Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Overturn Election, Shutting Down Trump, 19 State Attorney Generals And 126 House Republicans; Pennsylvania A.G. On Supreme Court Dismissing Trump's Bid to Overturn Election; FDA Grants Emergency Use Authorization For COVID-19 Vaccine. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 11, 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]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: That's it for us. News continues. Let's hand it over to Chris for "CUOMO PRIME TIME." Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Big night, Coop. Have a good weekend.
I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
Congratulations, America. You won. The Supreme Court told the Re- Trump-licans, 19 rogue AGs, 126 House former GOP members, and Trump himself what they all already knew. "You have no case because you have no proof. You have no right and you will get no relief." The entire court agreed.
Let me read. "The State of Texas' motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."
What does that mean? "You have no right to sue because you have no business saying you don't like how another state ran its election, and because there has been no damage to you, because you don't show any proof of anything wrong," which by the way is a decision that is a clear affirmation of federalism, states' rights, which used to be a conservative tenet.
You see, that's where you see the death of the Republican Party into this zombie form of Re-Trump-lican. They have forgotten who they are because of their fealty to one man.
Now, they didn't even need to hear anymore, the justices. It doesn't get any worse than this. You're not even going to get a hearing. You don't deserve one. However, this is a big win if you love this country and democracy. In that way, it doesn't get any better than this. That's what won, the "We" over the "Me of Trump."
Now, the Re-Trump-licans, and those desperate to disown democracy will say "Wait a minute, wait a minute, two dissented." That is not true.
Again, we read, the statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, "In my view, we don't have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction." They then cite a case. "I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."
What does that mean? Their note is not about the merits of the case, OK? Alito and Thomas, and this is a little in the weeds, but it matters, because you're going to be hearing this, and you should be armed with the information to rebut it.
Alito and Thomas have a long-standing dispute back to this case that they cite, Arizona v. California and before. They have a different feeling about the Supreme Court's role in taking cases of interstate controversies, OK? That's about jurisdiction, not about the merits.
The key part is the end of this discussion, "But we would not grant other relief, and no view on any other issue," meaning they too see no wrong to remedy, period. It's over.
The statement, from President-elect Biden's team, "This is no surprise. Dozens of judges, election officials from both parties, and Trump's own Attorney General have dismissed" this "his baseless attempts to deny that he lost the election. President-elect Biden's clear and commanding victory will be ratified by the Electoral College on Monday, and he will be sworn in on January 20th." We'll get to that.
But first, where we are, Trump was right. This was the "Big one." It was his big effort with all his cronies to steal the election.
Now why was he so confident? He was confident not because of the merits, but because Donald Trump has always believed everyone is like him, transactional, no principles, no integrity. There is nothing to life but your own ambition and how to get what you want.
That's why he met with Comey and asked for loyalty. That's why he tried to make a deal on Flynn. That's why he was OK letting Russia help him. That's why he's OK now with having low-character people around him.
And that's why he thought judges that he picked would side with him. He even told you that, remember? I need Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the election. "We need them."
See, he knew he might lose, and he was thinking of ways to steal, because that's what he does. But even his three judges proved him wrong, not once, but twice. And in that, what we must conclude is what I hope is obvious.
[21:05:00]
America is better than Trump, and we deserve better than how he and the Re-Trump-licans have been trying to crush this country, for weeks, in the middle of a pandemic that they are not acting on. And you must remember this day and the way that it happened. These are the names that must live in infamy. 126 of 196 Members of the House who are Republicans, no longer of good name, though, no longer Republican, Re-Trump-lican because they chose the power of principle, the worst play, right, power over principle, ambition over America. The worst we've seen since the Red Scare.
And remember, they knew what they were doing. None came forward with proof. They were all in on a con. Among them, it's not some bunch of nobodies, top House Re-Trump-lican Kevin McCarthy, now living up to his name, another McCarthy, just like Senator Joe of the Red Scare scandal.
The House Minority Leader now on board with undoing an election because he didn't like the outcome, a man who railed in 2016 that you can't challenge the vote without overwhelming proof, the man who said this to you about the transition.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): There will be a very peaceful transition.
It will be a smooth transition.
It will be a smooth transition, regardless of the outcome.
No questions, no qualms, no concerns. It's going to be peaceful. This nation is designed that way. This nation will have it that way. And that's exactly what will take place.
There is going to be a smooth transition, just as it is every time before.
So, let me put it all to rest for all of you. It will be a smooth transition, no concern on the outcome.
I know this will keep you up at night, but don't worry about it. It's going to be very smooth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Yes, you're a liar. Of course we had to worry about it because you're a liar. You're just another Trump. You're just like the last McCarthy. Sir, you have no decency. Here at last, have you no decency?
And the answer is no, because you chose to attack this race on the basis of nothing but a desire to keep us divided. Shame on you! Shame on all of you! In the middle of a pandemic when we needed you most, you were at your worst.
Now, some of you will say "Well, hold on, hold on, suing, I mean that's not that bad. That's how we deal with" - no, no, that's not how you do it. You don't go to sue with no proof. You don't sue in search of a case. You bring a case and then you sue.
And, by the way, this isn't over. Monday, the electors meet. McCarthy said "Why would I accept their vote?" The guy has no basis of proof for any notion of fraud, but he won't accept it?
Let me ask you, how is that keeping his oath? How is that not a basis to throw his ass out? Think about it. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Constitution lays out how we do the election. We do the election the way the Constitution lays out, and he says he won't accept it? How is that keeping his oath?
Will the Re-Trump-licans try to pull something there? How about when Congress meets on January 6th to certify that vote? You already heard Senator Ron Johnson said he may not accept it.
These people cannot be trusted, anybody who would hold up aid during a pandemic to help sabotage a transition just for Trump?
Think of it this way, a Party that would hold up aid in the Senate because, why, because they need to protect companies from what? Frivolous lawsuits, right? So you want to protect from frivolous lawsuits at the same time that you engage in the most frivolous lawsuit of all time?
You cannot trust Re-Trump-licans because they are just like Trump. We know that now. But here is what we don't know. What can you trust? This is a dark time. People would rather get sick than wear a mask. People only believe what they agree with.
Will this be a watershed moment? Will the Supreme Court show that there is still a line, between right and wrong, in government, that there is truth, that everything isn't fake, if you feel that way?
What does tonight mean? And what happens next? We have better minds, Ana Navarro and Michael Smerconish.
So, Smerc, what did you think of the decision and how it was articulated by the court?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST, "SMERCONISH," CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't like it at all. I think the President got off easy. The answer to your question is, is a definitive no.
[21:10:00]
Last night I said to you that the best the President could hope for was an outcome without a decision, and he got that. I mean that very terse paragraph that you wrote doesn't lay down the law.
And consequently, the recollection of this case is going to be that Texas aided by 18 other attorneys general, two-thirds of Republicans stood with the President. And I think it's going to foster this perception in some quarters that there was a fix.
What I'm really saying, Chris, is he should have been spanked by the court, and he wasn't.
CUOMO: Ana?
ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I disagree. And part of why I disagree is because it was a unanimous decision by the nine Supreme Court justices, including the ones that have recently been appointed by Donald Trump.
This is right now a conservative, a Republican, a conservative Supreme Court. Nobody can allege that there is a bunch of liberals running amok in the Supreme Court who judged against, came down against Donald Trump. But I - you know, I also see it as our checks and balances in this country working.
So the Executive might be run by a madman right now. There might be 126 servile minions, congresspeople, Republican congresspeople backing him up, and 18 attorney generals.
But the checks and balances, the judicial, the Supreme Court, despite being overwhelmingly conservative, right now, stood firm and defended the Constitution, and did what we all knew was going happen, swat away a meritless complaint and suit.
I mean, it's just - it was so obvious. I think any - any high-schooler could have told you the State of Texas has no standing in telling the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania what they should do with their voters. I mean, it's just ridiculous.
CUOMO: Well look, let me put something up on the screen.
I was going to say "Hey, where are all the other Republicans now who didn't sign on saying "Enough now, you're making us all look bad. Let's do what we're supposed to do." But we're not hearing that.
And not only we're not hearing that, we're hearing this. Put up what we just saw from the Texas - the Head of the Texas Republican Party.
"Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution."
Michael?
SMERCONISH: "Ballots, not briefs, determine the outcome of elections." Those were the words of the Third Circuit, when they looked at the Pennsylvania challenge, a couple of weeks ago. They issued a 21-page opinion.
I'm saying I wish that the Supreme Court had taken the opportunity. And I get it. Monday is the meeting of the Electoral College, as you pointed out, so time is of the essence.
But how much stronger of a message it would have sent if those six conservative members of the court had weighed in, offered an opinion, and picked apart the way legal pundits have uniformly done--
CUOMO: Yes.
SMERCONISH: --the case that was being asserted by Texas.
CUOMO: Maybe.
SMERCONISH: That's what I'm saying.
CUOMO: Maybe. Maybe. However, what happens then?
Once you let it in the door, once you have arguments, you have all that work-up, you have all the spin, you have the variability among justices, you have dissenting opinions, who knows, that you get a cleaner kill than this?
What I'm saying is this guy from Texas, the Head of this Republican Party, just said that you should have a cessation (ph) over this.
NAVARRO: Because there's no shame.
CUOMO: And there are no Republicans saying that you should fire this guy. Not fair!
Congressman Ratzinger - Adam - what's the Congressman's name? Kinzinger, who I love, I have him on the show. It's COVID brain, forgive me, brother. He said "This is not right. Lincoln settled this. This guy should be gone."
But Ana, where is the rest of your Party saying "Whoa, whoa, this Texas guy is nuts, you know? We are one country."
NAVARRO: Well they're hiding - they're - they're a bunch of coward ostriches hiding with their heads in the sand, hoping that somebody lets them know when this is over.
What we've seen from the Republican Party, in the last few weeks, is the most shameful thing. I never - you know, there has been so many low moments for the Republican Party in the last four years. But what we've seen in the last four weeks takes the cake.
I got an email this morning, a text this morning, from a friend of mine, life-long Republican, huge donor, has given millions, personally and through his company, telling me "I am changing my party affiliation because I am outraged by this. And I just can't be part of this anymore."
Republicans are losing people. Listen, Chris, when you're a Congressperson, when you get introduced anywhere, they call you the "Honorable Congressperson so and so." I have never seen more dishonor, on display, than, what we have seen from those 126 Congresspeople.
There are some idiots. There are some bumbling idiots in Congress, but most of them are smart, and most of them know better.
And what they are doing is lending themselves to this sham and this scam so that Donald Trump does not issue mean tweets against them in their primaries in the next year or year and a half.
CUOMO: No, I hear you. I hear you.
[21:15:00]
NAVARRO: And because they are shaking in their boots. But it's a scam and a charade. And if you don't have the spine to stand up against Trump, you don't have the spine to stand up to represent your constituents.
CUOMO: Michael, last word to you.
SMERCONISH: It's not just that it's a loyalty test among Republicans. I mean, that's a glass half empty analysis. Donald Trump is their meal ticket. And by the way, he feeds them well. I made the argument to you before, Chris, despite losing at the top of the ticket Republicans had a very good cycle. And that's the reason that they signed on.
CUOMO: Yes, strong point.
I've gotten calls too from people who were officeholders and Republicans, and they say "Hey, don't hit me with that Re-Trump-lican thing. That's going to stick. I don't want it."
My answer is simple. Then do your job, and start talking about freeing-up relief, and you better stand strong, when those electors meet, and you better stand strong when it's time to certify that vote.
And if you don't, silence equals acceptance, and you're going to get hit with the same stick, because we need to get to a better place. We're killing ourselves right now.
Ana Navarro, Michael Smerconish, bless you both and thank you, safe weekends.
NAVARRO: Thank you.
CUOMO: Pennsylvania--
SMERCONISH: Thank you.
CUOMO: --was one of the states under assault from Re-Trump-licans. We have its Attorney General here. He was hoping it was going to turn out this way. He had strong language in his rebuttal. He said that this was seditious abuse of the judicial process.
What does he think now? 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: John Adams said "We have a government of laws and not of men." Boy did that just come under attack!
Do you know what would have happened if this had gone the other way? "Oh, it was never going to happen." You don't know that. You don't know that. They could have decided to hear it, and then who knows what happens.
That's how we were back in 2000. There was obviously a litigable issue there, and there were problems with the machines and the counts and all that. I'm not saying the case did or didn't come out the right way. But there was a shock that it was taken at all.
So nothing's ever for sure, especially today, especially with someone like Trump, playing with minds, a conspiracy carrying the weight of the White House, 19 states, more than 100 Members of Congress.
But thank god the institutions stood. America won tonight. Without democracy, this country is nothing. But what should the consequence be to the men and women who tried to bring it down? And what happens next?
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro brings unmatched perspective from inside this fight.
First of all, congratulations.
JOSH SHAPIRO, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: I will let people in on a little bit of a off-the-record talk. After the interview, last night, I said "No pressure, A.G., it's just the entire democracy resting on your shoulders." And it was kind of true.
What do you think of the result?
SHAPIRO: Yes.
CUOMO: What do you think of what the aftermath should be?
SHAPIRO: Well, look, Chris, I'm very happy, obviously, that the court ruled the way they did. We asked the court to quickly rebuke Texas and Trump and their enablers, and they did.
They stood for the rule of law. Our institutions held, and yet again, we have a court of law that has seen through what this President is trying to do, in this country, and instead of siding with him, the court sided with the rule of law.
Now those who enabled him, that's a whole other story, and a whole other conversation.
But I will just say in terms of how I'm feeling tonight, obviously I'm happy, but I'm also sad and angry. I'm sad at how the situation has devolved. I'm angry at this President. I'm angry at the people that are enabling him. And boy, oh, boy, Chris, do we have a lot of work to do in this country to repair the damage that he's inflicted here.
CUOMO: Amen! Amen! Obviously - not obviously. Josh is Jewish. We're going through the Festival of Lights, Hanukkah second night.
And I used it as a metaphor last night, not just because I'm mishpocha, and I wish you well, as my Jewish brother, but we need something bigger than ourselves, the strength of the collective maybe.
SHAPIRO: Yes.
CUOMO: To come together to get us through a dark time.
Do you think this is over? There are a couple other cases out there. But what happens on Monday when the electors meet? What happens when Congress meets on the 6th to certify that vote?
SHAPIRO: Well, let me give you a legal answer, and then let me give you kind of a real-life answer, in the world of Donald Trump.
Legally, it's over. I've been saying that for a while. Once the states certified, and then come Monday, the electors will ratify, and then of course Joe Biden will be sworn in on January 20th. That is the truth.
What we don't know, of course, is what Donald Trump is going to do next. And rest assured, if he tries to do anything that impacts the will of the people of Pennsylvania, the will of the people in this country, I'll be there to defend their rights and to defend the will of the people.
But in terms of what comes next, I think we have to ask ourselves, and really question how 17 attorneys general and 120-some Members of the U.S. House jumped so quickly on a junk lawsuit that ultimately would have hurt them in the long run, yet they can't get their act together and jump quickly to deal with COVID.
CUOMO: Explain how. How would it have hurt them? Just so people know.
SHAPIRO: Yes, I mean just take this to its logical conclusion.
If the Supreme Court would have bought Texas' ridiculous argument, that would have meant that, going forward, any state could invalidate the votes of any other state if they happened to disagree with the result.
It would have been the end of our representative democracy, which is why I called it what it was, a seditious abuse of the judicial process. That's exactly what transpired here.
CUOMO: And a lot of Republicans won congressional seats. They either held or they won new ones. And if the vote had been invalidated, so would their have elections been.
SHAPIRO: Well.
CUOMO: You would have to think logically!
[21:25:00]
What do you say to those men and women, by the way, who joined this, who say "Hold on, hold on. We have a right to sue. That's all we did here. We just played it out. That's all we did," what do you say to them?
SHAPIRO: Yes I think they're spineless. And, in some cases, I think they're just downright stupid.
Think about this for a second, Chris. There were Members of the Pennsylvania Congressional Delegation that signed on to Texas' ridiculous lawsuit that would have invalidated their own elections. They ran at the same time Donald Trump and Joe Biden did. They actually went to court to undermine their own elections.
I mean, you really have to stop and ask yourself what has happened in this country. We have a lot of work to do to repair this damage.
And I think a lot of people need to look in the mirror, a lot of people, who signed on to this, and ask themselves, "Did I take an oath to the Constitution, or did I take an oath to Donald Trump?" Because, right now, they're acting like all they do is serve Donald Trump, not the people of this country.
CUOMO: Now, I don't think this should happen. I don't think it will happen. I don't think we're in a good enough place to even consider this kind of line of integrity in our public service.
But, in a different world, you bring a lawsuit that you know is frivolous, and by the way, I don't know why any of these suits weren't sanctioned as frivolous, by the way, not one of them, none of the lawyers, none of these suits.
They get thrown out of court, they keep doing it, and no one sees it as frivolous. I think it's a definition of frivolous. But that's on the bar, I guess.
But don't you see a world where people who tried to do this in full knowledge of its falsity might be breaching their oath to uphold the law and the Constitution by trying to sabotage it, and may expose themselves to removal?
SHAPIRO: I think there are real questions about whether or not these people that signed on breached their oath of office.
I think there are certainly questions about whether the lawyers involved in this case should be sanctioned, questions I'll share with you here tonight, Chris, that we are carefully reviewing in the Office of Attorney General, here in Pennsylvania to determine whether or not we should attempt to bring sanctions against these lawyers.
These are serious things. You are not permitted, under the Rules of Professional Conduct, to waste the court's time, to file frivolous lawsuits, to knowingly lie in court. All of those things were done by the lawyers that brought these cases and by those who enabled him.
CUOMO: Josh Shapiro, keep lighting candles, brother. We need it. We need it right now. Thank you for lighting the way tonight. The best to you and your family. Thank you, Sir.
SHAPIRO: Thank you, Chris. Same to you and yours.
CUOMO: Now look, two big different sides to this story, right? Two big different sides to this country, 126 House Members wanted their names attached to this forever. They believed that they were trying to right a wrong.
Only one of them decided to come forward and speak about it, and he deserves to be heard. We have a Representative from California to talk about what happened tonight, and why he was part of it, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, just making sure I know what I talk about here. Good!
CNN now confirms that the FDA has officially given the green light for the Emergency Use Authorization, you'll hear, the EUA, that's what it is, for the Pfizer Coronavirus vaccine. It's approved. This means we could just be hours away from the final hurdle to be cleared. What is that? We'll discuss.
But what happens after that, that's what matters. The first COVID vaccine shots will be administered, or let's say, can be administered to Americans within days. I say "Can" instead of "Will," because there are a lot of logistics here that you got to get right.
Let's bring in Chief Doctor Sanjay Gupta and top public health expert Dr. Leana Wen.
Thank you both for doing this at quick notice.
Sanjay, we are not surprised by this. What does this mean?
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is expected. The FDA Advisory Committee recommended this yesterday.
Now this Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is authorized under emergency use, which means that the vaccine itself, which has largely been in these cold storage in Kalamazoo, Michigan will start to get distributed all over the country, various locations all over the country.
At the same time, almost simultaneously, this weekend, now that it's been authorized, the CDC is going to make the formal recommendation, sort of what you were just talking about, Chris, the who, what, when of the vaccine.
There is a lot here. I'm just reading the FDA notice here specifically.
CUOMO: I know. They're printing it out for me. That's what you hear behind me.
GUPTA: It's got some specifics in there.
CUOMO: I don't know why they're printing it out for me.
GUPTA: Yes.
CUOMO: It's not like I can read it right now. But what are the high points?
GUPTA: The basic thing is it talks about the fact that it reviewed the entire application, how long the application has been reviewed, what sort of specific things they were looking for.
And basically, at the end, and it's a pretty sizable document here, they're going to have some specifics about how they determined, at the end of the day, based on the totality of the evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks and that this is a very effective vaccine at preventing illness from COVID-19.
So that's basically it. There may be some other restrictions in here. I want to read this more carefully about things--
CUOMO: Take a look at the document.
GUPTA: --that Leana and I have been talking about.
CUOMO: Take a look at the document.
GUPTA: Yes.
CUOMO: Let me bring in Leana just to get her reaction about where this is.
I had Dr. Fauci on last night. And I said "You know, a lot of alphabet soup involved here, you know, the FDA has to talk to the CDC after the CDC had already talked to the FDA. And now after this approval, it has to go back to the CDC."
[21:35:00] Why so much alphabet soup? What is the virtue in this process? What is the virtue in not streamlining it?
DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST, FORMER BALTIMORE HEALTH COMMISSIONER, WASHINGTON POST CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST: I think there is great virtue to having external scientists review everything that's going on, considering the record speed that it got us to where we are, and the fact that I mean I think it's just really amazing.
We need to take a moment, I think, and just consider that we are having this mass casualty event every day, here in the U.S. But now we have this vaccine developed in record time that can, in time, really save us and save our country and save the world from this awful pandemic.
And this is really a monumental moment for us. But we also need to make sure that every safeguard was followed. And that's what all these scientists and all these committees are here to do.
CUOMO: I'm with you. I mean, look, at its basis, this is an Emergency Use Authorization, which is already showing that there is some kind of risk here.
And we have a messaging issue. You're about 60-30 or so right now with people about wanting to take the vaccine, and it's important that they have trust, and it's important that they know it's done the right way. I agree with all that.
Here is my concern going forward while we let Sanjay peruse the document. We are assuming there is going to be a problem with people wanting to take this vaccine.
But I will tell you, Doc, and I said this about COVID, that anecdotally, I was hearing it was around a lot earlier than January. Now I've been proven right. I got savaged by my brothers and sisters in the media. I was right.
Once again, I am hearing from all over the country that the demand is going to be huge for this vaccine, even in the states that Trump won, because he told them the vaccine is a good thing to take, that he made the vaccine happen.
And are you worried about that, that they're holding up the relief bill right now in Congress? There is money in there. I think right now it's $6 billion.
There's no talk of a separate vote on just that money to get it out the door for the vaccine that we won't have enough vaccine for the demand, and you'll start to have people be desperate in this country, and thinking that someone's not taking care of them. Is that a concern?
WEN: It's a huge concern, because now that we have this resource available, a lot of people are going to want it, which is great, except that we now need to also produce hundreds of millions of doses of this vaccine, and distribute it. Part of what I'm also worried about is lack of funding for local and
state health departments. State health departments have requested $8.4 billion in order to run their vaccination programs. They've gotten, I think, about $200 million so far.
CUOMO: Right. McConnell calls it a Blue-state bailout.
WEN: And so, we really need to make sure that this Warp Speed.
CUOMO: Yes. He calls it a Blue-state bailout. But you have Red and Blue states all over the country asking for this money because they've run through, they don't have their revenues from taxes because obviously everybody is in a downturn economically.
And if they don't have both pieces of the puzzle, money for the manufacturing, directly, out the door soon, and money to support the local governments who will be doing the distribution, what's the potential?
WEN: I mean, then, we would see that all the speed and urgency that we've been put into the scientific development process will not translate to actual distribution.
And I think, to your point earlier, I do agree, there are a lot of people who want access to the vaccine. I think there are a lot of people who are hesitant as well. And many of the people who are hesitant are from communities that are particularly hit hard by the pandemic.
And so we have to just make sure that we don't just have a free-for- all, where it's only people who are wealthy, who are able to access the vaccine and people who are disadvantaged are being hurt even more.
CUOMO: Yes, that can happen two ways.
One is when people pick winners and losers, there can be a bias, and we're going to have to watch that, and it's going to be hard to do because it's going to be on a local level and a state level all over this country.
But a big question mark will, I think, be turned into an exclamation mark when people start to see that people are getting the vaccine, if there aren't a lot of side effects, if you're not having a lot of allergic reactions, people are going to realize this is their best bet.
All right, Sanjay, you back in the game? What do you have for us?
GUPTA: Yes. Yes. So, it's nine-page document, and it talks a lot about the specific criteria that the FDA evaluated in issuing this Emergency Use Authorization.
They spend a lot of time, in this document, also talking about the fact that given that it's an Emergency Use Authorization, there's got to be a lot of post-release screening. They're going to have a reporting system in place for anybody who may
have any side effects or safety concerns about this, and they're going to continue collecting data on this for two years.
There is also a request that the Pfizer still put out educational materials to people, that they handle all the cold chain storage that we've been talking about for some time. So, there is a lot of requirements, none of these are surprising.
The fact, that this will continue to be studied that was expected. This is an Emergency Use Authorization. The fact that they will continue to look for these side effects, and educate consumers, as they learn new things about this vaccine, that was expected.
[21:40:00]
Also, that they've got plans in place to both handle the cold chain storage. It needs to be kept very cold. Most people know that now, if they know anything about this vaccine, and they've got to be responsible for that.
And also, have got to continue to provide evidence that they're able to manufacture this vaccine safely at scale. Manufacturing for tens of thousands of people in a clinical trial is one thing. Manufacturing hundreds of millions of doses with the same quality control standards, that's a different level. So, they've got to continue to show evidence of that.
So there is a lot in here, but there is no surprises that I'm seeing. What we also - I think we're going to get some more clarity from the CDC, when they make these recommendations is, is this going to be recommended for people who may be pregnant, for example, or is that going to be something that requires a conversation between a woman and her doctor if she is high risk to have that conversation?
Is it going to be not recommended for people who have severe - have had severe allergies in the past? Some of those things, I'm going to want to know, and we might hear about that over the weekend.
But the bottom line, as Leana was saying, I mean Chris, I can't believe - I didn't think we'd be having this conversation this year, to be perfectly honest with you. This is - it's remarkable how quickly this has gone.
But I want to be clear. I don't think that in terms of the trials, and then the evaluation of the data, on effectiveness, and the evaluation of the data, on safety, I don't think any corners were cut here.
CUOMO: Good.
GUPTA: I know a lot of people are concerned about the speed of this. But this is good data. And this is a safe and effective vaccine, from what we're looking at here.
CUOMO: Hey, I have a question that I hear from a lot of people. Leana, maybe you know the answer, if not, Sanjay, or maybe both you. The idea of "Well, hey which one do I take? If the Pfizer is out there
and then the Moderna is out there, can I take both of them? Can I split it? Can I take one? Do I have to take the booster shots?"
Let's deal with the first part. Leana, can you take both vaccines? Or what are you supposed to do?
WEN: Yes. So, it's not recommended that you take both vaccines.
And also, in the beginning, we are so limited in supply you should take whatever vaccine you have access to. And initially, people are not going to have a choice. It's whatever your doctor's office or your pharmacy has access to, is the vaccine that you get.
And frankly, they're very similar. It's a similar mechanism of action, and they are similar, in terms of safety and efficacy. So, take what you can get. And don't mix the two either. So, if you get the primer from the first type of vaccine, get the same booster from that vaccine as well.
CUOMO: Sanjay, we have never done anything like this before.
And just in a follow-up capacity, you know, I had the former Head of the CDC on, Acting Head of the CDC, and he said "Well, look, I mean we do 80 million vaccines a year. I mean, we know how to do vaccines," yes, but not with follow-ups.
How do you even keep track of the people? How do you make sure they get the follow-up within the right window, and what happens if they don't?
GUPTA: Yes. No, this is going to be a real challenge.
And frankly, I think the states, in terms of how they're logging the inventory, and how Operation Warp Speed is basically delivering to the states, that, seems to have a lot of - I mean they're really coordinating that.
But for the individual person, I mean they're getting these vaccination cards. They got QR codes on them. That's supposed to give them about information what they got, when they're supposed to get the follow-up.
But Chris, look, this shouldn't scare anybody, but it's going to be bumpy. This is the first time we're doing something like this.
I'm surprised there is not a more technological sort of feature. You can just have it on your phone, and everything is done in some 20-20 sort of way. Nevertheless, we know about these vaccination cards. I think we even have some images of those cards.
You raised another question, Chris, about the prime dose, the first dose, and then the booster. People are going to get the reminder to get that.
But if we had this graphic, you know, I want to show this graphic real quickly. We're looking at the Pfizer data because this is going to come up. This is an issue that comes up.
The red line is in the placebo group. Infections continue to go up. You can see that pretty clearly. What that blue line is, I find very interesting, this was after one dose. At about 10 days, you saw a significant flattening of new infections.
Now, it was just a few-week period. And what Pfizer and others will say is there just wasn't enough time to really determine how effective just a single dose was.
But you are hearing this discussion point come up quite a bit saying, "Look, we're in the middle of a pandemic. We obviously have a much greater demand than supply." Should these doses be going out as soon as they're manufactured as opposed to holding half the doses for the booster dose for those same patients?
Should you, for example, give the vaccine to 40 million people as quickly as you can, or do you give to it 20 million people, hold 20 million in the freezers, of these doses, and then give that? I don't - we don't have a clear answer on that right now. I didn't see it in these documents. Maybe we'll hear that from the CDC.
CUOMO: I don't think they know.
GUPTA: Dr. Fauci--
CUOMO: But we'll start to get answers this weekend.
GUPTA: Yes.
CUOMO: Because they'll start shipping you know--
GUPTA: Yes.
[21:45:00]
CUOMO: --when the CDC gives the final approval, and they start shipping this stuff out, we'll see where it goes, which states, what kind of ratio of supply, and what those states do with it.
And we're going to have to all work together about what we hear, about what's being done right, and what's being done wrong, because the more we check it early on, the better we'll be off long-term.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta? Dr. Leana Wen?
GUPTA: Thank you.
CUOMO: This is good news. Thank you for being here with me to discuss--
GUPTA: Thank you.
CUOMO: --a potential positive for us going forward.
All right, big breaking news tonight on two fronts, OK? We are now one step away from the vaccine starting its distribution
course around this country. Long way to go, but that is the beginning of a potential end to this virus crushing us the way it is.
And we have the Supreme Court crushing this Re-Trump-lican bid to overturn this election.
Both are in the news. Now, we're joined by one of the only Republicans who would come on to discuss about why he put his name on this failed effort. Why did he do it? What does he make of this news and getting the money for this vaccine?
Let's discuss, where are we, how do we move forward? 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)
[21:50:00]
CUOMO: Trump's attempt to overthrow the election failed. What about the people who went along, went along with this suit that was just thrown out as baseless?
Only one of the 126 Members of Congress that we could reach would come on to talk about this. A 126 signed off on this brief, think about that! Only one would come on. Does he accept the end? Does he accept Biden? Will he work on relief now?
Congressman Doug LaMalfa joins us from California will join us.
Congressman, thank you.
REP. DOUG LAMALFA (R-CA): Thanks for having me, happy Hanukkah.
CUOMO: Thank you.
The idea of accepting the Supreme Court's decision, do you?
LAMALFA: Well, certainly, this is a setback for the case that was being made by that by Texas. And it really boils down to there's a lot of things being said about it.
But what you are looking at is does Texas feel harmed doing clean elections and all the other states that joined doing clean above-board elections and others areas that were doing sloppy elections that they feel like their voters are harmed, you know what I'm saying, Trump voter, and are the Trump voters being harmed in the other states.
And so the thing came down to was it about having a clean election process, where - I have been a State Legislator in California as well.
And even in "Crazy California," when the Governor there tried to just do it by edict of having all mail ballots, the legislatures said "No, no, we're going to have to affirm that as a legislative process because that's what the Constitution requires."
Well it would be very similar, that's what Texas felt harmed by with other states that did not do that.
You saw that in Pennsylvania, under what's called ACT 77, the election had to be completed by 8:00 P.M., on election night, all ballots turned in. A court ruled like "Well we'll just let a few more come in after that." Other states as well.
So, what you are looking at is really upholding the power of the legislature, which is the immediate voice of the people--
CUOMO: Right.
LAMALFA: --that people elect in this republic we have.
CUOMO: Right. I get the issue.
The Supreme Court said you have no standing. Why?
Because you said it in a very interesting way, Texas "Feels" its voters were affected, not the bar, as we both know. That's what you say in politics, you feel a certain way. Litigation is about facts. You know what you show. They have no proof that anything was done wrong.
You mention Pennsylvania, as we know from a lot of litigation, those laws were passed by the legislature, reviewed by its own Supreme Court. The legislature never moved against it.
So, I think you have to move past that phase, because you don't have a good case, as we just heard from this, the highest court in the land, that's 6-3 conservative, with three judges that Trump put on there.
Do you now accept that Biden is President-elect?
LAMALFA: Well we still don't know what the Intelligence folks have in there. But, come January 20th, if he's got his--
CUOMO: They don't have any.
LAMALFA: --if he's got his hand on the Bible, and doing that, then I guess we'll accept it at that point. But there is still a lot of time between here and there, so I'll see what happens on that.
But certainly, I have accepted elections in the past, whether they've been gone my way or not. I mean there's a lot of people that didn't accept-- CUOMO: Right.
LAMALFA: --Trump's elections, for four years, including your network there, all day long, every day, so.
CUOMO: Well hold on a second. Let's do it this way. I think this is an easier way. You got any proof that anything was done that was fraudulent in any election?
LAMALFA: I don't have proofs that men landed on the moon, in 1969, because I wasn't there. So, as a state legislator I have my--
CUOMO: Really?
LAMALFA: Yes. So, I hear you.
CUOMO: Do you believe the world is round?
LAMALFA: I think we have proven that. So, what we're getting down--
CUOMO: Have you been all the way around it?
LAMALFA: --what we're getting down to is I have to trust the people that are doing the investigating, my colleagues from those other states, and trust that there's something there. We've seen the pictures of - in Michigan, where they're putting up boards to not allow people to see elections and not allow people, the County.
CUOMO: It was all litigated. They had a chance to bring out proof for all of it. Look, I'm giving you a chance--
LAMALFA: Yes, Sir.
CUOMO: --to show that you are a man of honor and that you can accept that this is a country of laws. The answer is no. You--
LAMALFA: That's the laws we're talking about is the legislators--
CUOMO: But the answer is no. You have no proof. You have seen no proof of any substantial fraud.
LAMALFA: Well can I answer my own question or do you want me be on the show?
CUOMO: Well but I think you are dodging it. I'll ask it again. Have you seen proof that there was substantial fraud that should overturn this election?
LAMALFA: I have not been in a courtroom to look at the proof myself. I see it on the news. I see it in reports that my colleagues and I look over. So, I guess if I'm not holding it myself, does that qualify me or not? So, I have to believe what is out there, the documents, that I have been able to look at.
CUOMO: But every court that has reviewed it has said it was not presented with proof of a substantial nature, liberal judges, conservative judges, some of them picked by Trump himself.
LAMALFA: Right. That's a - it's a pretty tough deal. They've had to try to do all this in a compressed amount of time. And you know what we saw? The court ruled that Texas does not have a standing.
I know a lot of people have been frustrated over that term "Standing," because you think like "Well we have been harmed by this, the courts rule, in other cases where, well you don't have standing on that." So that could--
CUOMO: "Standing" means that you haven't been harmed so you don't have a right to sue. That's what it means.
LAMALFA: Well, there hasn't been the opportunity to show the harm and fully vet all this so that--
[21:55:00]
CUOMO: You did have an opportunity. You submitted briefs. They looked at them and said, "This does not support a claim of harm." That's what it means. And I think you know this.
So, my question now becomes, will you start doing the job, and act on getting relief money, at least get the vaccine money out the door, or are you going to hold on to trying to take care of Trump even after he has lost?
LAMALFA: Well, Chris, it is possible for us around here to walk and chew gum at the same time.
CUOMO: Yes, except you haven't.
LAMALFA: So, we work on a lot of things around here.
CUOMO: Where's the relief money?
LAMALFA: Well, we have the Senate, which I'm standing in their room, and the House, trying to come together on these. We want to get the relief funding done. So, we got to get Mrs. P, and our side over, you know, and our side to agree with the senators on what the level is going to be.
We have half a trillion dollars that's already approved, all we had to do is change the dates on the document, and that money can go right out, you know? It's a $900 billion--
CUOMO: Yes it's money that you guys didn't spend the first time, right?
LAMALFA: Right. So, why doesn't Mrs. P allow us to do that, and get that right out the door? We can do that right now.
CUOMO: It's about where you want it to go, and who it's going to benefit, and how it is - this is what I don't understand about what happened. In March, you guys come together. You put out over $2 trillion. You get together. LAMALFA: Yes, Sir.
CUOMO: The Left, the Right, the reasonable, the President, everybody's on the same page. Now, you have worse cases, worse hospitalizations, worse economic need and you guys can't agree on anything, why?
LAMALFA: Well they - the Democrats in the House came up with something called the Heroes Act, which was not too heroic. It was at one point, $3.5 trillion worth of spending that had a whole bunch in it that was nothing to do with relief from the Wuhan virus, OK?
So, we have a problem in that we are going more and more in to debt for things that aren't actually happening, either helping the businesses, and the people, and their employees, or to actually combat the virus. It was a--
CUOMO: What was it going to?
LAMALFA: In that document there was only about $10 billion going in to businesses. Why don't we focus all of our efforts on things, you're going to help people either fight the virus, or help their jobs stay alive.
CUOMO: So, why don't - why won't you give people direct checks? Wouldn't that help just about more than anything else?
LAMALFA: Well we did last time. And there's debate on whether that--
CUOMO: Why not this time?
LAMALFA: Well I think we're trying to come to an agreement on that.
CUOMO: Your side says no.
LAMALFA: Well we've talked about $600 ones. I mean, at the end of the day, I talk - I see people out there, in my district, that are talking about "Don't send $1,200 checks, just open our businesses back up." They know how to wear the protective gear.
CUOMO: Do both.
LAMALFA: Pardon?
CUOMO: Do both.
LAMALFA: Well, we'll see. I mean that's what we have to battle through here.
CUOMO: "We'll see?" You're in the middle of a pandemic!
LAMALFA: So but yes, it is--
CUOMO: This is an emergency.
LAMALFA: It is possible--
CUOMO: It's a crisis.
LAMALFA: Because we have to come to an agreement around this place, OK? When the two sides are so far apart, you know? I mean you got your result with the election for president, so maybe after January 20 it will be easier to agree on things, right?
CUOMO: First of all, it's not that "We got the result." It's not me.
LAMALFA: All right.
CUOMO: You are part of this country, brother, right? You don't agree with that guy in Texas, who's saying that you guys should put together a group of states and fight on your own, do you? You don't believe that BS, do you?
LAMALFA: Well we got a piece of California that wants to divide away from San Francisco and L.A. because--
CUOMO: I'm asking that you don't believe that, do you? You're not part of that, are you?
LAMALFA: No, I'm not part of dividing the country.
CUOMO: Because you know what I call you guys.
I believe that signing on to an effort where you knew there was no real proof, and you knew that it probably wouldn't go your way I see that as beneath the dignity of what you are supposed to be doing.
I call you Re-Trump-licans because I think you put him before you put your own Party or your own people.
LAMALFA: Well I'm not going to get into name-calling and I could have for you here, you know? But I know there's some good names out there but.
CUOMO: You call me whatever you want. You guys do it freely all the time.
LAMALFA: No, no, no, it's not - it's not productive. So, let's get down to what we saw in front of us. We felt like that the Texans - we joined the lawsuit Texas put forward because they felt like they've been harmed.
CUOMO: They felt but they had no proof.
LAMALFA: By sloppily run elections.
CUOMO: And you knew they had no proof. Continue.
LAMALFA: Because it takes time. You don't always put everything on the table in the beginning of an investigation.
CUOMO: Yes. But you got to have enough to have a lawsuit. Come on, you know this, Doug.
LAMALFA: Yes, I know. I know.
CUOMO: You know that you don't start a lawsuit in search of proof. You have proof and you then search and start a lawsuit. And you know that. It's called a frivolous suit otherwise.
LAMALFA: It takes--
CUOMO: You know this.
LAMALFA: Well there's 70 million people in the country, at least that feel - and actually it's a bipartisan thing, because you look at the polls, there's a lot of people that are Democrats and Republicans that feel like there's a lot of funny businesses with this election.
CUOMO: Yes but that's because you guys keep telling them--
LAMALFA: Those people are looking for answers.
CUOMO: --there's funny business with the election without proof. Of course they're going to believe.
LAMALFA: Well what are - what are the pictures you're seeing? Again, the boarding up of--
CUOMO: I'm not seeing the pictures. That's my point. I'm not seeing these pictures.
LAMALFA: Well you got to turn to a different network then.
CUOMO: I've been looking for proof too.
LAMALFA: Find the pictures. You know they are out there.
CUOMO: No, they're not. You had one case where you show--
LAMALFA: OK, they're not out there.
CUOMO: You are talking about pictures of them boarding up what they were doing, that office was afraid of the people outside, who were screaming and yelling. You had courts make different rulings--
LAMALFA: Because they weren't letting both sides come in and review the ballots.
CUOMO: It was litigated and found multiple times to have not been a fundamental compromise of any right of survey, and you know this. So, my point is, will it end now for you guys? Will you get back to just dealing with the pandemic, instead of creating one?
LAMALFA: Well, we have been working all the time, trying to come to agreement on this. So, I guess, we won't have that to worry about, as much. But we'll still see where this develops.
Until January 20th, may - it may not be over with. But we know the electors are going to do their business on the 14th. Should some other thing come out - I agree the ground is getting smaller for this conversation.
CUOMO: Yes.
LAMALFA: But I don't know what it would be at this point. But the people--
CUOMO: Me either, because it's supposed to be over.
LAMALFA: There's a lot of people in the country that certainly want us to keep asking the questions because it really comes down to Chris is that people want to have confidence in their election.
