Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Tech For Nevada Caucuses Under Scrutiny After Chaos In Iowa; 2,000-Plus Former DoJ Officials Call On A.G. Bill Barr To Resign; 14 Americans Evacuated From Cruise Ship Test Positive. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired February 17, 2020 - 21:00   ET

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

[21:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Hey, good evening again. Chris Cuomo is off tonight.

In this late edition of 360, President Trump's current state of mind, Amy Klobuchar's past, and how it may come to bear on the campaign today, also, the latest on the Coronavirus outbreak, and how it's hitting Americans abroad and, now, here at home, very full hour ahead.

We begin with presidential politics and the upcoming Nevada caucuses and concerns that the kind of chaos we saw in Iowa might be looming once again. Volunteers there are warning of a lack of training on the technology they plan to use and some confusion over how the process will work.

Jeff Zeleny is in Reno for us tonight.

So, how confident are people in Nevada tonight that they're not going to have another Iowa on their hands?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, Party officials are trying to express confidence, campaigns are trying to express confidence, so it does not suppress the vote. But underneath the confidence, there is some concern. And this is the reason why.

There's never been early voting before for caucuses. The idea of caucusing is to go into a room, with your friends and neighbors, have a discussion, and then realign if your top choices don't make it.

So, what they're trying to do now is have early voting for four days, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, and then hold on to those votes, and then have the actual caucuses on Saturday, and then sort of mix them up, so that is the complicating factor here.

But there are some, you know, very specific rules that are going on that people simply aren't familiar with. So, the technology is one concern, but also the rules of simply you have to vote for more than one person.

I talked to a voter today, here in Reno. She said she went on Saturday, and tried to early-vote. She stood in line, and stood in line, it took too long. Her children went on Sunday, it took too long. She said she's going back tomorrow, and is going to wait as long as it takes.

So, the lines are an issue, sometimes over three hours at a time, but it's those specific caucus rules that most people are concerned about here, the merging those results on Saturday, Anderson.

COOPER: So, when someone goes to early vote in Nevada, this is confusing. You vote more that - you vote--

ZELENY: Right.

COOPER: --if for like a first round and then a second round?

ZELENY: You do. You actually have to vote for three rounds, a first round, a second round, and a third round.

And I'm hearing, this evening, from a few campaign advisers that they are being told that some ballots are being disqualified because there are not three choices being made there.

So, that is one of the things that is plainly stated on the ballot, "You must vote for three rounds." But look, you know, this hasn't been done before, and some people may be confused by this.

So, but the - the issue here, on Saturday, is - is realigning all of these. If someone goes and early votes, and then it is mixed in with their own precinct on Saturday, that's where the math could get very complicated.

I was at some of those Iowa caucuses, watching it all in real time. Never mind the app, and all that, just seeing it happen, sort of in the flesh, it was confusing then, but when you're adding early vote into it, that is one of the issues.

But the Party officials say, "Look, we've been at this for a long time. We've been training people for a long time. They believe that this will work out."

So, so far, some 26,000 people have early voted through the weekend, many more today and tomorrow, so we will see if it goes. But there is a sense here of anticipation and apprehension for how that is going to actually work on Saturday, Anderson.

COOPER: All right, Jeff Zeleny. Jeff, thanks very much.

Joining us now is former Clinton Campaign Senior Spokesperson, Karen Finney. She's a CNN Political Commentator, so is Democratic Strategist, Aisha Moodie-Mills. Thanks both for being with us.

Karen?

KAREN FINNEY, FORMER SENIOR SPOKESPERSON, CLINTON 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

COOPER: Are you surprised that after the chaos of the Iowa caucus where, you know, there's folks voicing concerns now about what may happen in Nevada?

FINNEY: No. And actually, what I've heard from on the ground is look, people are a bit nervous. And they're really, you know, they want to do a good job.

I think one of the major differential factors in Nevada that we didn't have in Iowa, all due respect to Iowa, is Harry Reid. He still has a very strong political machine.

[21:05:00]

It means a lot to him. He helped get Nevada early in the - in the window, and get the caucus in the first place. So, I think they're not going to let it see the kind of problems that we saw in Iowa.

They're not using actual technology. The one technology is really an iPad and a calculator. And everything else is going to be done, you know, paper, with multiple redundancies, so we'll see.

But I have to tell you, Anderson, I would be perfectly happy if we did away with the caucuses because it's a mess, and it's always a mess, even with the best of intentions, although I think, again in Nevada, they're trying very hard to make sure that everyone can feel confident in the results.

COOPER: Yes. Aisha, it's certainly a mess in Iowa, and something that the President and his allies pounced on, you know, to kind of say, "Well, look, if Democrats can't figure out how to do a caucus, how can they rule?"

AISHA MOODIE-MILLS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I want to go back to something Karen said. I totally agreed that this whole caucus melee seems extremely confusing to most of the American people. I think that we should totally do away with it as well.

Functionally, this really brings down - boils down to a question of why is it not simply one vote, one person? That makes a lot of sense to most people when you try to wrap your head around what it means to participate in an election.

And I think that, you know, at the end of the day, the Democrats have an opportunity to really lead in that conversation, about how we reform the way that our elections happen, generally speaking, as well as this primary process.

We are in a situation now where people feel distrust with the process. And when people feel distrust with the process, I fear that they don't necessarily show up and participate.

So, how can we simplify this, where you understand that if you go, and you cast your ballot, you can do it, you know, early, you have a range of a couple of weeks to vote, you can vote at your polling place, you can vote, you know, by mail and what-have-you, and that is actually going to count, what you say is going to count, whether it be ranked choice, you pick the top three, whatever it might be. I think that we need to have a conversation about how we simplify all of this because having a process that makes people skeptical, and then gives our opponents an opportunity to kind of poke at it, frankly, I think, demoralizes the process, and demoralizes the people.

COOPER: Yes.

MOODIE-MILLS: And what we need is full force--

FINNEY: Yes.

MOODIE-MILLS: --in effect of everybody turning out.

COOPER: Yes. Hey, I also want to bring in - I want to bring in Megan Messerly. She's Politics Reporter for The Nevada Independent.

Megan, I'm wondering do State Party officials, I mean, is there a backup plan? What are you hearing from people about how the process is going?

MEGAN MESSERLY, POLITICS REPORTER, THE NEVADA INDEPENDENT: Yes. So like we've been talking about, you know, Nevada Democrats had to entirely redesign their caucus process in the wake of Iowa.

They were planning on using two apps that were designed by the company responsible for the Iowa apps. They've come up with this totally new system, this caucus calculator that you've been talking about. The goal is to bring in the early vote data.

But there are backup plans built in. There's paper backups for everything, for instance, this caucus calculator is supposed to be used to bring in the early vote data, to early caucusgoers, home precincts, on caucus day, to be counted just as if they had been there in person on the actual day of the caucus.

But there's going to be an envelope that Party officials tell me will be sealed. It will have that information in the envelope, just in case they need to do calculations by hand.

So, they're building in redundancies. And I think the mood here on the ground is that, you know, folks really want the process to work. Obviously, there are questions and, I think, concerns in the wake of Iowa.

But that's the sense I'm getting from - from campaigns here is that, you know, they still have some unanswered questions. But there still is that trust in the Party to get things done.

COOPER: Karen, do you think Nevada is going to crystallize anything really in - in terms of the race on the Democratic side?

FINNEY: Absolutely. I mean, look, it's the first state where we have a diverse population.

And so, seeing not just who wins, but how they win, and where they win, in different parts of the state, because you've also got more conservative parts and more moderate sort of conservative parts of the state.

So, I think taking a look at that will tell us are we still having this very liberal, very, you know, sort of moderate conversation.

Is that still what we're seeing? And where do, you know, we have high populations of Latinos and Asian-Americans? The ballots are actually also printed in Tagalog in Nevada. So, I think it will give us a good sense.

And remember, Anderson, the most important thing, if you're a campaign, having been on both sides of this is delegates. This is ultimately about a count for delegates.

And hopefully, for the candidate who comes victorious out of the 22nd, they're going to, you know, hopefully have the momentum that will help them raise more money, to put more resources into those Super Tuesday States.

COOPER: Aisha?

MOODIE-MILLS: Yes.

COOPER: What are you going to be watching for in Nevada?

MOODIE-MILLS: I'm going to be watching for turnout. I am so curious as to how enthusiastic Democrats actually are, about this process, in general.

Here's the thing. Anderson, the only way that we get rid of Donald Trump out of this White House is if Democrats come out en masse in November to vote.

I think that this primary process is going to be really telling about whether we see record-breaking numbers in Nevada, of people turning out, because they want to be a part of getting rid of Donald Trump. And that means picking the candidates who's going to be able to go up against him.

I was very disappointed in Iowa's turnout. New Hampshire was a little bit better. But now we are in a diverse state that is certainly more a reflection of America. We'll see the next - the same thing when we go into South Carolina.

[21:10:00]

So, what I'm watching for is, are people really enthusiastic about this 2020 election generally? Are they participating? Are they showing up in record numbers? Because that, to me, will be a bit of a bellwether of what we're to - to see in November.

COOPER: Megan, what are you seeing on the ground so far in terms of enthusiasm we're hearing?

MESSERLY: Yes. There's a lot of enthusiasm on the ground. And that's what I'm hearing from folks, mostly, when I talk to them at early voting sites. They tell me, you know, some of them waited three or four hours over

the last couple of days to cast their early votes. Well one woman told me though she would have waited 12 hours. She thinks it's that important to participate in this process.

So, obviously, there are other ways that folks would prefer to spend their - their weekends, their holiday weekend. But they're happy to participate in the process, it seems. So, there is a lot of enthusiasm.

And I think the important thing to mention of those 26,000 votes that have been cast, as of this morning, a lot of those the majority of them, are brand-new caucusgoers--

FINNEY: Right.

MESSERLY: --who didn't caucus in 2008 or 2016.

So, we are seeing new folks be brought into the fold during the course of this election. So, I think we're just waiting to see what that ultimate turnout number is, and then obviously, waiting to see how the field shakes out.

COOPER: Yes. Megan Messerly, Karen Finney, Aisha Moodie-Mills, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

MOODIE-MILLS: Thank you.

FINNEY: Thank you.

COOPER: Coming up next, the unprecedented bipartisan call for Attorney General Barr to step down and growing concerns President Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department.

And later, a question for Democrats, given all that, should they hold hearings and continue working to expose what they see as a threat to democracy? There's new reporting that their leadership actually wants to do the opposite.

I'll ask one Democratic lawmaker for his take on it.

[21:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: USA Today is reporting that a national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting, for tomorrow, to address growing concerns about intervention by the Justice Department and the President in politically sensitive cases.

The President of the independent Federal Judges Association, who's a George W. Bush appointee, said the group "Could not wait" until its spring conference to weigh in.

That came in the wake of another attention-getter, a bipartisan group of more than 2,000 former Justice Department officials calling on Attorney General Barr to step down. I'm quoting now from their statement.

"Mr. Barr's actions in doing the President's personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words. Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice's reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign."

Joining us now is CNN Global Affairs Analyst and Washington Post Columnist, Max Boot, who recently wrote about how democracies die, and the role public apathy plays in - in their demise, along with also is former Clinton White House Press Secretary, Joe Lockhart. He's currently Co-Host of the Words Matter podcast, and is a CNN Political Commentator.

Max, when - when 2000 former Justice Department officials, who worked for Republicans and Democrats administrations, are calling on the Attorney General to resign, it's no small - small thing.

I - you know, Trump supporters will write it off as just, you know, Obama holdovers and - and just politically motivated, but no one thinks he's going to actually resign.

MAX BOOT, WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: No, obviously, he's not going anywhere.

But I think the fact that you have 2000 former prosecutors, Anderson, representing 12 different administrations, and these are Republicans and Democrats, and people who are completely non-partisan, they're all saying that Barr needs to go, this is not something they would do very lightly. And clearly, they are extremely alarmed. And I think everybody needs to be very alarmed.

I mean you even have a former Deputy Attorney General in the George H.W. Bush administration, Don Ayer, saying that Barr needs to go. That is how problematic the current administration of justice is with Trump politicizing the legal system, and Barr being his willing lackey.

And these lawyers know what's at stake. They know how the rule of law is the underpinning of our democracy. But I feel like the rest of the country is not paying attention.

There is not the kind of alarm we should be seeing because a lot of people out there seem to be a lot more worried about the strength of the stock market than they are about the strength of our democracy.

And Trump is basically getting away with an awful lot, I think, because of there's - this public passivity. There is not this mobilization on the part of the public to stop him. And that - that is of great concern to me.

COOPER: Well Joe, I mean I think, you know, Max raises a good point about a sense of apathy or, I don't know if it's - it's kind of malaise.

But it - there certainly, I mean, I think that's one of the things the President depends on, is just wearing other people down, wearing his opponents down, to the point where people just kind of give up, they're just sick of that, they want to actually live their lives and not have this constant, you know, mishegoss going on.

JOE LOCKHART, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, HOST, "WORDS MATTER" PODCAST, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. No, I think that's exactly right.

I think - I think everyone is somewhat enured to the norm-breaking, the guardrails being destroyed and, you know, the - the rule of law being trampled upon, because there is something every day.

He does something every day. He has divided the country as far as their - their support or an opposition to him, but also the information they get, and there's no longer a dialog between the sides.

I, you know, I don't take as pessimistic a view as Max does, you know. We just don't have a culture anymore of taking to the streets. But I do think there's a lot of energy on both sides in the election to decide in November, you know, who's right.

And I'm actually feeling confident even with this, you know, stock market and an economy that's doing well, the President is still at, you know, 42, 43 percent job approval. No President has been elected or re-elected with those numbers.

And I think people have just, they're - they're tired of it. And - and that - that fatigue, I think, is working against Trump, ultimately. But we have, you know, we have many more months we've got to endure before then.

COOPER: Although Max, I mean, you look at turnout in - in Iowa. It certainly was not, you know, gangbusters as I think many Democrats probably thought it was going to be.

BOOT: That's right. I mean it was higher in New Hampshire. We'll see what happens the rest of the way.

I mean I don't want to be a gloomy Gus here, and - and I hope that Joe is right, and that there is this mass mobilization against Trump in November. But look, we got to face the reality. Trump could very easily win reelection.

That's actually what a lot of the Smart Money is saying, especially if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, the Democrats could lose a lot of centrists, and Trump could waltz back into the White House, and I think that would be a disaster for our democracy.

And I say that as somebody who is not a Democrat. I'm an independent. I'm a former Republican. But I just think it would be a catastrophe for democracy if Donald Trump is re-elected.

[21:20:00]

Based on what he's done the first four years, he's going to take it as basically permission to keep on going, and to keep undermining the rule of law, and undermining our democracy. COOPER: Joe, the idea that Bill Barr, you know, goes on ABC, saying he doesn't like the President's tweets, and that - and, somehow, that kind of resets the balance of power to the way it should be, if anything, I mean, did it seem to you to be a - like a PR move essentially?

LOCKHART: Oh, I mean absolutely. I think Bill Barr was dealing with some personnel issues in the Department of Justice, and a revolt, and he was trying to hold off mass resignations.

I don't think, you know, particularly after his performance with the Mueller report, where he totally and dishonestly mischaracterized it, in advance, in order to shape people's opinion, you know, I don't think he has a lot of credibility, you know, in the media and in the public, so it - so it didn't necessarily work.

And all you have to do is see what he did in the next couple of days, to understand that he wasn't trying to change the President's behavior, or to yes, you know, reinstate or install the rule of law in the Justice Department. He was trying to take some of the heat off of himself. And, you know, I don't think it worked.

And, you know, as judged by the 2000 prosecutors, who've signed this letter, they haven't taken any substantive steps to depoliticize or, you know, de-weaponize the Department of Justice.

COOPER: Yes. Max Boot, Joe Lockhart, appreciate it, thanks.

BOOT: Thank you.

COOPER: Straight ahead, more on President Trump without guardrails. We'll be joined by Democratic Member of the House Oversight Committee about whether or not Democrats have any appetite left for, in a word, oversight.

[21:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Before the break, we were talking about the rule of law that critics say President Trump is trampling on, since his impeachment acquittal in the Senate.

The question is will the House of Representatives go down the road of more public hearings in the wake of the President's intervention in the Roger Stone case. Joining me now is Illinois Democratic Congressman, Raja Krishnamoorthi.

Congressman, thanks for being with us. What do you make of the growing pushback against the Attorney General?

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Thanks, Anderson.

COOPER: The open letter from the former DOJ officials?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think it's unprecedented. I don't remember a time when 2000 former prosecutors did what these folks did.

And just one other thing that I wanted to point out, which is that the fact that I heard that a group of judges are also now, you know, basically calling for an emergency meeting of their association, to take a look at what's happening, is also a signal that there might be blowback from the Judiciary about what's happening at the DOJ.

You have to remember, a lot of these federal judges were former federal prosecutors at DOJ. And so, they have friends there. They know what's going on. They probably don't like it.

And so, it'll be very interesting to see, for instance, how Judge Jackson rules in the Oliver's - in the Roger Stone case, pardon me, and whether, you know, she basically goes with the initial sentencing recommendation.

COOPER: Do you think there should be hearings about interference in the Roger Stone case?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I do. I think it's - it's a serious issue. It's - it's not common for four federal prosecutors to basically withdraw from a case, all of the sudden, and one of them resigned from the DOJ altogether.

I would not be surprised if next month when Mr. Barr comes before the House Judiciary Committee, he gets grilled over this very issue. And who knows? There might be further proceedings as well.

COOPER: You know, you tweeted today you want Attorney General Barr to resign. Senator Warren was on this program saying that Barr should be impeached.

Would you go that far? And, you know, I mean is that something Speaker Pelosi and, frankly, American people really have much of an appetite for more, you know, impeachment investigations, impeachment hearings?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I'm not sure about that.

But, on the other hand, we can't do nothing, and therefore, I think, at this point, I think those further oversight hearings, with regard to how the DOJ is being run. I think the DOJ is being Trumpified.

You know, it's being - being politicized the same way that the State Department, and even the Defense Department, and even the Commerce Department, with regard to the census and the citizenship question, were signals that basically President Trump views these agencies not as independent arms, but as potentially political arms of his, and that's deeply disturbing.

COOPER: And, I mean, what can Democrats really do when it comes to oversight of the President? I mean now that impeachment is over does seem like there are - there are fewer and fewer guardrails, if any.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well they're constantly coming to the Congress for more money for new programs, or changes to existing programs, or they're coming to the Congress and the House for appropriations. And so, I think, at this point, I think we have to use each of those

opportunities as a chance to basically make sure that if we are going to provide further funding, or we are going to authorize extensions of existing programs, or new programs, that it be conditioned on good behavior.

And there isn't really a lot of that going on right now at the DOJ, especially given what we know about the Stone situation, but also the fact that Attorney General Barr has called for a second line of prosecutors to basically micromanage or question the decisions in the Michael Flynn prosecution.

And now he's set up some kind of inbox or some kind of special corridor for Rudy Giuliani to provide dirt to the DOJ about the Bidens, and other former enemies, or current enemies, of the President, from Ukraine.

COOPER: Congressman, I appreciate your time, as always. Thank you very much.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you.

[21:30:00]

COOPER: Congressman Krishnamoorthi.

Coming up next, back to Nevada, a closer look at Minnesota Senator, Amy Klobuchar's campaign, and how one incident in her background, as a prosecutor, continues to be felt and spoken about on the campaign trail.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar is making significant inroads in the Democratic presidential race, and she obviously needs a respectable showing in the upcoming Nevada caucus, and the South Carolina primary, to build on that.

That said she also faces some potential obstacles, including an issue from back when she was a local prosecutor. Tonight, Randi Kaye has that story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have always believed in doing my job without fear or favor. That's what I do as a Senator and that's what I did as a prosecutor.

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This was the moment Amy Klobuchar had been waiting for, another shot at making history. She'd already made history twice as the first woman elected County Attorney in Minnesota's Hennepin County, and the first woman elected Senator in Minnesota.

Reporter Patrick Condon has covered Klobuchar for more than a decade.

[21:35:00]

PATRICK CONDON, STAR TRIBUNE: She has a sort of Minnesota charisma. She's sort of folksy. She - she kind of has a fondness for corny jokes. She's a - you know, she's a good retail politician.

KAYE (on camera): Amy Klobuchar is from Plymouth, Minnesota, just outside Minneapolis. She's the daughter of a schoolteacher and a Minnesota newspaper columnist.

She left Minnesota, only briefly, to attend Yale University and, then later, the University of Chicago Law School. Her family's from Slovenia, just like Melania Trump.

KLOBUCHAR: You may not know this. But I was officially displaced as the most famous Slovenian-American by Melania Trump.

KAYE (voice-over): As Hennepin County's top prosecutor, Klobuchar promised to be tough on crime. Critics say she ramped up incarcerations. And she took heat for not doing enough to end police brutality and racial disparities in prison.

One case continues to haunt Klobuchar from her days as County Attorney.

A 11-year-old Tyesha Edwards was killed by a stray bullet, back in 2002. A Black teenager named Myon Burrell was sentenced to life for her killing, in what media reports call a flawed investigation, involving questionable police tactics and the testimony of a teen rival.

Klobuchar prosecuted the case and has highlighted it as an example of justice served. The NAACP in Minneapolis sees it differently.

LESLIE REDMOND, MINNEAPOLIS NAACP: Amy Klobuchar, there are questions that need to be answered. There are communities that need to be visited. And, most importantly, there are wrongs that need to be made right.

KAYE (voice-over): Klobuchar says all evidence in that case needs to be reviewed immediately.

But in the death of another Minneapolis child, a 11-year-old Byron Phillips, who was caught in the crossfire of a gang shootout, Klobuchar gets high marks.

KLOBUCHAR: No one had bothered to figure out who did it. When I came into that office, we worked with the community groups, we put up billboards, we found the shooter, and we put him in jail.

KAYE (voice-over): In 2006, Klobuchar won her first Senate campaign. She went on to win two more terms in landslide victories.

But her reputation for Minnesota Nice suffered after tales of mistreatment and abuse of her staff. In 2018, Politico included her on a list of worst bosses in Congress.

KLOBUCHAR: Am I a tough boss? Sometimes yes. Have I pushed people too hard? Yes.

KAYE (voice-over): Over the years, critics in Minnesota have also jumped on Klobuchar for not taking on big fights.

CONDON: A lot of sort of consumer-oriented legislation, you know, swimming pool safety, lead in toys, they're not exactly the great debates of our day.

KAYE (on camera): And these smaller issues have earned her sort of a nickname.

CONDON: The Senator of Small Things.

KAYE (voice-over): Despite that nickname, Amy Klobuchar has big things on her mind. As another famous Minnesota politician, Walter Mondale, told us, Klobuchar has drive, and grit, and gets things done. How far that will take her in this latest challenge remains to be seen.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Randy, the - the Reporter you spoke with, does he have any predictions or thoughts on - on Super Tuesday and how Klobuchar may do in Minnesota?

KAYE: He certainly does, Anderson. Given her landslide victories, in her Senate races, you think that he would say well probably more of the same, right? But after covering her for 10-plus years, he actually sees a weak spot.

He does not think it's a guarantee that she'd win in Minnesota on Super Tuesday, and that's because Senator Bernie Sanders is very popular there. He beat Hillary Clinton in Minnesota in 2016, as you recall.

Plus, this time around, he says that there are a lot of other options, and the grassroots on the Left, he says, is not Klobuchar's political profile.

Plus, it's also worth noting, Anderson that he also points out that the two most prominent African-American politicians in Minnesota are supporting someone else other than Klobuchar.

Both, Representative Ilhan Omar, and Keith Ellison, who is now Minnesota's Attorney General, are both backing Sanders, not Klobuchar, Anderson.

COOPER: Amy Klobuchar, I mean, is known for retail politics. The same Reporter doesn't think that will help her on Super Tuesday in the Minnesota primary.

KAYE: No. We talked about that.

We were talking about how, you know, most years, she tries to actually visit all 87 counties in Minnesota. She's really strong on retail politics. But again, he says, not even that is going to help her on Super Tuesday. COOPER: Interesting. Well we'll see. It's up to the voters. Randi Kaye, thanks very much.

There are new developments tonight in the fight to contain the Coronavirus outbreak. Coming up next, the - the latest on infected American travelers back on U.S. soil, and the many questions that are coming home with them.

[21:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: 14 Americans evacuated from a cruise ship in Japan are confirmed to be infected with the - the Coronavirus. There are more than 300 passengers who were kept aboard under quarantine for weeks. They've been flown back to the U.S.

But those who aren't sick, now face another 14-day quarantine, here at home. And for some, the strain is overwhelming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREY MANISCALCO, CRUISE SHIP PASSENGER: They have sent over a dozen emails assuring us that there would not be an additional quarantine, and they just told us that we'd be re-quarantined for 14 more days. I've just lost a whole month of my life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Our Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta is with us.

Sanjay, how bad is this situation from your view tonight?

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, if you look at the numbers overall, the - the cases still continue to increase, but the pace at which we're seeing new cases has come down a bit.

As you know, Anderson, the early numbers in these situations are always hard to - to glean too much into. But obviously, you'd want to see the - the pace at which these new cases are coming about to continue to decrease, so you want to see that trend continue.

But what I thought was really interesting. There was this large study, some 44,000 patients they looked at. There's probably a lot more patients out there. But they were able to study 44,000.

80 percent of them, Anderson, had either no symptoms, or minimal symptoms, fully expected to recover. So, that - that's good, you know, and that sort of fits with what we're seeing, a lot of people who are diagnosed with the infection, but really having no symptoms.

[21:45:00]

There's about 14, 15 percent, where people had more serious disease, including pneumonia, about 5 percent of patients had critical disease, 2 percent of patients, they say, have died from this.

But keep in mind, to get that 2 percent number, that's the number of deaths over the number of people infected, I don't think we really know, Anderson, how many people are infected out there.

There's probably a lot of people, who have, again, no symptoms or minimal symptoms, never get tested, so you wouldn't know it. I think that brings that fatality ratio a lot lower.

COOPER: And how does it compare to other, you know, viruses, in terms of fatality? And is - is there any way to compare it?

GUPTA: Yes, I mean, you - you can look at, you know, everything from H1N1, Zika. SARS and MERS are the ones that most often people draw the comparison because they're also part of the same family of viruses, the Coronavirus family.

And again, you know, you and I spent time in these situations, where we see the leap of these - these pathogens from animals to humans. That's how - how most of these pathogens get into the human population.

It's happened seven times in the past with Coronavirus. Two of them have been problematic, SARS and MERS. Compared to those, this appears to be a lot less lethal.

COOPER: There's obviously been a lot of attention on the quarantine of the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan.

Did that quarantine work because apparently some American citizens who were infected - infected with the virus were actually asymptomatic when they - they left the ship.

GUPTA: Yes, this was such an interesting story to me. So, the way this played out, they were, you know, this - this ship docked February 3rd. The people were supposed to go into quarantine until February 19.

But these passengers coming off the ship today, as they're sort of en route now, to be - to be evacuated, test results from two to three days earlier come back as positive. As you mentioned, they're not sick at all. So, the decision is made to essentially go ahead and let those patients still fly home.

I'm going to answer the question about the quarantine in a second. But take a look at some of these images. It's a 747 charter plane. I just thought this was so interesting.

Airflow is from the nose to the tail of the plane. Crew, staff, they're in the front of the plane. That's, you know, they're doing the - the staffing of the plane. Passengers, sort of in the mid-body of the plane, and what they created in the back of the plane was an isolation area on the plane.

So, they take these passengers, who - who have been diagnosed with the infection, the tests came back positive, and essentially these 10- foot-tall plastic sheets are set up around these chairs. People can only get into that area one way. They can only get out one way. So, they essentially created an isolation area on a 747 plane.

Now, am I surprised that people are still getting infected on the ship? Two things.

First of all, a quarantine is not the same as isolation. We know people were still able to get out and about. They limited their activity. But people were still out and about, getting fresh air.

We know the - there's a thousand crew members on the ship that were not in quarantine, you know, who - who it's possible that they - they could have been spreading the virus.

It's also possible that these people who are infected got infected before the quarantine, and we're just seeing them at the sort of end of their incubation period.

COOPER: Well, Sanjay, appreciate all the information, thanks.

GUPTA: You got it. Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: Ahead, millions held in prison, and their families believe there's only one reason why. Their religion. CNN investigates why these images may be far from the real picture of what U.S. officials call "Concentration camps" next.

[21:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Over the past four years, China says it's been trying to root out Islamist extremism and terrorism in the Western region of Xinjiang, through what it calls a massive vocational training program. Critics and survivors say it's actually a mass internment policy, targeting members of the country's Muslim minority.

CNN's Ivan Watson obtained rare leaked documents from inside Xinjiang, evidence that reveals an extraordinary level of surveillance, showing the Chinese government appears to be rounding up and detaining its citizens for the most arbitrary reasons.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Growing a long beard, making an international phone call, having a passport, these are all reasons that can land you in what U.S. officials call "Concentration camps" in China.

Chilling revelations detailed in what appears to be a Chinese government surveillance report on its citizens, leaked from Xinjiang. That's a region in Western China where a mass internment policy has forced up to 2 million Muslims, mostly from the country's ethnic Uyghur minority, in to detention.

WATSON (on camera): The documents are spreadsheets of data on more than 300 families living in one neighborhood of Karakax County.

They provide highly-detailed personal information, including National ID numbers, home addresses, history of foreign travel, religious practices, and whether or not they are a threat.

WATSON (voice-over): The authors, believed to be Chinese government officials, then decide whether to keep individuals in what the Chinese government calls vocational training centers.

(PEOPLE SIGNING)

WATSON (voice-over): Beijing wants the world to believe this mass job training program is rooting out violent extremism. But several survivors tell CNN, the reality is these camps were crowded prison- like facilities, where inmates were subjected to torture.

Due to China's crackdown, and a heavy curtain of censorship, independently confirming anything in Xinjiang is incredibly difficult.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why you're here? You tell me. Why you're here?

WATSON (voice-over): On a recent visit to the region, Chinese Security Forces harassed and blocked CNN's Matt Rivers from visiting the internment camps.

[21:55:00]

However, a CNN investigation tracked down Uyghurs, living in exile, who verified the identities of at least eight of the families profiled in the leaked report. The investigation takes us to Istanbul, Turkey.

Here, I meet Rozinsa Mamattohti, a mother of three from Xinjiang, whose name is on the document.

ROZINSA MAMATTOHTI, RELATIVE OF DETAINEE: Rozinsa Mamattohti.

WATSON (on camera): Rozinsa Mamattohti. That is you. That's your name (FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

MAMATTOHTI: (FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

WATSON (voice-over): Her name appeared under case number 358, which also revealed that her younger sister, Patem, was sent to a camp in March of 2018 for supposedly violating China's family planning policy. That is having too many children.

MAMATTOHTI (through translator): When I saw the document and learned that my younger sister was in prison for the past two years I couldn't sleep or eat for days.

WATSON (voice-over): Rozinsa says this is the first information she's had about her family in Xinjiang since 2016.

Many Uyghurs living overseas say communication with their family, back home, was completely cut off, when China intensified its crackdown in Xinjiang. But some Uyghurs are risking their lives to expose this sensitive information.

WATSON (on camera): This is the first time you're speaking publicly about these documents.

TAHIRJAN ANWAR, UYGHUR ACTIVIST: Yes, this is the first time.

WATSON (voice-over): Tahirjan Anwar is a Uyghur activist living in exile in The Netherlands. Last summer, he received this trove of documents, from a source in Xinjiang he won't identify, for their safety.

ANWAR: That was my birthday. And I got the attachment, document, and they're very surprising.

WATSON (voice-over): And it is Anwar, along with a patchwork of other Uyghurs, living in exile, who are sharing this information with the outside world.

ADRIAN ZENZ, SENIOR FELLOW, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: This document is like a microcosm of what's happening all over Xinjiang.

WATSON (voice-over): Adrian Zenz is a U.S.-based academic who's been studying what he is convinced are internal Chinese government documents.

ZENZ: This is the future of authoritarianism. This is the future of changing populations who don't agree with the main regime, in terms of ideology, spirituality, political identity, or other criteria.

WATSON (on camera): CNN's data analysis reveals among at least 484 people sent to camps, five were detained because they communicated with people overseas, 25 were detained for holding a passport without visiting a foreign country, and the most, 114 people were labeled a threat for simply having too many children.

Those Uyghurs were sent to four different camps, all apparently located within the same community. Using other open-source Chinese government documents, we were able to find the locations of the four facilities, including the number two training center, located near the Karakax train station.

WATSON (voice-over): And this is where Rozinsa Mamattohti's second older sister Rozniyaz was sent. According to case number 597, her offense, having a passport and giving birth to too many children.

Rozinsa fears her family could be punished further because she's going public.

WATSON (on camera): Why are you showing your face to the outside world?

MAMATTOHTI (through translator): Because I love and miss my parents and my family so much. Because I want to know what's happened to them. I want to know if they are alive and well. But if they are dead, I need to know that as well.

WATSON (voice-over): CNN reached out to the Chinese Foreign Ministry and Xinjiang regional government, in writing, with detailed questions. But Chinese officials did not respond. In the past, Beijing has strenuously denied allegations of mistreatment and arbitrary detention.

WANG YI, CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): The so called concentration camps with 1 million people are 100 percent rumors. It is completely fakes news.

WATSON (voice-over): As for Tahirjan Anwar, he hopes that sharing these documents will force Beijing to ease its crackdown in Xinjiang, and lead to information about his own missing loved ones.

ANWAR: This is my father. He is now in the jail. I don't know what exactly crime of him.

Chinese government, lets free my father immediately, and lets free all Uyghurs immediately.

WATSON (voice-over): Ivan Watson, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: The news continues. Let's turn things over now to Don Lemon and CNN TONIGHT.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: This is a special edition of CNN TONIGHT. I am Don Lemon.