the last pro democracy media outlets were arrested on charges of conspiracy to publish seditious publications, prompting the news site to shut down and end its operations.

if that sounds familiar to you, you will recall that rachel on this program reported on a similar situation this summer when journalists associated with the independent pro-democracy newspaper, "apple daily," were arrested and charged with collusion for a foreign country in violation of hong kong's national security law. "apple daily" shuddered its operations and those staffers are awaiting their trial. but this week, the courts add another charge to their case. conspiracy to produce and distribute sedition publications. the very same charge that the news staffers were arrested with today. just after we got on the air tonight, the u.s. secretary of state blinken tweeted out that he is deeply concerned by the closure of stand news and has called on authorities in hong kong to stop targeting independent media, and to release those who have been detained. it has been a very scary area for the pro-democracy movement in hong kong, and as symbols of

the movement come down, there are fewer and fewer news outlets left in the city to report on china's encroaching authoritarian politics. as rachel would say, watch this space. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire coming up next. as you know well, the cdc has been criticized for mixed messaging throughout the course of this pandemic, whether it's on masks or on boosters. why should americans trust the cdc? >> my job right now is to take all of the science and information that we have and to deliver guidance and recommendations to the american people that is adapted to the science at hand. this pandemic has given us a lot of new and updated science over the last two years, and it is my job to convey that science through those recommendations, and that is exactly what we are doing. >> that's the director of