>> she's going to expand on that tonight on this program. also, exclusive reporting from donie o'sullivan on how the social network, facebook, makes money on the anti-vaccine message. this comes at the end of a day that saw seven new cases of the omicron variant identified and underscores the need to get on top of the situation. it prompted pfizer's ceo to tweet that his company has asked the fda to expand authorization for booster doses of its covid vaccine to include 16 and 17-year-olds. quoting from him, it is our hope to provide strong protection for as many people as possible, particularly in light of the new variant, he said. now, when he posted that, there were two new reported cases. one in minnesota, the other in colorado. late today, new york added five new cases. today also saw president biden visit the national institutes of health just outside of washington and unveil new covid fighting policies. they include fighter testing requirements for travelers coming into the u.s. and extending the current mask mandate for domestic planes. trains, and buses. he touched on that in his remarks and made vaccination, especially boosters, the heart of his message, using the b word more than two dozen times. >> the cdc, there food and drug administration, the fda, and our top public officials recommend all adults, all adults get a booster shot when it's time. but here's the deal. more than about 100 million are eligible for boosters. but haven't gotten the booster shot yet. folks, if you're over the age of 18, and you got vaccinated before june 2nd, six months has gone by. go get your booster now. go get it now. >> there's a big hitch in those plans, though, because as successful as the president hopes to be in insuring everyone can get a vaccine or booster, it's still demand, not supply, that's the problem. and sadly, some of these basic and fact based as preventing deadly illness still breaks down along party lines. new polling from the kaiser family foundation shows just 36% of republicans saying they will get a booster compared to 77% of democrats. that's more than a 2 to 1 gap. but again, it's not simply driven by politics. it's re-enforced on social media. so joining us now with his exclusive new reporting on how facebook is profiting from pumping anti-vaccine information into the public sphere, cnn's donie o'sullivan. what have you learned? >> yeah, anderson. so fox news personality caused out rage a few night ago when she compared dr. anthony fauci to a nazi doctor, the agent of death. but this sort of stuff is not happening in a vacuum. in fact, it's all over people's facebook feeds. i want to show you, some of the ads we found on facebook that the platform has been allowing to run and profit from over just the past few months. one ad here says i'm originally from america, but i currently reside in 1941 germany. another shows a picture of a vaccine and says, slowly and quietly, but it's a holocaust again playing into this ridiculous idea that the vaccine is a part of a mass slaughter regime, and going to the lines of political violence, we have ads that say, make hanging traitors great again. facebook will often like to frame a lot of these issues in the free speech context. they're saying, we don't want to trample on speech too much, but these are actual ads that they are accepting, that they are running, and they're taking money for to target to their users. >> are these still up? what is facebook saying about this? >> facebook will always tout and promote that they have all these moderators, all this artificial intelligence that can catch these ads which are clear violations of their rules. but they didn't catch then until cnn brought them to their attention. the ad about comparing the u.s. government crackdown and restrictions on covid to the nazi regime, and calling the vaccines a holocaust tool, those two ads got taken down, facebook said, after cnn brought it to their attention, but that ad, i don't know if we can show it again, make hanging traitors great again, that's still up on the platform. that's not seemingly against facebook's rules, even though this is just months after we saw gallows outside the capitol and people chanting hang mike pence. >> some of these were run on instagram, which is owned by facebook. the c.o.o. of instagram is going to be testifying. do you know what we'll hear from him? >> we'll probably hear something along the lines of we know we have the issues, we have some work to do, but we're doing great and catching 99.99% of everything. this is clearly not the case. i mean, you know, we poked around a little, found these ads very, very easily. if we're able to find them, a trillion dollar company, with those resources, they should find them. >> i want to point out, this is not just some individual posting that picture. this is an ad that facebook is profiting from. >> this is an ad, you know, one ad that was run, i think they only had to spend $400 or $500 and they were able to reach up to half a million people, and people in specific states. a lot of states targeted with some specific ads, florida, texas, a lot of states where there is those major covid issues or spikes throughout the year. >> fascinating. appreciate it. perspective from former facebook executive, frances haugen, and her first interview since testifying before the house subcommittee on communications and technology. >> frances, this reporting shows that facebook is not only allowing posts that compare the vaccine to the holocaust, but they're actually profiting from it, accepting money to run them as paid ads. why is this happening? they don't -- why did they -- is it that part of the business model? >> facebook's business model is conditioned on fixing problems after they find them. facebook has known since 2018, mark has publicly made comments on it, mark zuckerberg, has made comments saying engagement based ranking, that means prioritizing content or ads based on their ability to provoke a reaction from you, which is usually the most extreme and polarizing content, is dangerous because people are drawn to engage with extreme content. but mark said at the time, it's okay. a.i. will save us. the only problem is, the a.i. misses lots and lots of problems. in the case of hate speech, only 3% to 5% of hate speech is caught. i wouldn't be surprised if they had policies against anti-vaccine content like this, but they let a similar amount of bad content through. >> it's been almost two months since you spoke out about facebook's misinformation problems. and when you see ads like this that say, you know, i'm originally from america, but i currently reside in 1941 germany, on the platform this week, are you surprised that this is still so prevalent? >> i'm not surprised at all. one of the things i think most people don't understand is that while i have spent most of my time talking about how engamement based ranking amplifies the most extreme and polarizing content in our nees feeds, the same happens with ads. ads that are provocative, that elicit extreme emotions from us are cheaper to run. which one provokes you to do an angry comment? one of those ads like you described or an ad saying i support our nurses? facebook knows there are these problems in their systems. they know that psychologists have known for decades it's easier to provoke people to anger, and the biases in the algorithms give the most rage for the least amount of dollars to extreme content like these. >> you testified yesterday, you said that you thought they could reduce misinformation by 25% overnight with changes to its algorithm. it's that easy? >> oh, yeah. there are multiple components to facebook's ranking systems where people have known for years that even single term, single factors in the systems were increasing misinformation dramatically. facebook has a whole series of these interventions that don't involve censorship. they don't involve looking at good ideas and bad ideas. they just involve not running the system so hot. facebook knows that when they let the system run hot, run fast, they make more money. and if facebook had to go in there and stand accountable, it's like lay they would choose safer settings and they would be willing to go at these tiny slices of profits, .1% here, .5% here, but we would have significantly less misinformation, not just in english but all the other languages in the world, the vast majority of which get no safety settings. >> after your first hearing, facebook came out against you. they released a statement that said in part you worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision point meeting with c-level executives. were you at all surprised they chose to try to attack you like that, dismiss you as a low-level employee? >> the thing that facebook didn't disclose is what my relative seniority was in the company. by the time i left, i was more senior that at least 60%, if not 70% of people, because in tech, turnover is really fast. the second thing is i worked at four social media companies, all of which in algorithmic worlds. as a result, i'm one of the foremost experts in the industry at understanding the problems with a.i. systems in a social media context. it's true, i have never been in a c-suite meeting, but i also brought out an extensive cache of documents that demonstrates that facebook has consistently lied about the safety options that exist, about its -- about the fact it's not doing everything it can to fight the problems, and they're not willing to sacrifice slivers of profit for our safety. >> you have said the company would be stronger if zuckerberg stepped down as ceo. if, a, do you think that's at all likely? and if you were the ceo of facebook, what is the first change you would make? on day one, what would your agenda be? >> you know, when i originally came forward, i really don't like personalizing conflicts. i think the problems at facebook are about incentives and organizational choices. when mark came out and said hey, i know we called out all these things that are endangering people's lives as a result of our underinvestment in the safety platform, i know what the solution is. we should find 10,000 new engineers to build video games. when that happened, like, that was a real -- it made me think maybe more needs to be done. maybe someone who is willing to accept responsibility for the power that facebook has should be in control. if i had the ability to -- if i could wave a magic wand and direct the company, i think the first thing i would do is have a radically more transparent stance with the academic community, the civil society community, the government. because facebook has problems that need tens of thousands more people working on them. and right now, facebook cannot solve those problems because every team in the company is understaffed. and it will only continue to get worse because every time there's a scandal, it's harder for facebook to hire. the only way facebook can rebuild trust with the community and with the world is through things like transparency and being willing to open the book and say, this is what we're actually doing to solve these problems. we're not going to wave our hands and say we're working on it anymore. >> with all their money, why are they understaffed? >> i think there's a process of, you know, every time a scandal happens, it gets harder to hire. right? and that's one of the things about feedback cycles. part of what i said originally in my testimony is facebook needs a moment to declare moral bankruptcy. the way we move forward is with truth and reconciliation. and because facebook is unwilling to admit the problems it has, and is unwilling to say, okay, we need a reset, i made mistakes, i accept responsibility, but we need to move forward. because they're not willing to do that, it's hard for people to hold them -- have good faith in them. and it makes it harder to hire. >> i don't know much about the metaverse. i'm not smart enough to understand what the future of tech is, but if facebook is morally bankrupt, does it concern you, the idea of them going all in on creating a new universe? >> anderson. >> yeah. >> to correct you, it's not that i said they're morally brumankr. they need to declare moral bankruptcy. that's where people get financial freedom. i messed up, i accept the consequences. it's going to be painful for a couple years. but society says we value people's lives more than we value money. i'm saying facebook right now is stuck. they're stuck in a feedback loop, and they need to start solving problems together with the community and not alone because they're having trouble moving forward alone. but with regard to the met averse, i don't think facebook has demonstrated that they are designing safety first. you know, i want you to imagine for a second, let's say you're 19 and come home from school and put on your headset and suddenly you're more handsome, your apartment is nicer, your clothes are nicer, you spend all evening in this fantasy world and then you go to bed and you go brush your teeth and you look in the mirror and now your hair is worse, your body is worse, your apartment is worse. what does that do to you as a person? right? i worry that the kind of problems that the vision of the metaverse that mark is promoting are going to do to people, come i can't imagine facebook is building in plans for that right now. i hate the idea we might get five or ten years down the line and spend all ten years saying we're seeing these problems with addiction, you're ruining people's lives, before facebook stops gaslighting us that they exist. we need more transparency. >> frances haugen, i really appreciate your time. thank you. >> after reportedly writing in his book that the former president tested positive for covid three days before his fist debate with joe biden, mark meadows is calling it fake news. gloria borger has new reporting that may explain why he's doing that. >> also ahead, new information about the 15-year-old sophomore accused of killing four high school students and injuring seven others. why hiparents were at the school just hours before the shooting. ♪ the one desire ♪ ♪ you are, you are, ♪ ♪ don't wanna hear you say... ♪ ♪ ♪ i want it that way ♪ former white house chief of staff mark meadows is trying to walk back explosive claims he made in his book about the president's positive covid test. before we get to his denial, let's take a look at the timeline because it's important. as was first reported in the guardian, meadows reveals in his soon to be released memoir, the former president first tested positive for covid september 26ict, that was three days before this first debate with then vice president joe biden. meadows and the former president are now pointing out that he test ed negtf after testing positive. the same day, he hosted a white house event both inside and outside for them supreme court nominee amy coney barrett, at least 12 attendees later tested positive there. the next day, september 27th, he hosted an indoor white house reception for gold star families. followed by a maskless news conference in the white house briefing room. on september 29th, which was debate day, meadows reports the former president was moving slower than usual but, quote, nothing was going to stop him from going out there. on october 1st, the former president finally acknowledges he had coronavirus, and october 2nd, he was hospitalized. now, yesterday, the former president called the reporting on the claim in meadows' book that he tested positive on september 26th fake news and a few hours later, meadows wntd on newsmax and seemed to agree with his former boss. >> i believe the president says it's fake news. what is the story here? >> well, the president is right. it's fake news. if you actually read the book, the context of it, that story outlined a false positive. literally had a test, had two other tests after that that showed that he didn't have covid during the debate. and yet, the way that the media wants to spin it is certainly to be as negative about donald trump as they possibly can while giving joe biden a pass. >> so that's true, at least according to meadows' account, that is reportedly in the book, that the former president tested negative after testing positive. what meadows didn't say there that is reportedly in the book is that meadows was telling everyone in the former president's immediate circle to treat him as if he was positive. maybe meadows left that part out of the interview he did with news max because what our gloria borger is learning about the former president's reaction to the revelation about his positive test. she joins us now along with cnn medical analyst dr. lena wen, author of life lines, a doctor's journey in the fight for public health. the former president is disputing what is reportedly in the book written by meadows, and that's it, meadows himself seems to agree. what more are you learning about the former president's reaction to all this? there so he agrees what he wrote was fake news because we reported what's in the book badly, and of course, that's not true. what i'm learning is that the former president, according to a source who is familiar with the president's thinking, is that the former president is furious about what is in the book. and that he's angry with mark meadows. now, i was told by one source that meadows and the president have not had a close relationship. but other sources are telling other reporters at cnn that it is a relationship that's been fine because don't forget, mark meadows is on the trump train for 2024. but that the president is mad about the way meadows characterized all of this in the book. so what i think we are witnessing on newsmax is mark meadows trying to get back in the president's good graces and saying, yeah, blame it on the press. what i was trying to tell you is all the president had was a false positive and that's it. and move on. >> but gloria, what's interesting about this is the white house then went out of their way, and the former president, too, to avoid ever acknowledging when he got his first positive test for covid. if you think back to that time, this was a question of could he have possibly been positive during the debate. >> sure. >> he would never come forward and say, yes, i tested positive on this date, you know, days before. they didn't want to go there. >> yeah, and meadows is also saying there were three tests. we think there were two. we don't know about any kind of third test. we know that the debate required a negative test 72 hours. >> right, and the debate themselves for some odd reason did not test on that day right before the debate. i find them inexplusable. >> the president arrived late. there's an honor system. and you know, they obviously told the folks there, you know, he had tested negative, so he went on to the debate stage. it was, you know, that was the situation. but you know, that's not -- in the excerpt of the book that the guardian printed, and again, we haven't seen the book. that's not mentioned. >> dr. wen, just in terms of the timeline of when the former president started showing symptoms and was taken to walter reed, does a positive test on october 26ict, as the book reportedly says took place, does that make the most sense since he was hospitalized on november 2nd? >> yes, because the previous timeline made no sense to those of us who have actually treated covid patients. that's because you don't go from zero to 100 overnight. what we heard is october 1st was when former president trump first started testing positive. he first started having symptoms. then by the next day, he was so severely ill that he had low oxygen saturation, such severeness of breath that he had to be airlifted and be in the, cu, but at the time the clinical course for the variants were about five to eight days between when you first start having symptoms to when you first start having shortness of breath. one day made no sense. so this is the reason why so many of us were asking at the time, when did he test positive, and also, when was his last negative test? there's one question that would actually i think help us to solve this issue of did people really think this was a false positive? which is when did president trump actually get monoclonal antibodies? because for someone his age who is older, who has chronic medical illnesses, who is the president, if he tested positive and his medical team really believed he tested positive, they would have given him monoclonic antibodies on september 26th or shortly thereafter. we know he got those, but we don't know when. finding outs that question would help us understand did his medical team and the president think he really had covid. >> gloria, so the guardian reported, as i mentioned, in the book, meadows says he told people in the former president's circle, quote, sorry, he told people in the former president's, quote, immediate circle, to treat him as if he were positive, end quote. even after the negative test, which obviously doesn't -- it doesn't seem to square with what meadows is now saying, no, he got a negative test or two negative tests, and so he was totally fine. if he's telling people, treat this guy like he's positive, what does it say about the then first family going maskless at the debate and also, i mean, with gold star families, for goodness sakes. >> right, it's hard to parse here. i mean, first of all, who is in the president's inner circle? isn't the family in the president's inner circle? and also, what does that mean about contact tracing and -- >> we have seen pictures of the family sitting maskless at the debate, even though the cleveland clinic had asked everyone to wear masks. >> wearing a mask, and dr. wen knows more about this than i do, but shouldn'tia be doing contact tracing with people who were in immediate contact with the president of the united states? and i would presume that would mean his immediate family. so how -- how to explain the fact that they would go maskless in a place that is actually asking people to wear masks. if they knew that he had had even a false positive at a certain point, because from the moment he gets a false positive, wouldn't you start saying to people, okay, we have to figure out just who the president was in contact with. >> you would if you were a decent human being or with any sense of shame. all the people sitting there who we just saw on camera, you know, eric trump, donny jr., you know, the whole -- the whole mishegas there, you know, they're shameless. and clearly, you know, were making a very particular point by going maskless. dr. wen, looking back on it now, in light of the claims in meadows' book, should the former president or his family even have been at that debate? shouldn't they have been quarantining? >> absolutely. so to be clear, anyone, i don't care if it's the president, former president, or anybody else, if you have symptoms, and you have a positive test, you should not be going anywhere. you should be in isolation. also, if you're a close contact, to gloria's point, if you're a close contact, and certainly family who live with him, should be close contacts, if you are a close contact of somebody who tested positive, you should be in quarantine if you are unvaccinated, which they were at the time. you should not be going anywhere, and also, you should not be test shopping. you don't get a test and once it's positive and you don't like that, you take more tests until it becomes negative. that's not the way this should work. >> appreciate it. thank you. sglup next, new developments in that deadly michigan high school shooting including new information about the teenage suspect's concerning behavior in the days before the massacre. the oakland county prosecutor joins us next. so by using this $400 stock video as our holiday commercial this year, we can afford to offer three months of free service on any plan, including unlimited i'm still not sure why someone made a stock video showing a snowman sitting on an explosive device that's about to blow. this doesn't seem very holiday but you know, worth it. ♪ this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to know you have a wealth plan that covers everything that's important to you. this is what it's like to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. making sure you have the right balance of risk and reward. and helping you plan for future generations. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity. ♪ baby got back by sir mix-a-lot ♪ unlimited cashback match... only from discover. small businesses like yours make gift-giving possible. now, comcast business has an exclusive gift for you. introducing the gift of savings sale. for a limited time, ask how to get a great deal for your business. and get up to a $500 prepaid card with select bundles when you switch to the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses. or get started with internet and voice for $64.99 per month with a 2-year price guarantee. give your business the gift of savings today. comcast business. powering possibilities. every day in business brings something new. so get the flexibility of the new mobile service designed for your small business. introducing comcast business mobile. you get the most reliable network with nationwide 5g included. and you can get unlimited data for just $30 per line per month when you get four lines or mix and match data options. available now for comcast business internet customers with no line-activation fees or term contract required. see if you can save by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. new information tonight about the concerning behavior of the 15-year-old accused of killing four students and injuring seven others during an attack at his high school in oakland county, michigan, tuesday. today, the oakland county sheriff said two teachers separately reported their concerns about the sophomore starting the day before the deadly shooting he's accused of. school officials met with him twice, including once with his parents hours before the killings. after that meeting, he was sent back to class. the suspect's behavior in the days leading up to the shooting may not be the only red flag. oakland county prosecutor karen mcdonald joins us now. appreciate you being with us, what updates are you able to share with us tonight on where the investigation stands? >> well, we have issued charges against the shooter. four counts of first degree murder, seven counts of assault with intent to murder, and then a charge of terrorism causing death, which at the time i didn't know, but is quite unique and that came about because we were sitting down and talking about what the charges were going to be, and when you look at the victims in this case, there were four murdered children, there were several other injured, but then there's this whole group of people, these students, who were traumatized. and the entire community. i mean, there's hundreds of students that witnessed this, that heard this, that literally ran for their lives. and they need to have a voice, too. this is a tragic, tragic, horrific crime. but we also need to recognize that those kids are not eating, they're not sleeping. they are in shock, and they're terrified to go back to school. and they're also mourning the loss of their friends. so that's why we charged terrorism. some time tomorrow, though, my office will be announcing, i will be announcing potential whether or not we'll be issuing potential charges against the young person's -- the shooter's parents. >> you mentioned that, you know, your office is trying to determine whether or not the shooter's parents will face charges. do you know yet what those charges might look like if you did? you said you're going to make an announcement on this tomorrow. i assume some of this at the very least would be related to the purchase of the weapon or the storage of the weapon that according to reporting was bought by his father several days before the shooting. >> the purchase of the weapon, the accessibility of the weapon, was it securely stored? was it purchased for the shooter? did the parents have any reasonable idea that he may use that weapon to hurt other people? those are all things that we're considering. and we'll consider when we announce whether we will charge them or not. >> you also noted there's an additional piece of evidence that is yet to be released. obviously, i certainly know the position you're in. there's a lot you can't say. you don't want to impact a potential future jury. i don't know if there's anything you can say in general terms about what that other thing relates to. >> there's the consideration of impacting a potential juror, anderson, but there's also another thing i hold that weighs on me, which is these parents are in such terrible, horrible grief. it's a terrible thing what happened. the information that will be announced tomorrow will also disclose that it probably could have been prevented. and that is unconscionable. so it's just not enough to charge this shooter and prosecute and convict and incarcerate. that is -- we will do that. i will do that passionately, like these were my own children. but the question we have to ask now is, what are we going to do? because we have to do better. and i believe part of that is holding people accountable. gun ownership is a right, but with that right comes responsibilities and duties. and if you're going to be a responsible gun owner, and i know several of them, i grew up with guns in my home. my dad was a hunter, i'm certainly not saying people shouldn't have guns. i'm saying that they should be held accountable to what happens to that gun. you must secure it safely. you must make sure that it doesn't end up in the hands of somebody that intends to do harm or in this case go into a school, come out of a bathroom, shoot any person that he could find, and murder children. somebody has to be accountable. and yes, we're going to hold him accountable, but we're also going to make sure that the person or the individuals that gave him access to that weapon and did so and not just in a neglidgeable way, far beyond negligence, are held a accountable. i spoke to these parents the day after this happened. and you know, i have done a lot of things in my career, i prosecuted really terrible crimes. i was a family court judge, and i'm a mom, but i will tell you, those are some of the most painful moments of my life, to -- because there's just nothing we can say. they sent their children to school. and that should be a place where when you take your child to school, that's the place we don't worry about them. anderson, you're a parent. i'm a parent. i have heard from so many parents across the country. they want people to be held accountable. and that doesn't mean you can't have a gun. it means that if you're going to own a gun, you should do so safely. >> you said what the parents did, i'm paraphrasing, and correct me if i'm wrong, but was far beyond just negligence. negligently leaving the gun unsecured or whatever the details of it may be. are you saying that they somehow encouraged him to have a weapon or to give him the weapon? can you say? >> i'm not saying anything definitive at this moment, and again, you understand why i can't do that. it's not respectful to the victims at this point. i will say that it doesn't take encouragement to harm or kill people that would rise to the level of criminal culpability. it takes the knowledge and the probability that that may happen, and then knowingly allowing that individual to have access to other weapons. >> finally, the fact that school officials met with the parents and this young man on the day of the actual shooting, hours before, again, i know there's a lot you can't say, but it's my job to ask. is there something in that meeting that the parents should have then informed the school about? or at the very least, informed somebody about or taken away access to the weapon to their child? is there something that happened in that meeting that should have, could have prevented the course of this, if people had acted responsibly? >> the event that caused the teacher concern and that had the school officials bring parents to school was -- it's hard to look at that, what was produced at that meeting, and everybody looked at, it's very hard to look at that and say that there was no concern. and unfortunately, he was allowed to get back to class. and we now know he had a weapon with him at that time. and that is simply tragic. and it's my job to hold people accountable who violate the law. and that's all i can say right now. >> let me just ask, did he have the gun in the meeting with his parents and the school official? do you know when he got the weapon? >> i think that it's already been public that he did have the weapon. during covid, they don't use lockers, so they just have backpacks. >> so he had a backpack, you believe, in the meeting with the gun in it when he was meeting with school officials and his parents. >> that's a very strong possibility. >> karen mcdonald, i appreciate the situation you're in and the work you're doing, obviously, and i appreciate you spending some time with us tonight and i wish you the best. >> thank you. >> karen mcdonald. coming up next, breaking news. senators voting any moment now on a bill to keep the government running, but only after republican lawmakers threaten to shut down if they didn't get their way on weakening what many experts see is a key measure for stopping the spread of covid. . it's on. get yours on at chapstick.com ♪ ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪ breaking news out of the capitol. the senate is set to vote on funding to stop the government shut down. the house passed the measure earlier today, but we wouldn't even be doing this at nearly the 11th hour if a group of house and senate republicans hadn't been trying to hold up the bill unless it held up the directive that required large employers to mandate testing for covid. they were willing to shut down the entire government with all that entailed in the name of making it easier for individuals to spread a deadly virus. said one congressman, chip roy of texas, quote, i think we should be throwing our bodies in front of the train of the continuing resolution while vaccine mandates are in place. just to be clear, that is not a real train he's talking about. only a real virus. and real hypocrisy, because some of the same lawmakers trying to tie the president's hands on vaccines, mask wearing and other anti-covid measures are also criticizing his handling of the pandemic. >> i took president biden at his word. i took him at his word when he said he was going to get covid under control. mr. speaker, unfortunately, more americans have died this year than last year under covid. >> that's house republican leader kevin mccarthy who voted against the continuing resolution tonight, echoing what has become a republican talking point and a sore point for the white house. >> these supporters of this -- of the former president, are advocating for shutting the federal government down, so that 20% of the public who are refusing to get vaccinated or tested can be free to infect their coworkers, our children, filling hospitals that that is what they're advocating for. they want to shut the government down in order to advocate for people to assert that on society. >> joining us now, cnn political analyst, margaret talive, also democratic strategist paul begala. what does it say that some republicans feel shutting down the government and undermining vaccines are winning issues for them? >> anderson, the polling shows that for some of those republicans, that is actually true. nationwide, as you know, a clear majority of americans support vaccine mandates. and support getting the vaccine, but -- and that's certainly even more true for democrats. it's just not true if you look at republicans alone, republican voking blocs alone. when you look at two of the leaders behind the senate amendment that's being voted on right now that's going to fail, but the defund vaccine mandate, you're looking at mike lee from utah, roger marshall from kansas. these are states where the vaccination rate is like 55%, 56%. it's below the national average. it's pulling the numbers back, and in their states, in many of the states where you're seeing yes votes on this amendment, they have vaccination rates below 50%, and real feeling among many of their constituents that it's a civil liberties issue, et cetera, so it's become politicized and this will come up in primary contests, this will come up in the 2024 presidential primary, some of the republicans you see talking about people's right not to get vaccinated, these are people who are either facing primary challenges or are going to be running for president in 2024 and you're seeing that play out. >> paul, it does seem to be kind of a hypocritical position to be attacking for the president's performance on covid and at the same time, trying to undercut what the president has done to get more people to get vaccinated. >> right, it's like they're rooting for the virus instead of the victims. and i think margaret makes a really good point. this is increasingly a red state plague. i looked at senator marshall in particular. he's a doctor, and he has said he's vaccinated, so he knows better. me knows the science. he's a medical doctor before he became a senator. and he's from butler county, kansas. i looked it up. butler county, kansas, has 25 cases of covid right now. san francisco, more than ten times the size, only has 45 cases. the hospitalization rate in butler county, kansas, is up 38% in the last two weeks. in san francisco, it's down 19%. why? because 77% of san francisco san franciscans are vaccinated and only 40% of butler county, kansas, are vaccinated. they're dying because of failed leadership and they're being no dumber than anybody in san francisco, but they're willing misled by their leaders. dr. marshall ought to know better. i can't believe a man who's a medical doctor would be misleading people like this. >> how much control does mitch mcconnell have over congress? they're calling him a broken old crow, insisting he resign. are they looking to him for cues or is it call coming from mar-a-lago? >> it's the right question. i think in tonight's case, mitch mcconnell is showing he still does have the ability to corral votes when he needs to. what's going to happen, the shutdown, unless something goes -- is going to be averted because mcconnell and a large bloc of republican leaders, are saying we aren't going to have a shutdown. it's a terrible idea, it's stupid. and they managed to work out a deal where there would be a simple majority vote that everybody knew was going to fail so people who wanted to go on record in favor of defunnding biden's vaccine mandate and the shutdown could be averted. but can mcconnell, you know -- can mcconnell completely clamp down on the section of the party that's giving him -- in the house? no. we know the answer. can he's still shows the ability to get thing done the way he needs to. he felt strongly and publicly that a shutdown over this was not a good idea, but if these team wanted to go to the board with their votes he would help them. up next, more breaking news. the prosecution resting in the trial of actor jussie smollett accused of staging his own hate crime. it was a wild day in court. cnn's omar jimenez has more coming up next. ♪ i'm a reporter for the new york times. if you just hold it like this. yeah. ♪ i love finding out things that other people don't want me to know. mm-hmm. [beep] i just wanted to say... ♪ find yourself in these situations and see who you are. and that's just part of the bargain. ♪ - san francisco can have criminal justice reform and public safety. but district attorney chesa boudin is failing on both. - the safety of san francisco is dependent upon chesa being recalled as soon as possible. - i didn't support the newsom recall but this is different. - chesa takes a very radical perspective and approach to criminal justice reform, which is having a negative impact on communities of color. - i never in a million years thought that my son, let alone any six-year-old, would be gunned down in the streets of san francisco and not get any justice. - chesa's failure has resulted in increase in crime against asian americans. - the da's office is in complete turmoil at this point. - for chesa boudin to intervene in so many cases is both bad management and dangerous for the city of san francisco. - we are for criminal justice reform. chesa's not it. recall chesa boudin now. breaking news -- the prosecution rested in the trial of former "empire" star jussie smollett after three days of testimony. the two brothers accused of attacking smollett say smollett staged the attack. smollett, who is gay told him to carry out a fake hate crime while claiming to be trump supporters to garner media attention, but smollett's attorney called for a mistrial and became emotional, saying the judge wouldn't allow him to continue a critical line of questioning for defense. she also claims the judge lunged at her in a side bar, which he denies. first of all, why is the attorney calling for a mistrial? >> reporter: this is because the defense attorney felt the judge demeaned a critical line of questioning or a line they felt was critical to their defense. this happened during the testimony of ola, and basically what happened was the attorney was asking about potentially who mophobic remarks he made specifically over text when we he described someone as a fruit. when the defense attorney asked if he would describe a woman that way, the judge said that this line of questioning was collateral, so she asked for a side bar. the jury was sent out of the room. she and her defense team called for a mistrial. things escalated. she got emotional and began to sob as she said it was inappropriate for the judge to make that comment about a major portion of their case, at which point she also wanted to say on the record that the judge lunged at her during a side bar, which us a mentioned the, judge denied. a second defense attorney got up and said the judge had been making faces during the course of their objections and the judge shot back and said, you're really good at making faces. so this was a really tense exchange that played out over the good portion of the course of an hour with the jury out of the room. the jury came back and it continued. >> the lawyer was crying talking to the judge? >> reporter: yeah, this came when she was trying to make her point about why what the judge did was so wrong and inappropriate in the face of the jury, that they felt like this idea that he could haohio could been homophobic, a real hate crime generals jussie smollett. so a little preferential. when he came back, he told them not to consider those words. coming up, alec baldwin's exclusive interview about the shooting on the set. what's he's saying for the first time about the tragedy next. try new vazalore. aspirin made amazing!