Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Former D.C. Police Hopes To Have Result From DOJ; January 6th Committee Makes Catchy Presentation; Chief Arredondo Trying To Justify His Action; Olympians Filed A $1B Federal Tort Claim; Justin Bieber Cancel His Shows; Mentally Disturbed Man Plots To Kill Justice Kavanaugh. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired June 10, 2022 - 22:00   ET

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

[22:00:00]

ALLISON PEACOCK, HELPED FIND BABY HOLLY: And to realize 40 years later, my God, this child had been possibly, you know, in the company of somebody that killed her parents. So, it's a very unusual case. Very unique.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Yes. Allison Peacock, thank you for sharing. We appreciate it.

PEACOCK: Thank you.

COATES: And now, welcome to a bonus hour of CNN TONIGHT. I'm Laura Coates still, and Don Lemon is off tonight.

Now on the heels of the first comprehensive look at the January 6th committee's findings, the Justice Department just released brand new video from the riot at the capitol. Now, I warn you this is graphic video and it does include strong language.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Get him! Get him! Get these motherfuckers!

UNKNOWN: Fuck.

UNKNOWN: We're coming through! We're coming through!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: For nearly a year, the January 6th committee has been trying to piece together how this happened, different vantage points, who was involved, from the bottom to the top? And last night, they unveiled some new video of its own and concerning findings in its very first public hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): President Trump was yelling and, quote, "really angry" at advisers who told him he needed to be doing something more. And aware of the riot rioters' chants to hang Mike Pence, the president responded with this sentiment. Quote, "maybe our supporters have the right idea." Mike pence, quote, "deserves it."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Wow. Wow. What the American people deserve are answers and information and the truth. And of course, the people who fought to defend our capitol that day -- well, they deserve it, as well.

And among them, former D.C. Metropolitan police officer, Mike Fanone, who is now a CNN law enforcement analyst. I want to get his take on the hearing that happened just last night.

Michael Fanone, I'm glad that you are here, and you are precisely who we wanted to hear from because you were there. We remember the battle. We remember what was described even last night, to refresh our memory, if we had forgotten, about the mortal hand-to-hand combat.

And I want to know what was your take? How did you think the hearing on the first day went? Do you think people have more insight into what really happened?

MICHAEL FANONE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I mean, I think it is a good foundation. A good start. I mean, I -- I always revert back to my time in law enforcement. You were a prosecutor. You know this was a great opening statement. What I am looking for in the future is for the select committee to build on that.

I mean, they have done a good job so far, at least in my opinion, of lining up the activities of January 6th and -- and the days leading up to it. And specific statements that were made not just by Trump but also by those in his inner circle. And what was, you know, partially his thought process but -- but also those around him pertaining to the results of the 2020 election.

COATES: You know, I want to know the idea of the questions that you have, in particular. We know the law enforcement collectively outmanned, overrun. We know -- we saw this. I mean, you know it intimately. What do you want answered? Your vantage point was what none of us really had -- being right there. You saw this unfolding.

What are the questions you are looking to, even outside of what the commander in chief and the President of the United States was doing? Do you have questions about how this could have happened, in the first place, in terms of intelligence failures or security protocols? What are your questions?

FANONE: Yes, I mean, civil disturbance was never my forte. I spent most my time in narcotics but I don't need to be an expert in civil disturbance to tell you that this was a catastrophic failure of planning and preparation. And, you know, that is not to criticize the individual officers that responded.

COATES: Right.

FANONE: I mean, it was -- it was in spite of their leadership, that they were able to able to hold the line at the capitol. You know, I'm not a cop anymore but I certainly shed my fair share of blood at the capitol that day.

[22:04:56]

And I think that, U.S. Capitol Police leadership owes it to their officers and to the agencies that responded that day to assist, to be transparent in their failures. And also, to show some accountability.

I mean, quite frankly, there are people in leadership positions within that agency that have absolutely no business leading men and women in -- in situation like that. They should be removed.

COATES: You know, and I -- I'm -- I'm hopeful that we are going to have the clarity that you are talking about and the transparency. And light as that antiseptic but I also wonder and you and I know Washington, D.C. very well.

I mean, there is a phrase about things that are happening inside the beltway and what concerns those inside the beltway versus those who are outside. Do you have concerns that the audience who is watching this sort of -- the jury of the American electorate -- do you think it's getting to where it needs to be? Do you think that this is translating in a way that you're not just preaching -- by you, I mean, the committee -- not just preaching to the choir but try to have a broader tent. You think it is going to get through?

FANONE: I mean, in all honesty, no, I do not. I think that, you know, at this point, our country is too polarized in its politics. People are, for the most part, incredibly entrenched in their side of the political aisle. And there is very few people left in the middle who are open to, you know, negotiation.

But I -- I don't think that the American people necessarily is the only audience that the select committee is or should be addressing. I think ultimately, I said last night, that the Department of Justice is the -- the last line of defense when it comes to our democracy.

COATES: Well, we will see if they indeed will hold that line, in particular. Michael Fanone, thank you so much.

FANONE: Yes, ma'am. Thank you for having me.

COATES: I want to bring in Ron Brownstein and Van Jones to talk about how these hearings played out and get some reaction from them, as well.

Gentlemen, you heard Michael Fanone just now. We have been watching him. We saw what happened on that day. There are others -- many others -- who we watched in horror as to how they valiantly tried to fend off this crowd of people.

When you hear him wondering about whether it's going to translate and definitively saying he doesn't think it will overcome the entrenchment. I wonder from your perspective, Ron -- I'll go to you first -- do you think he is right?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, I think that the committee, to a degree that I don't think has been fully appreciated today, is reframing the whole question, Laura. I mean, what we have been debating mostly for the 18 months is what role did Donald Trump's words on that day and his tweets play in summoning the mob and directing them toward the capitol and the attack on the capitol itself has been the -- the central issue.

The committee reframed the question that Americans have to be asking because they frame the attack on the capitol as just one component of a larger attack on the democracy. I mean, they had -- they have made very clear that in their view, the attack on the capitol, that was the final stage of a seven-stage effort to overturn the election and to subvert American democracy.

And I was struck, as well, by the repeated language from -- particularly, from Representative Cheney, that what Trump did was not only wrong, not only in the broad sense of violation of his oath of office, but that it was illegal.

And so, I think they were both paving a path and pointing a finger at the attorney general in terms of making very clear that this was a multifaceted plot to try to subvert the election result and that there is legal culpability there.

And so, you know, look, there aren't that many people that can be moved in the country but the parties are really closely divided so it really doesn't take that many to -- to matter. And -- and that's like kind of one lane public opinion.

COATES: True.

BROWNSTEIN: The other line is the legal lane and I think they laid out a much broader and even more consequential indictment, broadly speaking, against the president -- former president, than we heard so far.

COATES: Van, I want you to weigh in here. Because you are seeing the second impeachment hearing as you all know was really about whether the words were incendiary. Whether they were inciting the insurrection. Now, it is more about this seven-part plan they have spoken about.

The idea of -- and there was a statement made that, look, on the morning of January 6th, President Donald Trump intended to remain the president of the United States. And we are seeing the way they have framed the discussion.

[22:15:02]

When you were listening, though, Van, and, you know, you very early on, were one of the people to predict Donald Trump's victory in -- in -- when he first ran because you were having your pulse, you know, with them on the pulse of what people were thinking even outside of the box. What do you make of their presentation and its ability to sway?

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: If anyone listened to Liz Cheney, in particular, she did an extraordinary job of laying out just how diabolical, how the methodology. We were facing democracy hanging by a thread, and that thread is still unraveling.

And so, the problem is the people who most need to hear from her won't listen. That's the big tragedy that you have a Cheney, Liz Cheney, daughter of Dick Cheney. This family is a pillar of American conservatism and, yet, the conservative movement will not listen to them as she is begging for American democracy to survive and begging for people to look in the eyes of a coup attempt that played out --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: By the way, Van, looking into the eyes of her own party. I want you -- I want you to respond because I want you to hear this reminding people about what Congresswoman Liz Cheney spoke about. She is obviously in a very vulnerable position now in Wyoming. It's no guarantee that she will retain her seat. In fact, it looks like a very uphill battle but here is what she had about the legacy of those who essentially won't listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: In our country, we don't swear an oath to an individual or a political party. We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution, and that oath must mean something. Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible. There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Van, is that the moment?

JONES: That's what -- sorry? Yes, I mean, that's it. That's -- that he is powerful stuff. I mean, I -- if you study the American conservative movement as I do and as I have. If you had told anybody, even two years ago, three years ago, that the -- that the Cheneys would be standing against the entire conservative movement, saying that an obvious coup attempt is a coup attempt, and wouldn't be listened to, it would be hard to imagine.

And the dereliction of duty on the part of this president. Can you imagine if the 10,000 Muslims that attacked our capitol in the middle of a joint session of Congress -- this is what I'm leaking -- a joint session of Congress and the President of the United States -- what would Trump -- he would have instantly had a response.

If it had been Black Lives Matter. If it had been 10,000 Smurfs. It had been 10,000 anything attacking. This is not somebody -- Donald Trump -- who is afraid to use force. He wanted Black Lives Matter activists shot down in the streets. And so, the idea that somehow this rough, tough president that likes to knock heads together and says he need to punch people, is somehow for two, three, four, five hours has nothing to say about the American capitol being attacked?

And yet, he is not a part of the coup and the idea that he is going to continue to be an unindicted co-conspirator in the face of this I think is also shocking. But Liz Cheney, no matter what happens to her electorally, has secured a place in history as a true profile-in- courage.

COATES: Ron, I mean, that -- the invoking -- the invoking of the idea of the unindicted co-conspirator for our audience of course, --

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

COATES: -- is reminiscent to what happened with Michael Cohen and the idea will this person be named? There was a lot made about the Proud Boys last night and the discussion surrounding their planning, their strategizing, the documentarian testified as well. This was all in primetime.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

COATES: The future hearings may not all be in primetime. What do you make of the ability to not only retain the attention but to have it at a -- for a sustained pace and sustained period of time for the American public?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, look, there is a very different world than Watergate when there were fewer options for people and, you know, everyone was pretty much drinking from the same fountain in terms of the information they were getting.

So obviously, it is going to be more diffuse. I am less pessimistic than some that there is no audience that is willing to hear this. I mean, it is true that, you know, roughly 40 or 45 percent of Republican voters say that they essentially only listen to conservative media but there is a piece, there is a quarter of the Republican electorate that does -- does not echo the big lie that says a little -- even little more than that that had said that they do use mainstream media sources.

And I think the quality and the quantity of the evidence that is being put forward is going to, you know, be a challenge for them. You know, big movement is not possible anymore in American public opinion. But small movement can have big impact. And I don't think this is a big, you know, factor in the 2022 election midterms are a snapshot on the condition of the country and inflation dominates everything.

[22:14:59]

But the question of whether Americans want to trust Donald Trump with executive power and the nuclear codes and control of federal law enforcement after this all this, I think it's too early to say that this -- this will have no effect.

I will say one last point about Liz Cheney. You know, she said that the verdict of history will be on those Republicans. I think that is pointing a little too far into the future, Laura. Because not only are so many Republicans looking away from what happened. They are moving in the opposite direction. They are operationalizing the big lie and the coup with the laws in

the states making it harder to vote, with laws in the states that are making it easier for partisan, you know, meddling in the tabulation of the results. And with advocates of the big lie running for control of election positions in virtually every swing state that will decide 2024.

So, I mean, this is happening here and now and the party really has to decide how far it is willing to go in trying to undermine basic (Inaudible) to democracy. And second, what will the public do if they don't?

COATES: Well, that's the point. I mean, the question was, or statement was it's a republic if you can keep it. They try to -- I'll give you last word here, Van, they really tried to hone in the notion that this was a continuing threat.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

COATES: It wasn't just a retrospective look into history. It was about trying to ensure that this was not a dry run. Did they make that case to at least frame the conversation for the American public to know this continues?

JONES: Look. For the people who are watching, I think that -- that's what should come away for you. That's why your blood runs cold. It's not just the -- the seeing the violence, it's recognizing this was a massive plot. And none of the people who were behind that plot are in jail. In fact, they are still out there plotting right now and that's very frightening.

COATES: Ron Brownstein, Van Jones, thank you for joining me. I will note of course that the DOJ has prosecutor at least charged more than 800 people but we'll see where all that meets out.

Now, to the investigation in Uvalde.

Lot of excuses from law enforcement as to why it took so long to confront the active shooter, killing children and teachers. Now, we are finally hearing more from the school police chief in charge that day. He now says he didn't know he was in charge. (Inaudible) with the responding officer who led the initial entry into Sandy Hook elementary, next.

[22:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Nearly three weeks since 19 children and two teachers were killed in a Texas elementary school, the Uvalde police chief is finally giving his first detailed account on why it took 77 minutes for officers to confront the gunman.

According to Texas Tribune, Chief Pete Arredondo told reporters that there was no way to breach the classroom's steel-enforced doors. They had to wait for keys. Now, in the meantime, he did what he could. He told officers to break windows of other classrooms to evacuate

teachers, and kids as he called for tactical gear, a sniper, and keys to get inside. And when those keys arrived, he tried dozens of them but none of them worked.

And despite all of this, Arredondo maintains that he never considered himself the scene's incident commander. Saying, quote, "I didn't issue any orders. I called for assistance and asked for an extraction tool to open the door."

Now, his belief was that someone else had taken control of the larger response, and he was just a frontline responder.

Let's get some perspective now from Chris -- from Chief Christopher Vanghele who was the first responding officer to the Sandy Hook school shooting.

Chief, I'm glad you are here. I do want to play for you, a quick clip of a conversation that I had with a reporter from the Tribune, who was talking about that idea of being an incident commander or -- or not truly being. Let's listen in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES BARRAGAN, INTERVIEWED UVALDE SCHOOLS POLICE CHIEF ARREDONDO: When the gunman was able to get inside the classroom, that is when Arredondo says sort of the situation gets flipped and it becomes very difficult for law enforcement to get inside, break down the door as people have suggested, and -- and now, the shooter is inside, very safe, with potential victims and that's what caused the delay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Chief, what do you make of that? I mean, the idea of not only him saying he didn't think he was an incident commander. But just the explanation for why there was that delay. What's your reaction?

CHRISTOPHER VANGHELE, OFFICER WHO LED INITIAL ENTRY TEAM AT SANDY HOOK SHOOTING: Thank you, Laura, I did read the chief's interview. And I have to say I'm even more confused now that I've read it. The fact that he said he intentionally left his communication gear behind, his radio, just doesn't make any sense as an excuse.

Also, the fact he went in there without a bulletproof vest also tells me that this is somebody totally unprepared to handle any situation, which is strange being that his only job is to be a school officer. And he has a six-man department and he only has a certain number of schools he has to patrol.

So, the fact that he didn't have that equipment and did not have a key, a master key, to get into every single room, just, you know, just is unbelievable. As far as the steel door --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: Well, I remind the public, though, he is -- he is now a city councilman. So, there is additional responsibility in addition to what he once was but the idea of barricaded doors -- I know you are going there in that direction right now.

Because we heard, initially -- you and I had this conversation about this being a barricade situation or an active shooter. And you and I saw this timeline, in fact, the timeline that's partially now been confirmed that given us some of what happened on that occasion. There is still this huge delay and this question of if there were still shots being fired, how could it be thought of as a barricade? Talk to me about that.

VANGHELE: Yes. It -- it definitely was not a barricaded subject. Once that there were shots fired and we knew that this person was in a -- in a school building and, especially inside of a school classroom, right then tells you it's -- it's an active shooter and that that active shooter has to be taken down.

[22:24:54]

I don't know why, you know, they talk about the door. The door was probably the exact same door that was there when the school was built. It's probably a sturdy door due to fire codes. And of course, it's a commercial building so it has to have a steel casing around it.

So, it's going to be a sturdier door than you would find in most homes. However, I don't know why he said it wasn't breachable. Did he try? Did they throw a couple officers against it to see what would happen?

The other interesting point is that in one of the interviews that one of the survivors gave, she talked about how the shooter shot through the window in the door. So, we do know now there were actually windows in those doors that could be shot through.

And so, why they didn't try any number of, you know, different types of assaults and plans to try to shoot that shooter, is unbelievable, especially since there were more officers there than just his own department. I'm very surprised that --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: Well, we heard from some of those officers, though, chief, excuse me, we heard from some of those officers, in fact, we got some body-cam audio and listen in to what conversation were actually happening out in the hallway. It really -- it's foreboding, really.

Do we have that clip of them talking about what the -- what they were hearing? Well, since we don't have it, I'll just -- I'll just describe it and it's the notion of at one point, them saying hey, if there are kids in there, we've got to go in. Another saying that, look, we have to wait and see who gives us the direction. I'm paraphrasing the aspect of it. The idea of getting the direction. Well, if there was no incident commander, if there was no sort of chef in the kitchen, so to speak, I mean, what do you do?

VANGHELE: Well, there is a lot of confusion about who the incident commander is. The incident commander is the person who takes charge outside of the hot zone. Their complete job is logistics. They run that whole show. They -- they handle everything from media to finances to incoming departments and where they should stage.

The person that's actually in there dealing and going to breech the door, that person is just part of your initial-strike force. Still, that officer, if he was that chief, if he was the highest-ranking person in that hallway, then yes, he was in charge, there is no doubt about it.

I'm just surprised that, you know, officers from the state police or the sheriff's departments that had rank didn't basically just step over him and take on the responsibility of going in the door. Why they listened to him is beyond my comprehension.

COATES: Well, we're waiting. If you are confused, imagine what the laymen of all of us think about this very notion as well and the families who are grieving and want the answers so desperately. Chief Vanghele, thank you.

VANGHELE: Thank you very much, Laura.

COATES: Now, to some other victims who also deserve answers. U.S. gymnasts who have been failed on so many fronts. Sexually abused by the longtime doctor for the U.S. women gymnastic team. Dozens of them are now seeking damages from the FBI, including star Olympians like Simone Biles and Aly Raisman, accusing the agency of mishandling their case. And you are about to hear from their attorney, next.

[22:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Some of the most famous gymnasts in the world are seeking legal damages of more than $1 billion from the FBI. The survivors of convicted sex offender Larry Nassar, the former doctor for USA gymnastics. Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney, he accused -- she accused the FBI of botching its investigation into Nassar when she spoke before the Senate judiciary committee. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCKAYLA MARONEY, OLYMPIAN/NASSAR ACCUSER: What is the point of reporting abuse if our own FBI agents are going to take it upon themselves to bury that report in a drawer? They had legal, legitimate evidence of child abuse and did nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now last month, the DOJ declined to prosecute two former-FBI agents accused of mishandling the agency's 2015 investigation into Nassar. The agents were accused by the DOJ's watchdog office of making false statements which the FBI director Christopher Wray called gross misconduct.

Joining me now is Alex Cunny, an attorney for Maroney, Simone Biles, and Aly Raisman.

You know, I'm very glad you're here, Alex. I want to just clarify something because the headlines for some might read there is a lawsuit. This actually isn't a lawsuit. The way it works under the Federal Tort Claims Act, you have to first give notice about the opportunity to, or intention to sue. And then, they have to have about a six-month period before you have to actually either settle the case or they can decline to engage in that.

So right now, you are at a state where you have given notice. How do you see this playing out, though?

ALEX CUNNY, ATTORNEY FOR OLYMPIC GYMNASTS SEEKING $1B FROM FBI OVER NASSAR CASE: We filed the tort claims. They have six months to respond to those, to evaluate them. And we don't know what they are going to do. I think that's what's been shown through this process is we don't know what the DOJ is going to do. When our clients reported to the FBI, they expected a certain result to come of that and they were grossly, grossly disappointed, as you could hear from McKayla's testimony.

So, we don't know what the result is going to be. They have six months to respond to either attempt to evaluate the claims, to settle them, or to deny them. And we will react to whatever they choose to do.

[22:35:05]

COATES: You know, one thing we do know they are not going to criminally prosecute those FBI agents. We know there was a declination to prosecute. What do you make of that decision?

CUNNY: It is outrageous. It's simply outrageous. We have a report from the inspector general's office, indicating that these agents engaged in misconduct, concealed evidence, and ultimately allowed Larry Nassar to return to Michigan state and sexually abuse dozens of others. So, the idea that that can happen and nobody is criminally charged for it is simply outrageous.

COATES: Now ultimately, your clients are seeking a monetary amount. But I do wonder. I know just from hearing their riveting testimony, the power of their words and that lingering question of what is the point? I mean, just the idea of I -- I have prosecuted so many delayed sexual reporting cases, and talking to victims and survivors of this abuse. And we encourage people to report because we hope there will be accountability and justice to be doled and meted out. What, for your clients, how will they define accountability and justice here? It's not just about the number.

CUNNY: No, it's certainly not just about the number. What accountability looks like is understanding what happened. Last summer, we got the report from the inspector general's office and they gave us a lot of the who, a lot of the what, a lot of the when, and finally gave some of those answers.

But the most important question that our clients want answered is, why? Why did this happen? Why did highly-trained FBI agents who presumably have handled cases like this before -- why did they botch this so, so horrifically? And that's what this is about.

It's understanding why this happened and these women have come forward, you know, going on nearly seven years ago now. And all they wanted is their voice to be heard and they wanted, to know why their complaints weren't acted upon.

So, you know, money aside, that is the most important thing is getting to the bottom of what happened so little girls in the future don't have to go through what they went through.

COATES: At any time, and I don't mean to suggest that this would, by any stretch, be enough -- but at any time, has anyone stepped up to the plate and offered some semblance of an apology? Some offer of an explanation of the why? Helped to try to convey some sentiment? Has any of that happened?

I mean, I have heard from them. We have heard decision not to prosecute. Have they ever had anyone take the time to at least recognize, on this level, that they were heard?

CUNNY: You know, I think there was a step taken by the testimony provided to Congress. But these women have heard lip service from a num -- numerous organizations. From USA gymnastics, from Michigan state. And they are hearing the same things from the FBI.

Recently, they have been quiet. But what they want is those answers, and what they want are -- are real answers to the questions that, you know, linger in their mind about how these girls who came after them could have been prevented this horror that they suffered.

COATES: Alex Cunny, thank you so much. We will continue to follow this really important story.

CUNNY: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: We turn now to a health crisis for one of pop music's biggest stars.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTIN BIEBER, SINGER: As you can see, this eye is not blinking. I can't smile on this side of my face.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And that is not all Justin Bieber is dealing with tonight. The condition now keeping him off stage for the foreseeable future. We will try to walk through it, next.

[22:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Justin Bieber says he is recovering tonight after his surprising announcement. But the Grammy winner telling fans on social media he's cancelled a series of shows to fight a rare disorder. It's called Ramsay Hunt syndrome.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIEBER: As you can see, this eye is not blinking. I can't smile on this side of my face. This nostril will not move, so there's full paralysis in this side of my face.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, what exactly is Ramsay Hunt syndrome? Let's ask Dr. Peter Hotez, he is a professor at the Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Hotez, I'm glad you are here.

For many people, they have never heard of this particular affliction. What -- what is it? How does it start? How do you get this?

PETER HOTEZ, PROFESSOR, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: Well, you know, he is showing signs of facial paralysis on one side of the face and the most common cause of that is what's called bell's palsy which can occur after Lyme disease or even after a viral infection like COVID- 19.

A somewhat less common cause is Ramsay Hunt syndrome, which is actually reactivation of the chickenpox virus. So, it's actually a form of what's called herpes zoster that typically, more typically occurs in older individuals, and will often manifest as a band of vesicles of virus and pain around their mid-section.

[22:44:52]

But in some cases, that her -- form of herpes zoster can affect the facial nerve. And be associated with a lot of facial pain, ear pain, and then that's followed by a rash, a vesicular rash of the appearance of it looks like chickenpox vesicles on the ear, and then facial paralysis.

I didn't -- in the video, of course, the resolution is not great. I don't see the chickenpox vesicles, but, that you might see with it but you don't always have to have that. So presumably, he has been diagnosed by a physician. And usually, you do recover sometimes, it can take several weeks or months before that happens. The older you are with it, it's more common to see this in 60 to 70-year-olds. The less likely you are to have a full recovery but hopefully, this, you know, as a young, healthy guy, he will do OK with it but it could take some time.

COATES: And I should note you have not treated him at all. You are not his medical provider but I do wonder about this -- the bell's palsy, as well. Because it piqued my interest when you spoke about COVID-19 and other symptoms as well, or other illnesses. What are the distinction between what you are seeing with this idea of Ramsay Hunt syndrome compared to, say, a bell palsy?

HOTEZ: Well, there is overlap. And the two can look similar and sometimes it presents a diagnostic dilemma. Usually with bell's palsy it's less severe. Ninety percent of the cases resolve. And I think the big differentiator is less -- much less pain and not associated with characteristic rash, the appearance of vesicles.

So, that's, you know, just looking -- looking at his video, I guess that's one possibility but presumably, you know, he didn't come up with Ramsay Hunt on his own. He must be under the care of a physician. Whether it's a neurologist or some other type of maybe an infectious disease physician who is -- who feel -- who feels comfortable making that diagnosis. Maybe they are seeing vesicles in the ear or mouth or it's hard to really read the --

COATES: Yes.

HOTEZ -- tea leaves of the video, of course.

COATES: Well, let me ask you. How -- how does one reverse the paralysis? Is it -- is it a form of physical therapy? Is it the amount of time taking its time and having to wait? What is it?

HOTEZ: Well, there are a few things. With Ramsay Hunt, it's actually caused by a reactivation of the chickenpox virus of the visceral virus. So, you take an antiviral drug, whether it's acyclovir or valaciclovir, or famciclovir and so that's of number one importance.

Second, sometimes steroids can help resolve the inflammation. That's exacerbating some of the facial paralysis. And the third, of course, the most important is time. It takes time to resolve. And it can take a few months sometimes.

COATES: Dr. Hotez, thank you. We have educated us on something that many people probably have not heard of. Thank you so much. And coming up, we'll have chilling new audio of the man authorities say showed up outside the Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home on a mission to kill.

[22:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: New audio of the California man charged with attempting to murder Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The 26-year-old called 911 on himself because he didn't think he could get away with his plan and was considering killing himself.

(BEGIN VOICE CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Do you need medical attention?

UNKNOWN: I need -- I need psychiatric help.

UNKNOWN: Do you have access to any weapons?

UNKNOWN: Yes, I brought a firearm with me but it's unloaded and locked in case.

UNKNOWN: And you said you came from California. Do you know someone down here?

UNKNOWN: Brett Kavanaugh? Brett.

UNKNOWN: Brett?

UNKNOWN: The Supreme Court Justice.

(END VOICE CLIP)

COATES: It's the latest example of a member of the judiciary coming under threat as Nick Watt shows us tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNKNOWN: He came from California. He took a taxi from the airport to this location.

NICK WATT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: To Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home carrying a Glock pistol and zip ties says the FBI, planning to kill Kavanaugh. He found the address online.

JOHN MUFFLER, RETIRED CHIEF INSPECTOR, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE: The nine justice, all nine justices are in danger because that information is out there.

WATT: According to the complaint he was upset about the leak of a recent Supreme Court draft decision regarding the right to abortion.

The public disclosure on the second of May prompted a significant increase in violent threats, reads a D.A. chest memo circulated last month. Some of these threats described burning down or storming the U.S. Supreme Court and murdering justices and their clerks.

Abortion has long fueled fury since the Roe v. Wade decision nearly 50 years ago. Anti-abortion extremists have carried out multiple bombings and murders. Now the DHS since the leak of that draft opinion that could overturn Roe v. Wade also fears pro-abortion rights extremist violence. So, there's now a high fence around the highest court in the land and --

MERRICK GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: Last month I accelerated the protection of all the justices' residences 24/7.

WATT: Threats against federal judges were already on the rise. In 2014, 768 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary, according to the U.S. Marshals Service which protects federal judges. Last year 4,511, a near six-fold increase.

MUFFLER: Not that long ago, you know, I'd write Nick Watt a letter and threaten him. Right? Now we have social media, and so one person tweets something and 300 people glom onto that, and this goes to both sides of the aisle, right?

[22:55:06]

WATT: One week ago --

UNKNOWN: We'd be devoted to hearing a motion. WATT: This retired judge in Wisconsin judge zip tied and shot dead in

his home by a man he once jailed.

JOSH KAUL, WISCONSIN ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have seen a rise in domestic extremism. I think it is important that we take a look at the protective measures that we have in place.

WATT: Nearly two years ago, a federal judge in New Jersey, Esther Salas, targeted by a self-proclaimed anti-feminist lawyer who once appeared before her.

ESTHER SALAS, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: My son Daniel mark --

WATT: Daniel, her son, was shot dead on their doorstep.

SALAS: Judges put their lives on the line to do their job, and really judges do stand at the front line ensuring that democracy is alive and well in our country.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WATT: Laura, there is a bill currently stuck in the House. They might vote on it next week, and that bill is named after Justice Salas' son and would improve the security given to federal judges. One thing it would do is make finding things like Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home address online, it would make it harder to find that stuff. Laura?

COATES: Thank you, Nick Watt. And thank you for watching. The news continues on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)