Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Second Presidential Debate Cancelled After Trump Declines To Debate Virtually; 13 Charged In Domestic Terror Plot To Kidnap Michigan Governor; Mary McCord On Voter Intimidation And Armed Vigilante Militia Groups. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 09, 2020 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Global Town Hall, Coronavirus: Facts and Fears. Anderson will anchor the program along with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, tomorrow night, 9 P.M. Eastern Time.
The news continues. So, let's hand it over to Chris for "CUOMO PRIME TIME."
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right, thanks John. Have a great weekend.
I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.
The proposition before us is clear. Trump needs to put up or stay put. The President won't show you a negative COVID test. He just gave an interview, where he said things that make no sense about his condition. He is clear from COVID, but when you hear his explanation, you will know it is a bunk.
Now, is there a good reason for him to not show you test results? No, but there are a lot of bad reasons. Mainly, he wants to have another White House event after the last one became a super-spreader event that took down a good part of his team, not to mention his wife.
And before you feign ignorance of the reality, "We don't know that it was" yes, we do. Doctors Fauci and Birx said clearly. Fauci said the Rose Garden event was a super-spreader, just look at the data. Birx said the only way to avoid more is to take the right measures.
Or, you can double down on dumb. Guess what Trump did? He is actually inviting 2,000 guests to the White House, the scene of the COVID contagion, tomorrow. There's a case cluster there. 2,000 people! They are supposed to bring masks, not required to wear them, and will be subject to temperature checks, though not all COVID cases involve fever.
Can you imagine going to a tightly-packed event where masks are not on everyone, and the guy talking at you is likely contagious in a place that just had a case outbreak? And he won't even show you any proof that he is OK?
We just learned today from Minnesota's Health Department that nine people who attended his rally in that State, a few weeks ago, have tested positive. I know he said in the debate no one has gotten sick at his events. He lied. He also told you that he took a test before the debate. He lied.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. How many times must some of you be fooled before you get that this president puts nothing before his own interests?
Respect and love for the families, he said tonight, the families who've suffered with COVID, respect and love. How does he show it? By saying "This affects no one?" That it goes away magically? When you catch it, you just get better?
More than 212,000 didn't get better. He has never even held a moment of silence for them at any of his rallies. Conversely, he talks about how they died, and the virus that killed them as if it was no big deal.
They are dead on his watch. And many are suffering for the long haul. They don't get the medicines that you got, and they have to deal with the truth. They don't get to lie about their condition, and life goes back to normal. They should have known the reality when you knew it.
You should tell them you will get better testing, and you will get more testing, for them and their kids in the schools. You say you learned so much from having COVID. You learned what? How to lie about it?
There will be no second presidential debate next week. It has officially been cancelled, why? The President refuses to do a virtual debate and he won't show proof that he is OK.
Where's the negative test? Where is it? Where is even his temperature? Where is it? Have the CDC clear you, this is simple. Put up or stay put. You literally could be making more people sick.
But Trump does have a third option and, of course, he took it. And instead of put up, or shut up, he went for the kiss-up on Fox.
A doctor at Fox interviewed him. Not even an exam, no COVID expertise. This is the same guy, who said "The worst-case scenario is that COVID will be like the flu." COVID has already killed more than the flu has, in the past five years.
The interview was done on a show that Fox's own lawyers said, in court is not to be taken seriously. It is not a credible source of news. That's where he did the interview, with a guy who doesn't know what he is talking about, didn't even examine him. That's the best he can do?
[21:05:00]
And he said, "Yes, I was tested today. I don't have the numbers yet, but I'm either really low or clear." That makes no sense. There is no such measure when it comes to being tested for COVID.
You want the proof? Here's a real doctor, who knows the testing, knows the epidemiology, knows the symptomology, and knows what it looks like when somebody is well.
And we can tell this right now, before we even hear from a real doctor. There is a diagnosis, my brothers and sisters. This president has a case of deadly dereliction of duty.
Let's bring in Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Van Jones.
Sanjay, listening to what was supposed to be a comfort-giving interview, on Fox, by a doctor, what did you hear that gave you any cause for confidence?
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, there wasn't a lot of information that was given there really at all. I mean, most of it we had heard before, and obviously it wasn't an exam. So, it's - you can't really make much of it.
President did say that he had congestion in his lungs. Marc Siegel asked the President, did he have scans, and he said he had all kinds of scans, but he didn't say what they were.
But then said that they seemed to show some congestion in his lungs, which is actually the first time we had heard that, because previously, the President's doctors, Dr. Conley just said there were findings.
Look, this is all purposely vague, Chris. I mean we are left to sort of look at these bread crumbs, and try and piece something together here. Sounds like the President is off of his medications now, but then he said that initially, and then later on, in the interview, he said should be off shortly or something to that effect.
So, again, there was three medications. He received those antibodies, as you well know, Remdesivir, this anti-viral. And the steroid medication, Dexamethasone is typically a 10-day course.
CUOMO: Right.
GUPTA: So, if they are doing the proper course, he should still be on it.
CUOMO: Right.
GUPTA: I don't know if he - again, I couldn't tell from that interview if he was or he wasn't. So, didn't get a lot out of that, Chris.
CUOMO: Well they said he tolerated it very well. We don't know if that's true.
GUPTA: Right.
CUOMO: Now, I think the biggest thing to discuss is he said, "I was just tested. I don't have the numbers yet. I'm either very at the bottom or cleared."
I have been tested a bunch of times, a bunch of ways. I have never seen any kind of reading or scale or anything. Even when I get the lab report, it's still a bunch of gibberish and yes or no, positive or negative.
What is he talking about?
GUPTA: Well, first of all, let me just say, it doesn't really matter that much, because when you - when you have COVID, as you well know, Chris, you're really not cleared until 10 days, after you've first had symptoms.
And that's regardless of what the testing shows, because the testing can be false negative, and sometimes the test can continue to pick up viral fragments, even though somebody is, in effect, not shedding the virus anymore.
What he seems to be talking about, and again, it's not totally clear to me is, and they talk about these - these trajectories of these diagnostics in a letter, which again, this language that isn't clear.
But it seems like they're trying to figure out what the viral load is in the President. So, you do the PCR tests, which he had done.
CUOMO: Supposed to be two PCR tests--
GUPTA: If you find--
CUOMO: --of 35 cycles or more that show--
GUPTA: You're right.
CUOMO: --no live virus or if you're going to do that many cycles, no virus load almost at all, Sanjay.
GUPTA: That's right. That's right.
CUOMO: I mean he clearly doesn't have that.
GUPTA: You're exactly right.
CUOMO: Otherwise, he'd have a nice easy answer. "Here, take a look."
GUPTA: Yes, you're right.
CUOMO: "I'm fine."
GUPTA: Yes, he would say that.
If he was truly negative with a few cycles of a PCR machine, he would say that. I think what they are doing is he still positive, but they are doing more and more cycles, and seeing basically is, at what point does he seem like the viral load is low.
Look, we don't know because they're not - they're purposely being vague on this. But I think they are trying to track his viral load, it sounds like, and using that as an indication that if it's going down, that it should be cleared by pick a day, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. So, it's a guess. It's conjecture, on their part to do that. You're right, Chris. If you are going to use testing as a - as a way to figure out if someone is no longer contagious, you need to have two proper PCR tests, separated by a day, and they both have to come back negative.
CUOMO: All right, I want to talk to you about the state of play in the country. We have elevations in hospitalizations.
But I want to bring in Van real quick.
And just to note to people at home, if that had been the standard for me, 10 days after I started to have symptoms, I'd make everybody sick, who came around me, 10 days in. I had fever for almost, certainly over two weeks, real fever, real symptoms.
So, this standard is already crazy generous.
Van, so--
GUPTA: Yes.
[21:10:00]
CUOMO: --the strategy here is "I'm cleared. I'm strong. I'm back. I'm doing more rallies." What should be the Democratic response to the recklessness of the President in this instance?
VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, at this point, the Democrats just have to watch this train crash happen. The President is drowning, and he just threw himself an anvil, refusing to debate.
He needs to get in front of the American people, the biggest audience he can possibly have, which is the debate audience, and he just whiffed it. He just decided he didn't want to do it.
And now, he is going to do some crazy cult-like event, for people, it's like a death cult. I mean, who is going to go to the White House, this weekend, when people have been dropping like flies, in terms of getting these diagnoses? It's just nuts.
So, at this point, Democrats just have to almost watch this spectacle.
CUOMO: Look, if he wanted to debate, all he has to do is show the PCR test that shows he is clear of virus.
JONES: That's right.
CUOMO: And the Commission would be in a box, they'd be able to do it.
Now, one plus/minus on this. So, with all this going on, Pelosi and Raskin, and a couple others, are trying to do this 25th Amendment thing. It's obviously about Trump.
I had Jamie Raskin on the show last night, respect for the Congressman, but not for his argument. He was like "Oh no, it has nothing to do with Trump." It's all about Trump. Why mess around with the 25th Amendment? You're not going to get
anywhere with that. Why do that right now?
JONES: Well I think they're trying to find as many ways as possible to raise the concern that I think a lot of Americans have that this behavior doesn't make sense.
Listen, if you had a relative, who is acting this way, who came home from the doctor, who came home from the hospital, and said "They gave me some stuff. I'm now cured of COVID. I want everybody to come over to the house, I'm going to give a big speech to everybody," you would say "There's something wrong with grandpa. There's something wrong, you know, with Uncle Donald." You would not say, "Hey, here's somebody who should be the leader of the country."
And so, that's - so in some ways, is it a stunt? Yes. Is it about Trump? Yes. But it's also a way for people in Congress to continue to raise this issue that there's - there seems to be something way off here.
This is not - there's a lot of shenanigans from Donald Trump you've gotten used to. But this, the idea "I'm going to be the Super- Spreader-in-Chief. And I'm going to literally call people to me at a time when I should be by myself" is just a whole different level of disturbing behavior for the President.
CUOMO: It will be interesting to see who shows up tomorrow.
Sanjay, so, 46,000 cases, we're up 12 percent, in like the last week, 10 days, 12 days. We're hearing all over the State that people are having new cases pop up. Some of that was expected, as things reopen, as kids are back in school. But hospitalizations are popping up also. You are more worried about that.
GUPTA: Yes.
CUOMO: And how do you read this, in terms of expected versus not expected?
GUPTA: Yes. I think this is a really crucial point, Chris. Two things.
One is that there's been this belief that, accurately that the young people are a lot less likely to get sick. We know that.
But what we're seeing, as schools reopen, we are seeing hospitalization rates go up, which means that vulnerable populations are still being affected, as a result of younger people's increased mobility. Just remember that.
Even if it's just younger people increasingly mobile, it does affect these vulnerable populations. We don't always know how, tough to contract trace. But that's the purple line there, on that graph, and that's the expectation in terms of hospital beds, going in to the winter season.
Problem is, I found this sort of buried within the IHME models, problem is we don't have enough hospital beds to really meet that demand.
Let me show you this other graph, if we had it. There it is, darker the color, the fuller the hospitals in these states. Some of these hospitals - some of these states already have over 70 percent of their hospital beds full, right now, and we are not even fully in flu season.
See, this is the problem, Chris. We talk about number of people infected, number of people who've died, but the process of trying to care for people, when you suddenly have these huge surges is really, it's tough work, right?
Right now, as your brother did in New York, back in April, many states are now looking at buildings.
CUOMO: Right.
GUPTA: Saying it's going to be too cold, November, December. We got to find - we got to find conference centers and other large buildings right now that can accept hospital patients.
CUOMO: Right. And he's saying we're rounding the corner, the President.
GUPTA: And this is going to happen in many states around the country.
CUOMO: And I got to tell you, governors, like my brother, Andrew speaks for himself, but, they are concerned, because the margins are always small. The beds are almost always filled in the hospitals.
GUPTA: That's right. That's right.
CUOMO: They expanded capacity, but not enough.
You've got homeless people and mentally-ill people on the streets because they don't have the capacity to keep them, and the problems are only going to get more, as you have this new flood of new illnesses, that are seasonal.
And the President's saying we're rounding the corner. Sanjay, we're obviously not. We will keep it straight for people. I know you can promise that.
GUPTA: Right.
CUOMO: Or I can promise it. You can deliver on it.
[21:15:00]
Van, can your team capitalize on it is the last question here. This election is going to be straight-up referendum COVID time by the time November rolls around. We are going to hear bad things. This president will likely be lying about those same things.
What must Joe Biden and Kamala Harris do to win an election in this environment? And before you answer, they can't just sit back and watch. People are desperate for leadership.
JONES: Well I think they are showing that leadership. And I think it's two things.
One is with regard to the President's behavior, you create the contrast, by being responsible, but also by talking about not just what you're going to do to deal with the virus.
In fact, there's broad agreement about what to do to deal with the virus. The problem is that President's behavior undermines all of those good recommendations that even if come from his Administration.
But the other thing they can do and need to do for the younger voters is talk about what they are going to do once Donald Trump is no longer the subject of conversation. How are you going to actually deliver jobs and help and relief to people?
You've got people, who are literally in food lines, right now, in this country, who've been sitting in a car for a couple of hours, waiting to get a little box of food to take home that's got to last for a week. That is not the America anybody signed up for, four years ago. But you've got to talk about how you're going to actually deliver on the jobs.
I think, honestly, Trump is now a self-indicting document. You have an opportunity, if you are Biden, if you are Harris, to talk about a future beyond Trump that works for a lot more people. And I think you're going to be able to find an audience, a much bigger audience now than two weeks ago.
CUOMO: Sanjay Gupta, Van Jones, thank you very much, your families, be healthy, be well, and have a good weekend.
GUPTA: Sure.
CUOMO: Appreciate you both. I'll see you tomorrow night, Sanjay.
GUPTA: You too, Chris.
CUOMO: We have new information--
GUPTA: You got it.
CUOMO: --and troubling questions surrounding the foiled plot to allegedly kidnap the Governor of Michigan. I've never heard of anything like that, let alone that being ignored by the Commander-in- Chief. We still don't know if more are being planned.
An attorney for one of the 13 domestic terror suspects is here. What does he have to say? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP) [21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I want to show you the alleged enemies among us, the faces of the men facing charges in an alleged domestic terror plot to kidnap the Governor of Michigan.
I'll put the faces up. There we go.
Authorities say the plot involved scouting the Governor's vacation house, prepping explosives, and they were holding secret meetings beneath a trap door. You are looking at that right now.
The criminal complaint from an agent suggests the man who lived in this basement, Adam Fox was leading the charge. CNN talked to his employer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What was he getting from Amazon?
BRIAN TITUS, SUSPECT'S FORMER EMPLOYER: Like MREs, food, stuff like that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So survival stuff that it's in there?
TITUS: Yes. He was buying more like attachments for like an AR-15, and he goes buying like food. And I'm not stupid. I was in the Marine Corps. So then, I told him he had to go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, that guy is not involved. He owns the vacuum store. He knew Fox, let him stay in the basement, to help him out, started seeing these suspicious things, told him he had to go. That's his story.
Now, among the men actually charged is Daniel Harris. Parker Douglas represents Harris, says he wasn't really involved. He joins us now.
Counselor, thank you.
PARKER DOUGLAS, ATTORNEY FOR DANIEL HARRIS, ONE OF 13 CHARGED IN PLOT TO KIDNAP MICHIGAN GOVERNOR: Pleasure to be here, thank you.
CUOMO: First, let's do personal, and then we'll do facts and law.
On the personal side, can you give us some kind of picture of who this guy is, what his family life is like, what his psychological profile is like? Just what kind of person is this?
DOUGLAS: So, I can give you as much as I can - was able to garner in a little over an hour talking to him. I saw the complaint for the first time yesterday, and talked to Mr. Harris for the first time today, for about an hour.
What I would say is that he is a young man. He was in the Marines. He went in right after high school, when he was about 18. He got out when he was 22. That was a year ago, June. And he has been out since a year ago, June.
He has been living with his parents. He works as a - as a basically as subcontract - working for a subcontractor, mostly putting in decks, and lives with his parents and his dog, who's half-Shepherd, half-Lab.
CUOMO: Did you talk to his parents?
DOUGLAS: I did not. I haven't yet. But I hope to talk to them tomorrow.
CUOMO: Any discussion with him if he is on any medications, if he is expressing any kind of extreme beliefs or extreme fears or anything like that?
DOUGLAS: I didn't ask him about medication. Obviously, I don't think I can talk about that if he did tell me something. But he didn't - as far as whether he was lucid, clear, etcetera, he was all of those things.
He was concerned, as anybody would be, facing allegations that are set forth in the complaint. But--
CUOMO: He was not proud about what he's connected to?
DOUGLAS: Well, he had some confusion. And he's certainly not happy to be connected with what he is connected to. But even reading through the complaint, I am not sure how much what he is connected to yet.
And I think that it's - what we have is a complaint that's a sworn complaint by one agent that details some movements, some text messaging, some calls. Sometimes, it's unclear who is party to which calls.
And I don't mean to sound like a lawyer parsing things. But that's what I have to do when I'm figuring it out.
[21:25:00]
CUOMO: No, no, that's your job. Everybody deserves a defense.
DOUGLAS: Yes. One--
CUOMO: Everybody deserves a defense, of course. I'm an Officer of the Court as well. I'm a lawyer. I get that.
DOUGLAS: Yes, I know. CUOMO: And this is very early-on in the process. They say they have a lot of investigative material. But I just want to ask you one more thing, and then we'll get to what we understand, is in the record right now.
DOUGLAS: Sure.
CUOMO: Did he express any strong views or ideologies to you that would explain animus toward the Governor?
DOUGLAS: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, he - the only thing he said to me was that he is a person who likes his privacy and supports the Bill of Rights, and that he doesn't really find that he belongs in one Party or the other. In that sense, he sounded a lot like me.
CUOMO: All right.
DOUGLAS: To tell you the truth.
CUOMO: All right. That's fine. All right, now let's get to what we understand.
Was he ever - was he able to tell you, in your conversation, how he can explain, hanging around with a group of guys, and having rounds of conversation, like he had, as attested to in the affidavit, in the supporting affidavit, to the complaint, which as we both know, and anybody who wants to read it will know, is a clear expression of animus, of hate, of planning, of trying to hurt.
In his case, "Knock on the door. When she answers it, just cap her, at this point. F it. Catch her walking into the building and act like passers-by, fixing dome her then yourself, whoever does it."
That is unambiguous in its intention. So, I don't know what he's confused about.
DOUGLAS: That statement is unambiguous in its intention. What he told me was that it was incomplete and he wasn't sure whether or not they had transcribed it completely or not. And I don't know that until I see the text message to another.
CUOMO: But what else could - what does he say was missed? "Ha, ha, ha, just kidding! I hope nobody's"--
DOUGLAS: No, he--
CUOMO: --"recording this because I don't mean it."
DOUGLAS: He didn't say anything. What he said was that - was that there were things that were said after that, and perhaps before it, and I don't know what those things are, because I haven't seen the whole transcript yet.
CUOMO: But what could they be that would be exculpatory, that would make him not threaten to kill the Governor while in conversations with people who were planning just that for weeks? DOUGLAS: Well, one - I mean, he didn't tell me that he said those things, for one. And I don't know this transcription is accurate.
CUOMO: OK. So may not be him.
DOUGLAS: And until I can--
CUOMO: That's his best defense? But he didn't say to you, he didn't say it.
DOUGLAS: We didn't talk a lot about the statements actually. I talked more about who the other people might have been, how long he might have known them, etcetera.
CUOMO: And you say that he didn't really know them all that well. He met them shooting at the range. So, here's the main question at this point. I welcome you back, as we develop more of the record. You develop your own understanding of the case.
DOUGLAS: Sure.
CUOMO: That is a genuine offer.
If he did not have anything to do with this, as we heard from the guy, who owns the vacuum place, where Fox was living in his basement, as a favor, it was obvious there were things going on. It should have been obvious to your client.
If he wanted nothing to do with it, if he wasn't about that, not a member of this group, why didn't he go to authorities?
DOUGLAS: We didn't talk about that at all. And it's--
CUOMO: It's a good conversation to have, Counselor.
DOUGLAS: Well I know. And I had an hour-long conversation with him today. And I'm surely going to have more.
But as far as, you know, you're talking about groups. The group of five people that were arrested with him, it's unclear to me whether they are related or not to the other groups who were arrested today.
When I talked to him about whether he knew anything about those other groups, he didn't indicate to me that he did.
CUOMO: Right, but he is also at - he is also identified as being at another meeting at this house on Lake Orion or Orion. That was very specific in its intent and it's a direction.
Obviously, what we want to hear from this guy, if he had nothing to do with it, is how he can explain that, and what he - why he didn't do anything about it. But you've only had one conversation. As we develop more of the record, you are welcome back to make the case, and I appreciate it.
It doesn't get more serious than this, in our country. This is allegedly domestic terrorism against a sitting Governor. As you know, very serious conspiracy, and kidnapping, and terror charges could still be coming and are coming.
DOUGLAS: Absolutely. And we take them very seriously.
CUOMO: Counselor, thank you for taking the opportunity. And I hope to speak to you again.
DOUGLAS: Hope to speak with you too. Thanks for having me.
CUOMO: All right, now look, I know it's not getting a lot of attention from our President, but I believe that's about malfeasance, OK? He said things that amped up guys like this. He may have even been at the rally where Trump called them "Good people." They're still investigating that. So, we're going to stay on it.
But we're also going to bounce it with the other virus, in our society, COVID, the pandemic.
[21:30:00]
A huge thing is getting kids back in school. I know you hear me talk about it all the time. We have a different angle on it, tonight, a really must-see segment. Is the mistake we made with kids in schools that we made it too complicated and too hard?
What do we know about how much the virus spreads in schools? A must- see segment, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Not good news. The United States is now averaging more than 46,000 new COVID infections each day. It's up about 12 percent from last week, more than double from where we were in June.
Why? Places started to open back up. And now we have kids in school. We expected more cases. But it has a lot of leaders and people in communities all over the country spooked, especially when it comes to schools.
[21:35:00]
Now, I, full disclosure, I have argued here we did our kids dirty. We didn't put the thinking into the resources, the contact tracing and the types of testing that would have given us the comfort level to track cases accurately and put our kids where they belong in school.
Now, part of the proof of my theory is that there is no federal effort to even track COVID cases in schools across this country. Think about that. Of course, it adds to the uncertainty and it's intentional.
Why wouldn't this president want us to know how many cases our kids are catching, if he wants them back in school. So, in the absence of leadership, let's talk about the information we need to make the right choices for ourselves.
One of our guests, an Economist, says she has good news for you that fears about schools have been overblown and she can prove it. But can she prove it to a Doctor, and former public health official's satisfaction? Let's see right now.
Emily Oster is an Economist at Brown University. Thank you for joining us. Dr. Leana Wen, you know, and she oversaw School Health in Baltimore, as a reminder.
Dr. Wen, thank you. Emily, thank you.
Emily, begin. And I want as little to do here because I want to learn as much as I want to lead. What do you see in the data?
EMILY OSTER, ECONOMIST, BROWN UNIVERSITY: Yes.
CUOMO: That gives you confidence about kids being back in school?
OSTER: So, let me just first, Chris, amplify the first thing you said, which is that it is shameful that the people collecting this data are people on my team and not the federal government.
What we are doing is we are going into schools. We're asking them, "How many kids do you have? We are tracking their COVID cases." And what we are seeing early on is I think somewhat reassuring.
So, in our sort of last two weeks of September data, looking at a couple 100,000 kids in, in-person school, we are seeing rates that are like 1.5 cases in a school of a 1,000, over that two-week period. Now, this data is very early. And so, I'm not really sure that I can convince Dr. Wen.
But I think it does start to suggest that maybe particularly lower prevalence places, we should be more aggressive about opening, perhaps especially with elementary school kids, who I think are really suffering from being home and where distance-learning is often not a great solution.
CUOMO: Just give us a little context on the data. How many schools? How many states? What kind of sample?
OSTER: So, it's covering almost every state. I think we are missing data from Alabama. It's about 600,000 total enrolled kids, of which about 200,000 are in-person, about 60,000 in-person staff.
We have both public schools, district public schools, as well as charters and private schools, and about 75 percent of the schools in the sample have at least some in-person learning. It's about 1,100 schools.
CUOMO: All right, so a case and a half per thousand. Doctor, what is your reaction to the data, and what are your questions as a result?
DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST, FORMER BALTIMORE HEALTH COMMISSIONER, ER PHYSICIAN, PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, my first reaction is that I'm very glad that professor Oster and her colleagues are doing this. And it shows that when there is failure on the part of the federal government that there are great people who are stepping in, in to that void.
I am somewhat reassured by the data. But I am also a little bit concerned because it seems like we have the cases of the reported cases in schools for students and teachers.
But, I wonder from Professor Oster, is there a way to also track for parents and caregivers and others who live in that household of students and teachers too?
OSTER: Yes. I think that that would be great, and I think we don't currently ask that, although it's something that we could add, although I'm not sure if the schools will know.
What I would really think we would need - we're going to need to do is start looking at the counties where these schools are, and trying to link school-opens to what's happening overall in the community.
And that's something I think we could have principal do with even other data, of course, people haven't - haven't done that yet. But I think that concern and the concern about the staff, in particular, is kind of really central to these - to these questions.
CUOMO: And let's discuss why it's central in a second.
First, one step sideways, Dr. Wen, remind people why you are worried about kids, because what we were told is, "Don't be. Largely asymptomatic. Come through it. You have a few hundred that have died. That's terrible. But it's nothing compared to the rest of us.
And until they get to be 10 or so, they don't even spread like the rest of us. So, they're really not our problem population," which is why people say "The old, the weak, people like me, they have to be in quarantine. All the young strong people like you, and our kids, they can be out and live normal life. That's the best way to do it."
What's your take on that premise, Doctor?
WEN: Well, so it is true, that children tend to get less severely ill than adults do, that the mortality rate among children is very low. But that said some children do get severely ill.
And by the way, the same disparities that we see in adults is mirrored in children that sadly, and tragically, three-quarters of the kids who have died are Black and Brown children, who disproportionately bear the brunt of disparities once again.
[21:40:00]
Now, we also know that for children that older children, 10 and older probably transmit Coronavirus as much as adults do. Children under 10, probably most studies suggest that they transmit it less, but they certainly do transmit it.
There was a study that found that an 8-month-old child transmitted COVID to the family. And another recent study found that one 13-year- old transmitted Coronavirus to 11 out of 13 family members that this 13-year-old was around. And so, all this is to say then we can't just think of walling off a portion of society.
Actually, other studies have suggested that the surges are actually driven by young people, that you have young people in their teens and 20s, who first become infected, and then, a couple weeks after that that spreads immediately to those who are 60, 70 and 80.
CUOMO: Right.
WEN: So, what starts with the young doesn't stay in the young.
CUOMO: One follow on that, and let's discuss that main point about what they call, like kind of interstitial spread, which is where the kid may not have that bad a case, but then they bring it to vulnerable people.
And you have to account for multiple generational households, which are very prevalent, especially as you move down the economic ladder in America. Has any community spread happened because of a school, Doctor?
WEN: There are certainly cases, although it is very difficult for us to prove.
CUOMO: Right.
WEN: Looking around the country, those Health Departments that collected--
CUOMO: Right.
WEN: --50 percent of cases or more are from community spread and we just don't know.
CUOMO: Right. And that's the problem. That's why we need the testing.
And Emily, look, I want this to be clear to you. I didn't talk to you before we did the interview. You are among friends. You are doing research that nobody else is doing for us. You know what I mean? You are not brought here to set up as a bad guy, quite the opposite, because we are desperate for answers.
So, that's the last variable that you have to build in to your modeling, if possible, which is-- OSTER: Yes.
CUOMO: --all right, so they give you the right number, let's say nobody lies, OK?
But the teachers, the teachers' families, who's at home, grandma living at home, grandma raising the kid who's sick, and fine, but she's not fine. How do you account for that, in understanding the impact of kids in school who get sick?
OSTER: Yes. I mean, I think we need to try to account for that by sort of looking at what's happening in the community.
I think the other piece we need to try to account for that we haven't talked about is what are the precautions they're taking in schools, this kind of the other piece of the data, is are the schools wearing masks, are they distancing, sort of thinking about kind of how do we do safe reopen?
I think that intersects with the same question, if the kids are in school, and they're all wearing masks, and then they are even less likely to spread in schools, then it is not going to come out into the - into the community.
So, I think we really need to understand this problem better, because I think we all want to get kids back in school. And yet, none of us want their grandparents to get Coronavirus. And somehow, we've got to - we've got to figure out how we can get enough information to actually make that happen.
CUOMO: So Doctor, last point is to people at home who are saying, "It's like one case, the whole school shuts down. You are not having a lot of kids get sick. It's just panic to when anybody does, they should be back in school," your answer?
WEN: I agree that kids should be back in school. But that's something that we as a society have to prioritize.
We've been talking about this choice of bars versus schools, and in some ways, that's an - it's an easy choice for a lot of us. But I do think that we as a society have to figure out that we can't do it all.
We can't have schools open, and everything open, and cases surging out of control. So, if schools are going to be a priority, we as a society, as people, have to determine what are those other things that we have to give up, which might include also informal gatherings, and limiting play dates. It doesn't make sense to have play dates and birthday parties, while keeping schools closed.
CUOMO: That's got to be a priority. Show of hands--
OSTER: I completely agree with that.
CUOMO: Thank you very much.
Emily, look, as you get more info, let me know. You got a forum here, to share with millions of people.
OSTER: That would be great. I love to - I love to come back--
CUOMO: And figure out what works.
OSTER: --and tell you more.
CUOMO: Schools or bars, show of hands, I'm going - I'm going bar - no? Nobody? All right, I'm just fixing my hair. Schools is obviously a priority for everybody.
No look, I argue it all the time. My three kids are a mess. The schedules are all different. The learning is not optimal. It's hard on their teachers. It's hard on the family. We have to do better.
Hopefully, Emily, your data can point us in the right direction. And Dr. Wen, I know you'll keep us straight about what time and evidence shows us, in terms of keeping our community safe.
To both of you, have a good weekend.
We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: We've seen long lines this week for early voting all over this country. Our leaders should be doing everything to ensure that those people are safe, and they feel encouraged to go there, and that they will be safe.
Yet, the same President who claims to be "Mr. Law and Order" is openly telling domestic terror groups, like the one in Michigan, to break the law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully, because that's what has to happen. I am urging them to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Yes, can also be called a felony, especially the man who swore to protect and defend the Constitution can't be counted on to do so.
You want to poll-watch? That's about protection. Protection is about police, election officials and you. Let's focus on the last one. We have Mary McCord, OK, working to arm all of us with the best tool, the facts.
Mary, thank you for joining us.
MARY MCCORD, FORMER ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, LEGAL DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION, PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN LAW: My pleasure, Chris.
CUOMO: So, a couple of my roughneck buddies and I are going to go and watch people like you vote, try and get as close to you as we can in the booth. Is that legal?
MCCORD: Well it depends on what you mean by "Roughneck buddies."
But voter intimidation or interference with the vote is illegal in all 50 states and it's illegal under federal law. And then, of course, armed vigilante militia activity is also illegal in all 50 states.
CUOMO: But you are not allowed to go in and watch people vote, right?
MCCORD: There are poll watchers, who are allowed to go in and not--
CUOMO: Right, official poll watchers.
MCCORD: Right, not--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCORD: --not watch people cast their ballots.
CUOMO: Right.
MCCORD: But just watch the voting process, right, to make sure that things are being done in accordance with law.
CUOMO: Right. But you can't just self-appoint yourself to that?
[21:50:00]
MCCORD: No, no, no. Every state has different laws that apply to that. In some case, only certain people can be poll watchers. Sometimes they're called election observers. It's different state to state.
But it requires some sort of registration with the state or some sort of recording of your presence there under authority of the election officials. It's not just anyone, and certainly not, armed groups of individuals certainly wouldn't be permitted to be inside the voting booth watching people vote.
CUOMO: What do you want people to know about what should be the case when they get to the polls?
MCCORD: So, I'm not really worried about armed, unlawful militias going inside the polls. I don't think they'll be able to get in there.
What I am worried about is that armed groups might go out and take it upon themselves to respond to Trump's statements about election mail- in ballots being susceptible to fraud, and the election potentially being rigged, and any delay in tabulating the ballots being rigged.
And these are dog-whistles to these self-professed militia organizations, unlawful militia organizations, to deploy to protect the vote or protect against election fraud, the same way they have deployed across America, to protect property against false rumors of violent anarchists coming during racial justice rallies.
These groups are unlawful. They're not authorized under federal or state law. Militias refer to lawful state militias, like the National Guard. There's no authority for people to deploy on their own. They're not protected by the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court's been very clear about that that states may and must be able to prohibit private paramilitary organizations. They said in 1886. They said it again in 2008. And in fact, all 50 states prohibit this type of armed, coordinated, organized use of force or projection of the ability to use force.
Really, it's the usurpation of law enforcement, and militia authority--
CUOMO: Yes.
MCCORD: --arrogating onto themselves, when and under what circumstances they will deploy the lethal force, AR-15s, assault rifles, etcetera.
CUOMO: And look, it doesn't help you say dog whistle. I say foghorn.
The President called those guys at the group, "Good people." They wound up combining in their efforts to try to kidnap the Governor of Michigan. They want to do it near the election. They're bad guys out there. And it is a weird time when we have a president who seems to be giving them overt confidence.
Now, most people don't know the laws. How do they arm themselves with the information they need to be effective at the polls?
MCCORD: So, I'm at Georgetown University now, running - helping run the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.
We have actually put out fact sheets for all 50 states that talk about what the laws are in each state against these armed groups of individuals. They also give sort of a Q&A, what you do, when you see armed groups of individuals near a polling place.
And we're distributing these not just to voters and to election officials, but to law enforcement, to state and local officials, because it really is on state and local officials, this year, to make sure that voters can safely vote. And that's what they all want. And I'm seeing people coming together. I've been spending the last couple of weeks talking to mayors, talking to Chiefs of Police, talking to district attorneys, voting rights organizations, state attorneys general.
And they need to get together with their communities, make it clear that they're not going to tolerate voter intimidation, they're not going to tolerate armed groups of individuals intimidating people, before the polls, during Election Day or afterwards, and unite with their communities to make sure that everyone can actually exercise their right to choose the next president, and then other elected officials, based on ideas and policies, and not based on threats and intimidation.
CUOMO: Mary McCord, literally a lifetime of public service, and you got a long way to go. So, thank you for what you're doing right now. The website is on your screen, and I will tweet it from my personal, and the Show account.
Mary McCord, thank you very much.
MCCORD: Thank you. Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Here's something you're not hearing on Fox. Trump didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize today. Wonder why!
Maybe it was failing to call out domestic terror, like the 13 suspects, who may have been acting on his insurrection calls to liberate Michigan. They were all charged in a kidnapping plot against Michigan's Governor, and trying to overthrow government. Not very "Peacy."
Trump wasn't nominated for any do-gooding in this country because he's too busy dividing and inflaming. I wonder if that impressed the judges.
Oh, by the way, he was nominated by this far-Right Norwegian lawmaker, who put his name in for working on the UAE/Israel peace deal. And there was this Swedish parliament member who nominated him for helping secure an economic deal between Serbia and Kosovo.
The World Food Programme for its efforts to combat hunger, they won.
And by the way, we may need them here soon, as an ever-increasing number are waiting in line for food in America, in an economy that this president calls the "Greatest of all time," despite the worst unemployment rate since the 1940s.
Maybe Trump would win a prize for peace if he didn't empower hate. Maybe he would be called peaceful if he didn't call the quest for social justice "Racist" and call Black Lives Matter a symbol of hate. Maybe if he fought domestic terror, instead of encouraging it, people would see him as peaceful.
Maybe he'd win a Peace Prize if he didn't threaten that he might not peacefully leave the White House if he loses. Maybe he'd win one if he didn't berate his cabinet members for not prosecuting political enemies.
Peace would be a much better fit, if he were about peace, and not hate.
I wish you all peace this weekend, the best blessings for your head and hearts and your families. Thank you for watching.
"CNN TONIGHT" with the man, D. Lemon, right now.
