Return to Transcripts main page

CNN TONIGHT

Chief Of Police, Police Commander, E.R. Doctor Testify; Rep. Matt Gaetz Saying He Is Absolutely Not Resigning; Governor Abbott Backs Out Of Texas Rangers' First Pitch After MLB Moves All-Star Game From Georgia Over Voting Law; Trump Campaign Used Shady Tactics To Get Donors To Make Recurring Donations; Texas Rangers Play To Sellout Crowd Amid Fears Of New Surge. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired April 5, 2021 - 23:00   ET

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


[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST (on camera): Damning new testimony in the Derek Chauvin murder trial. The Minneapolis police chief telling the jury his former officer absolutely violated department policy when he kept his knee on George Floyd's neck for nine and a half minutes. The E.R. doctor who treated Floyd also taking the stand today testifying lack of oxygen was likely the cause of death.

Also tonight, Congressman Matt Gaetz making it clear that he is not resigning before the Republican, denying all allegations about sex trafficking and prostitution but he is still adding to his legal team. I want to get straight though to the dramatic testimony today in the trial of Derek Chauvin. CNN Sara Sidner reports from Minneapolis.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The prosecution's 21st witness and former officer Derek Chauvin's murder trial was his ultimate boss. The chief of police.

UNKNOWN: What is the officer supposed to do to a person in crisis?

MEDARIA ARRADONDO, CHIEF MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT: It's an attempt to de-escalate that situation.

SIDNER: Chief Medaria Arradondo testified he first learned of the severity of his officer's actions against George Floyd by a community member.

ARRADONDO: Close to midnight, a community member had contacted me and said, chief, almost verbatim but said, chief, have you seen the video of your officer choking and killing that man?

SIDNER: The chief testified Chauvin violated the department's neck restraint policy and he detailed its use of force policy which also takes into account the severity of a potential crime.

ARRADONDO: Clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless to continue to apply that level of force to a person pronged out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training, and it is certainly not part of our ethics or our values.

SIDNER: We also heard from the emergency room doctor who treated Floyd when the ambulance dropped him off at the hospital unresponsive.

JERRY BLACKWELL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Did you pronounce him formally dead?

BRADFORD WANKHEDE LANGENFELD, E.R. DOCTOR WHO TREATED FLOYD: Yes.

BLACKWELL: Did you receive a report that he had received CPR from any of the officers who may have been on the scene on May 25th, 2020?

WANKHEDE LANGENFELD: No. It's well known that any amount of time that a patient spends in cardiac arrest without immediate CPR markedly decreases the chance of a good outcome.

SIDNER: Dr. Bradford Langenfeld testified he believes George Floyd died from hypoxia, or a lack of oxygen. The prosecution is trying to prove it was from the 9:29 Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck restricting his breathing. The defense is trying to refute that saying it was illicit drugs in Floyd's system, coupled with his medical history.

ERIC NELSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR DEREK CHAUVIN: Certain drugs can cause hypoxia. Agreed? Specifically fentanyl?

WANKHEDE LANGENFELD: That's correct.

NELSON: How about methamphetamine?

WANKHEDE LANGENFELD: It can.

NELSON: Combination of the two?

WANKHEDE LANGENFELD: Yes.

SIDNER: But the doctor testified paramedics normally report to him drug overdoses or extreme agitation.

BLACKWELL: Did they say to you for purposes of caring or giving treatment to Mr. Floyd that they felt he had suffered a drug overdose?

WANKHEDE LANGENFELD: Not in the information they gave, no.

SIDNER: The commander who is in charge of police training back in May testified what she saw Chauvin do to Floyd was not consistent with their training.

[23:05:06]

BLACKWELL: And how does this differ?

KATE BLACKWELL, INSPECTOR MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT: I don't know what kind of improvised position that is. So that's not what we train.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON (on camera): I want to bring in Sara Sidner now. Sara, good evening to you. The prosecution asked the police chief a lot of questions about the department's use of force policy. Talk to me about that and what it means for Chauvin.

SIDNER (on camera): Yeah. I mean, he really went into detail. And he seemed like he had encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and regulations. But the prosecution also put up on the screen for the chief to read, some of the reasons why use of force would be necessary. And that is for example, if a person is actively resisting or trying to flee, and if the officer's life is in danger or other people around them are in danger as well.

And the last one was, they have to consider the severity of the crime. If you think about it, it was over a $20 alleged counterfeit bill that George Floyd is accused of paying for cigarettes for. And so if you look at that in totality of what was going on there and the testimony that you heard, the police chief was like, this is not in concert with what our training is when it comes to use of force.

And certainly not having his knee on his neck in the prone position for 9:29. He also said, it was not ethically a part of what the office should do and he was very clear about their role in society and their role here in Minneapolis. That they are part of the community to serve and protect the community, Don.

LEMON: Sara Sidner, Sara, thank you so much. Joining me now CNN's senior legal analyst Laura Coates and political commentator, Bakari Sellers. Good evening to both of you. Good to see you. Laura, I'm going on start with you. Today the Minneapolis police chief testifying that Chauvin's actions were in no way shape or form part of their department's policy or training and, quote, certainly not part of our ethics or values. How powerful was that testimony?

LAURA COATES, CNN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ANALYST (on camera): This was incredibly damning. I mean, the word that sticks in my mind is (inaudible) encyclopedic knowledge. You are talking about a contrast from last week when the defense strategy was hey, this veteran lieutenant who oversees homicide. You really have a kind of out of touch status here. You really don't know what use of force looks like any longer in a way of patronizing sort of way.

This is the person who sets the policy. This is the person who has had such a breadth of experience that there's no way you are going to be able to tell him what the training looks like, what the policy is. And having this person after multiple members of the law enforcement community distance themselves from Derek Chauvin and essentially say, he's not one of us. What he did was not what we do. And making that very important leap that a prosecutor has to from reasonable use of force, going over the line to now criminal assault.

Remember, that has to be part of the underlying element that is proven. That there was a transformation, a conversion for reasonable use of force to criminal assault. They're building a really good case for that.

LEMON: Attorney Bakari Sellers -- six members -- well, you're an attorney, right? I mean --

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (on camera): Yeah. But I had to take the bar, yeah. I'm not giving that back.

LEMON: I think it is important for people to know that. And that's why you're here speaking about it. So six members of the Minneapolis police department have now taken the stand in this trial for the prosecution against Chauvin. What kind of a message does that send to the jury?

SELLERS: And I think that's really powerful. Because in many of these cases, you don't see law enforcement testifying against one of their own. I mean, it started off where you had the EMTs come forward and testify. But you've had sergeants, commanders, and now the chief of police speak out against someone who is a member of their own ranks. We cannot discount how powerful that is.

And one of the things that the prosecution has done is they have followed through with their promise that they laid out in opening arguments. Many times prosecutors get tripped up when they make an argument in opening and then they don't follow through. But here day after day after day, they continue to build that case. And it was so strong that, it's very difficult to see, I practice criminal defense. It is very difficult to see how a criminal defense attorney can wiggle his way out of a guilty verdict on any one of the charges that is present before the jury.

Because we do know based upon the testimony today that nothing he did, nothing he did was reasonable. And so that is when you start to teeter out of this scope and you start to recognize that there was some malice. That these words are very important when it comes to intent. There was recklessness, there was want on disregard.

All of those things matter because he was not following the proper procedure and protocol and they laid that out. Last week was about compassion. It pulled at our heart strings. But today was probably the day where the prosecution truly got themselves a guilty verdict if they're able to get it.

[23:10:00]

LEMON: Wow. Laura, do you agree with that?

COATES: Well, you know, a jury pool is comprised of really not just 12 human beings but 12 wild cards. And so you know, in terms of managing expectations, there are so many different elements here. But Bakari is right about the idea of the presentation of evidence. Whether it is persuasive ultimately is another question.

But remember, part of the role of prosecutors for the very reason that Bakari is talking about, they're aware of the psychology of the benefit of the doubt that is extended to police officers in this country. Nobody believes that an officer wakes up in the morning, puts on his or her uniform and goes out with an intent to kill wearing that badge.

The fact that it has happened in this scenario is of course, part of the factual predicate of these charges, but prosecution has to be aware that they are going to have to distance and make the jurors comfortable with prosecuting not a police officer, per se, but somebody who is acting under the color of law. Somebody who was using that badge as a pre-textual reason to commit assault and commit ultimately unintentional murder which is why he has been charge with here.

So making in these cases about the different law enforcement officials who are saying, he's not one of us. What he's doing is not what we do. It goes back to that opening statement of -- this is not about all police. This is not about all policing. This is about this person. The prosecution is very aware they have to make these jurors feel comfortable about prosecuting somebody who said they were a police officer but was acting in a way that made them a cop in name only. And that is where they have to go.

LEMON: Listen, Bakari. I'm glad that you mentioned you practiced criminal defense, because you're looking at this from the sense, I would imagine, the way the defense is conducting themselves in court. Today, we also heard from the E.R. doctor who treated George Floyd, testifying that he most likely was killed by lack of oxygen. Not a drug overdose. It was another testimony that was clearly damning for the defense. Am I correct?

SELLERS: It was, but then you heard words like as (inaudible) and then when he -- when the criminal defense attorney, he didn't score many points today and he hasn't scored -- I texted with Laura about his often. He hasn't scored many points throughout this trial. But he did say would fentanyl lead to as (inaudible)? The answer was yes, or Methamphetamines, would that lead (inaudible). The answer was yes.

And so, you can see he's trying the build out this argument that is going to come down to causation. Remember I said that, if they get a guilty verdict, it will be because of the testimony today. That still is going to come down to causation in what ultimately cause his death. The jurors are going to have to go in the back and determine whether or not that knee was a substantial cause of his death or whether or not there was something else.

Now for me, you, and Laura sitting here, we probably think it is patently absurd to think anything other than the action of the officer. However, again, these jurors, they're wild cards. And so, all it takes is one. And I keep reminding people, that it only takes one person to go back there and think in their mind frame that this is a trial about George Floyd, not Derek Chauvin.

That those drugs in his stream was the cause of death and then you will have a verdict that no one here can be proud of. And so it was still a very long way to go but today was good day for the prosecutions.

LEMON: Alright. Thank you both. I appreciate it. I'll see you soon.

Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz said that he is absolutely not resigning. He is denying most of the allegations about him but not all of them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

LEMON (on camera): Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz going on the defensive and trying to discredit the Justice Department investigation into him. The Trump ally writing in an op-ed that he is not going anywhere and denying allegations of sex trafficking and prostitution. But it comes as Gaetz is ramping up his legal team. Here is CNN's Paula Reid.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Good evening, Don. Today Congressman Gaetz published an op-ed where he tried to frame the ongoing criminal investigation as another political witch-hunt. He also denied allegations of prostitution and sleeping with an underage girl writing, first, I have never, ever paid for sex. And second, I as an adult man have not slept with a 17-year-old.

One thing Gaetz did not address in his op-ed, is the separate set of allegations first reported by CNN that he was showing nude pictures of women he allegedly slept with to other lawmakers including when he was on or near the floor of the House. That conduct is not under criminal investigation, but it is another in a series of escalating scandals surrounding the lawmaker.

And even as he denies the allegations in that op-ed today, CNN has learned Gaetz is building a legal team to defend him as this moves forward. His lead attorney has added another lawyer with experience in white color crimes. It is not clear when the second attorney was added but it is suggesting may be preparing to possibly have to defend against financial transactions in addition to any specific sexual encounters.

Now today we were also hearing from a former Gaetz staffer who said, the FBI reached out to him. The staffer is Nathan Nelson. He is Gaetz' former Director of military affairs. In a Florida press conference today, he said two FBI agents questioned him at his house last week about Gaetz' alleged criminal conduct. They apparently asked him if he left his job working for the Congressman because of this type of behavior.

Now, Nelson denied having any knowledge of any illegal activities. He said his departure from Gaetz' office last fall was not related to the federal investigation.

[23:20:03]

But, Don, Nelson is one of the only people who has come out to defend Gaetz. But when actually pressed by reporters on the specifics of the criminal allegations, Nelson said he didn't actually have any specific knowledge of the investigation and he actually hasn't even spoken to the Congressman in months. Don?

LEMON: Wow, Paula, thank you so much. I appreciate that. I want to bring in now CNN's senior political analyst Kirsten Powers and Dave Aronberg, state attorney in Palm Beach County, Florida. Good evening to both of you. Good to see you.

Kirsten, I'm going to start with you. But Gaetz said that he is absolutely not resigning. He is embracing the Trump tactic of not backing down. He stand on Republican allies. But the GOP hasn't acted against him so far. Are they just going to wait to see what the investigation turns up?

KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST (on camera): They're going to wait for that or they are going to wait for some sort of sign from Donald Trump. But I think the fear is that they don't want to do anything that is going to upset Donald Trump because Matt Gaetz is somebody who is you know, very Trumpy and very aligned with Donald Trump much in the way that Marjorie Taylor Greene is and can remember that the Republicans were not willing to hold her accountable really for any of her behavior. That was precisely because Donald Trump was standing behind her.

Now, we don't really know what Donald Trump thinks about what's going on. He hasn't -- hadn't really signaled that but I suspect that the Republicans are waiting, either for an indictment, and even then, still waiting to see what Donald Trump thinks about this. Because they don't like Matt Gaetz. They would be happy to throw him overboard but they don't want to go against the Trump supporters or Donald Trump.

LEMON: But Kirsten, you mentioned Marjorie Taylor Greene. And I was just -- I'm kind of -- I'm trying to figure out where the Q-folks are, because these are allegations of child sex trafficking. Isn't that their whole thing?

POWERS: Right. Using logic was your first mistake. Logic.

LEMON: OK.

POWERS: So, I think the bigger thing is where Donald Trump comes down on things. But that has always what it boils down to, is what Donald Trump think.

LEMON: Got it. Dave, I want to ask about this former Gaetz staffer, Nathen Nelson. He said that he was questioned by the FBI last week. This investigation has been going on since the final months of the Trump administration. What do you make of the time line in terms of this wrapping up?

DAVE ARONBERG, STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY (on camera): Well, first, that Nelson guy, he didn't provide any information. I would have called his press conference nothing burger but that would be an insult to nothing burgers. I mean, what a waste of time today. I think this investigation is going to wrap up pretty soon, because usually generally, you talk to the target, or the subject, towards the end. And the fact that Gaetz blew off this whole undercover investigation into extortion, I think just seems like it is all coming to ahead.

And I have to believe that there's going to be a charge pretty soon. Now, I saw his op-ed today. And he is relying on two defenses right now that he's never paid for sex or that he is an adult man, has not slept with a 17-year-old. Even if you accept both of those defenses as true, he could still be charged and convicted with child sex trafficking.

Because it doesn't require that you pay for sex or that you had sex. If you enticed the recruited or transported someone in exchange for something of value, that may not be cash or that may be paid by Joel Greenberg, you're still guilty of human trafficking.

LEMON: OK. So two things. So it sounds like you're saying that he is in a lot more trouble than, than we're believing right now. And that he knows it, because he is beefing up his legal team. Again, may be in a lot more trouble. He is beefing up his legal team. Both are former federal prosecutors. What does that tell you?

ARONBERG: It tells me that he is relying on people from the same swamp that he is deriding in his op-ed. On one side he's making the case in the court of public opinion that it is the swamp that is out to get me. The deep state. But when he needs a lawyer in a court of law, he is turning to people with extensive experience in that same Department of Justice.

You'll notice that he's not hiring Sidney Powell or Rudy Giuliani. Because what he is worried about his future freedom, he doesn't want a huckster. He wants professional lawyers and that's what he's depending on. So you are going to see two different defenses. One that he makes in the court of public opinion, extortion and the deep state. And the other one that he makes in court of law.

LEMON: You can tell a lot about a person by who represents them, correct?

ARONBERG: Correct.

LEMON: So Dace, listen, Kirsten, excuse me -- Kirsten, I want to ask you. In his op-ed, Gaetz -- he didn't address the CNN reporting last week that said that he showed naked photos of women that he claimed that he had slept with to lawmakers on the House floor. DOJ investigation aside, doesn't the GOP need to do something to address this part of it?

[23:25:05]

POWERS: You would think. I mean, that would be again --

LEMON: That logic again.

(LAUGHTER)

POWERS: Yeah. The logic, the logic. And you keep expecting a different result. It is really cute. But if you think about the fact that they did the whole Marjorie Taylor Greene responsible, right. So they don't hold people responsible if they think there is going to be some sort of back lash from the Trump base which is completely dictated on what Donald Trump does. And nobody really knows what Donald Trump is thinking.

Now, I'm not saying that that is the right way to be handling it and I don't think it is. I think that they should be, you know, dealing with this issue. It is a pretty serious thing to be doing, you know, on the House floor. It is unacceptable, it's creating a sexually hostile environment and disrespectful to women. I mean, we can sit here all night and talk about all the things are wrong with it.

But they seem unwilling to deal with this because they don't want to do anything that could potentially upset the Trump base. \it is just the same story over and over again.

LEMON: I got to ask one more question and we are going to be long here. But Dave, where do you see this going next? I mean, because you know, I just spoke to you just a couple of days ago and every time we speak, or I see you do an interview, there has been some new development that seems to be a bit more troubled for Matt Gaetz.

ARONBERG: Don, there are really three investigations here. And it is the third one that is most problematic for Gaetz. First you have the investigation into allegations that he was involved in human trafficking. You have the allegation of extortion, which is going nowhere. But also, as the investigation into Joel Greenberg that is the key here.

Because I believe that Joel Greenberg probably has already flipped on Matt Gaetz. And why wouldn't he? He's facing decades in prison himself. He is stuck in a jail cell awaiting trial because he violated the terms of his pretrial release. So he has every (inaudible) to flip on the biggest fish here, Matt Gaetz and I suspect he's already done so.

LEMON: Wow. Thank you, Dave. Thank you Kirsten, I appreciate it.

ARONBERG: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: Hundreds of bills in nearly every state being pushed by Republican lawmakers to make voting harder. One big city mayor speaking out against what his own state legislature is pushing. That's next.

Plus, Trump campaign donors say that they were duped. We are going to tell you why they were claiming fraud.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Texas Governor Greg Abbott choosing not to throw the first pitch at the Rangers home opener tonight, making that decision in response to Major League Baseball moving the All-Star Game out of Atlanta in protest of Georgia's new law restricting access to voting.

It's part of a growing rift between Corporate America and Republicans. Major corporations like Coca-Cola, Delta, and American Airlines speaking out against bills that restrict voting. Right now, more than 360 bills that will limit voting access have been introduced in 47 states. This is according to the Brennan Center tally, with Georgia and Texas seeing the highest number of those new bills.

Joining me now to discuss is Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. Mayor, good to see you. Thank you.

MAYOR SYLVESTER TURNER (D), HOUSTON, TEXAS: Good to see you again, Don.

LEMON: I'm so glad you're on to talk about this because it's a -- you know, this is big thing and it's going to be very important for our democracy and for the -- what happens at the ballot box.

TURNER: Absolutely.

LEMON: The Brennan Center tally found that Texas has introduced the largest number of restrictive voting bills. What do you think is the most damaging aspect of them for Houston residents, specifically voters of color?

TURNER: There are several things, Don. These bills restrict early voting hours. They limit the number of voting locations. They restrict the number of drop boxes that you can have in the county. They even require people with disabilities to provide additional information about their disabilities. They want poll watchers to actually video record people voting when they need assistance, if they have a reasonable suspicion that something may be going on.

Now, can you imagine how suppressive and intimidating that can be? They impose silver and criminal penalties on local officials if they -- should violate any of these so-called laws. These are bills that are highly suppressive in nature, highly intimidating, and pretty much intended to restrict people's access to the -- to the voting booth.

LEMON: We have to remember, again, this was all built on the big lie. This is a solution really in search of a problem because there was no widespread voter fraud for that needed to be corrected and these bills needed to be placed into law. You held -- you held an event today with elected --

TURNER: Yes.

LEMON: -- community and business leaders, speaking out against the bill. The bill is being considered. You say that the bill is part of the national assault on voting rights. Besides H.R.1 known as the For the People Act, what -- what do you need from the federal government?

TURNER: Well, number one, hopefully the federal government is paying very close attention to what's happening across the country. As you indicated, these bills have been filed in about 43 different states and it's a part of a national campaign to restrict voting. In Texas, Senate bill seven and House bill six are moving quickly through the legislative -- legislative process. There is no problem here that these bills are intended to fix. These bills are intended to restrict access to the voting booth.

[23:35:00]

TURNER: And hopefully, the federal government and people in Congress and the United States Senate are taking note and certainly will not allow -- I hope they will not allow a filibuster route to remain in place that -- as the senator from Georgia said, they will protect the minority in the Senate, but at the same won't protect people's right to vote in all 50 states.

LEMON: Republicans -- mayor, Republicans have long been the party of Corporate America. But now, that relationship is being strained over voting rights. Give me your reaction to seeing businesses speaking out against these efforts to restrict voting.

TURNER: Well, number one, let me applaud -- let me applaud the MLB for standing up and for taking -- and for taking definitive action. Voter suppression is not good business, OK? Voter oppression is not good business. It is important for corporations and businesses to protect their employees that are diverse, to be sensitive to their customers, the people who are doing business with them.

And Don, I can remember what Martin Luther King said years ago, that in the end, people will not be remembered -- enemies will not be remembered for the words that they spoke, but what will be remembered will be the silence of our friends.

And so this is not a time when people can be on the sideline. This is not a partisan battle. Voter suppression is not partisan. It is not Democrat, Republican, independent. Voter suppression is wrong. And these bills represent Jim Crow 2.0.

And everyone has an obligation, especially businesses and others, to speak up and say no. This is a defining moment in the history of this country. And I think down the stretch, people will ask, where did you stand and what did you do when these bills were going through these legislative chambers?

LEMON: Amen. This is what I -- this is what I chose to do. I had a chance to act and this is what I chose to do. I had the chance to say something. This is what I chose to say.

Thank you, mayor. I appreciate it. Good to see you. Good to see you.

TURNER: Thanks. Congratulations on your book.

LEMON: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

TURNER: Sure.

LEMON: Swindling supporters? Trump's campaign is re-funding tens of millions of dollars after leaving some supporters with drained bank accounts?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): During the 2020 race, former President Trump loved boasting about the amount of donations his campaign was getting. Now we're learning how the Trump campaign donations site used trickery to get many supporters to make recurring donations, which ended up draining their bank accounts. The New York Times first reporting how that led to a flurry of fraud complaints and forced refunds.

Here is CNN's Sunlen Serfaty.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

RUSS BLUTT, BROTHER OF A VICTIM OF THE TRUMP RECURRING DONATION SCHEME: I was mad. I was sure it was some sort of a scam.

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Last September, Russ Blatt's brother, Stacy, contributed $500 to the Trump campaign. Within a month, Stacy Blutt was bouncing checks. His bank account drained.

BLUTT: We saw the six withdrawals of $500 totalling $3,000 that had been taken from his account. Starting in mid-September and over the course of a month, they took $3,000.

SERFATY (voice-over): Russ had become his brother's financial power of attorney due to his brother's failing health. The Blutts realized only then that Stacy was signed up to make recurring donations to the Trump campaign. Stacy Blutt died of cancer in February.

BLUTT: They just kept taking money out until there was no money left.

SERFATY (voice-over): And Stacy was not alone. A New York Times investigation is revealing the alarming extent in reach of a calculated Trump campaign scheme to get supporters signed up for recurring donations by default and later adding a second pre-checkbox to double a donor's contribution.

According to the Times, the Trump campaign internally called it a money bomb, a tactic that experts say is intentionally designed to be easily overlooked.

When supporters contributed online, a yellow box to make a recurring donation came pre-checked, requiring donors who wanted to make a one- time contribution to opt out, and it wasn't easy to spot.

BLUTT: He didn't remember seeing anything like that. He thought he was getting a one-time $500 donation. It seemed like it was deceitful.

SERFATY (voice-over): Thousands overlooked it and the Trump campaign ran with it.

SHANE GOLDMACHER, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, NEW YORK TIMES: In the fall or the late summer, as the Trump campaign faced financial pressures, they made a really important change, which is they took that box and instead of taking donations out every month, they began taking them out every week.

SERFATY (voice-over): Banks and credit card companies have been flooded with calls from donors, the Times reports, leading the Trump campaign and RNC to refine a massive amount of money.

The New York Times reporting that from the period of mid-October through December of 2020, the Trump campaign and the RNC made more than 530,000 refunds, amounting to more than $64 million. By comparison, the Biden campaign and the DNC refunded 37,000 donations, amounting to $5.6 million.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We did very well with the fundraising stuff but a lot of it came in small donations.

[23:45:01]

SERFATY (voice-over): The boost of money that came with the recurring donations came when President Trump was in need of it the most, just weeks before the election and short on cash.

GOLDMACHER: So that money that they took from donors through recurring donations really does add up functionally to being a de facto loan with no interest from their own supporters.

SERFATY (voice-over): And refunded only after the election with funds the campaign collected to promote baseless claims of election fraud.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

LEMON (on camera): That's CNN's Sunlen Serfaty.

Former President Trump releasing a statement calling The New York Times reporting misleading, saying, many people were so enthusiastic that they gave over and over and in certain cases where they would give too much, we would promptly refund their contributions. Our overall dispute rate was less than one percent of total online donations, a very low number.

I want you to check this out. The Texas Rangers stadium is at full capacity tonight. How many of a risk are all these people taking? Dr. Reiner tells us, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Tonight, the CDC warning coronavirus infections are up for the fourth straight week. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky saying variants are partly to blame. But health experts are also warning about the dangers of states relaxing safety measures too quickly.

So, I want you to take a look at this. Texas Rangers playing their home opener tonight, selling over 38,000 tickets, the only MLB team allowing 100 percent capacity seating at their ballpark. No other MLB team is allowing more than 50 percent capacity attendance at this time.

So joining me now is CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner. Doctor, good evening to you. So, here we go, right? If you look at these pictures, they're from Texas --

JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST, DIRECTOR OF CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION PROGRAM AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL: Yeah.

LEMON: This opening game tonight. Pretty unbelievable. What do you think when you see these crowds?

REINER: Not so smart. We're smarter than this. We are still in the middle of a pandemic. Texas today had 3,000 cases, one of the highest numbers of cases in the United States. There is still a lot of virus around.

And if you think about what you do at a baseball game, you know, you go get a hotdog, you go get a beer, you know, you're sitting with something in your hand, eating or drinking the entire game, talking to your neighbors, there is a lot of close contact.

And the virus doesn't care that -- that you may be done with -- with this pandemic. The virus is not done with us. And if we want to put this out once and for all, we need to be smarter than this, and this is just not smart.

LEMON: Yeah.

REINER: It's just not smart.

LEMON: Doctor, some experts have called for delaying second vaccine doses in hopes that it will leave supply available to get more Americans their -- their first dose. Dr. Anthony Fauci questions that. He says that he is worried about how long immunity would last after just one dose. What do you think about that?

REINER: So, I -- I agree with Dr. Fauci. Look, the three vaccines that have been licensed for use in the United States are fabulous. And the way they have been trialled is the way that they should be given, the J&J vaccine as a single dose and the two MRNA vaccines as double doses. And when given in -- in those dosing regimens, their efficacy is incredibly high and the safety is also very high.

We don't have a vaccine pipeline problem now. There are 40 million doses of vaccines that have been distributed, that are waiting to be put into arms. We don't have a shortage of vaccines.

I know what Dr. Osterholm is getting at when he's been the big proponent of -- of this plan. But at this point, we have plenty of vaccines. And we -- we've shown the ability over the last week to vaccinate as many as four million people a day with about two-thirds of that first shots. We don't have a problem getting enough vaccine. We should stick with the dosing regimen.

LEMON: This is -- was interesting. The CDC report finds that a bar opening event in rural Illinois was linked to 46 COVID cases, a school closure affecting 650 children, and the hospitalization of one long- term care facility resident. I mean, this is a rural area. It's not a city. It shows how dangerous it still is.

REINER: Yeah, and it also suggests to me that there were a lot of people who went to that bar who were not vaccinated because there -- there was a lot -- there were a lot of targets of opportunity for the virus.

Bars and restaurants are among the most risky venues in -- during this pandemic. And, you know, I would just plead with my fellow citizens to say, look, if you have not been vaccinated and you go into -- into a bar, you are taking an enormous risk. And it's not just a risk to you. It's a risk to your parents and your friends and -- and your neighbors. It's -- it's just not worth it.

If you have had both of your vaccines or the single dose from -- of the J&J and you are a couple weeks past your last dose and you want to go into a place and get a drink or have dinner, have that. But if you have not been vaccinated, it is not safe to eat indoors and -- or particularly have a drink at a bar.

LEMON: Yeah, but people are doing it because -- they are doing it because they don't want to go get tested. They figure if they do go get tested, they're going to have to quarantine, right? They are going to have to report. That means other people around them -- I mean it's very dangerous when someone does that, when they sort of defy the rules -- not sort of defy, when they do defy the rules that way.

[23:55:06]

REINER: Right. But again, this is not just about them, right? It's about us. And their behavior -- you know, if you do something foolish and it just affects you, well, you know, that's your problem. But if you do something foolish and it affects me, it's my problem.

And that is what is happening all over the country, particularly in young people. This virus is surging through young, largely unvaccinated people. That's where our vaccines should go. It should go to -- to the young and unvaccinated. And, you know, the folks that maybe should display a little bit more maturity, little bit more community spirit.

Restrain themselves until this pandemic is put down once and for all. We have the ability to do this and it's coming soon. But -- but more people are going to die if we continue to act foolishly.

The Texas Rangers today, that was really shameless behavior. That was this -- this political-performative thing that they did, which has the ability to spike cases in Texas and cost people their lives. Really shame on them.

LEMON: Yeah. Thank you, doctor. I can see it's been a long day. You're still -- you're still in --

REINER: Yeah.

LEMON: -- in your scrubs. So --

REINER: Yeah. Going home now.

LEMON: All right. Good. Thank you, Dr. Reiner.

REINER: OK.

LEMON: I appreciate it. Be well.

REINER: Have a good night, Don.

LEMON: You, too. Thanks for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)