Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Interview with Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul; Supreme Court Set to Respond to Republican Attempt to Overturn Election; FDA Authorization of Pfizer Vaccine to Come at Any Time; Supreme Court Rejects Texas and Trump's Bid to Overturn Election. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired December 11, 2020 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:02]
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Tonight, the top House Republican has joined more than 100 lawmakers in the House and 18 red state attorneys general in backing the effort to throw out millions of certified votes.
We're also awaiting word from the FDA. It is expected to finalize emergency use authorization for Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine very soon. Could do it at any moment now. That's a move that would allow vaccinations to begin here in the United States within days.
The urgency is clear, as the U.S. coronavirus death toll now tops 294,000 tonight, with more than 15.7 million confirmed cases and COVID-19 hospitalizations hitting yet another record high.
Let's start our coverage this hour with our chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta.
Jim, the U.S. Supreme Court could deliver another major blow to the president's bogus claims about the election at any moment now.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf.
The Supreme Court could rule at any moment on this desperate and dubious Texas lawsuit supported by the White House and Republican members of Congress aimed at throwing out millions of votes, we should add, and overturning the election.
I asked a White House adviser if anybody on the president's team actually believes the Supreme Court could rule in the president's favor. This adviser said -- quote -- "Nobody."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It has been some journey for all of us.
ACOSTA (voice-over): Stop the presses. President Trump accidentally told the truth, conceding that Joe Biden is about to replace him at the White House, while pleading to the Supreme Court to bail him out in the election. The president tweeted about the incoming Biden administration, but
then added: "It is much easier for the Supreme Court of the United States to follow the Constitution, do what everybody knows has to be done. They must show great courage and wisdom."
The White House struggled to explain why Mr. Trump seemed to acknowledge his successor.
BRIAN MORGENSTERN, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I think that was a -- sort of couched in terms of if, in fact. But I don't think he was conceding anything in particular. He's still litigating his case in the courts and looks forward to that process playing out.
ACOSTA: The president is pinning his hopes on the widely ridiculed Texas lawsuit aimed at throwing out the election results that has now gained the support of dozens of House Republicans, including the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy.
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): We know what we know, and we know that there was cheating that went on.
(LAUGHTER)
ACOSTA: Even some fellow Republicans are laughing at the election challenges dubbed the Kraken by some on the hard right.
REP. DENVER RIGGLEMAN (R-VA): I think they're clouded right now. And they that -- they know me pretty well. And they know that I would say to their face. And here's here's what I want to tell people. COVID is real. The Kraken is not. It's that simple.
ACOSTA: "The Orlando Sentinel" withdrew its endorsement for one House member who signed on to the effort, writing: "We apologize to our readers for endorsing Michael Waltz in the 2020 general election for Congress. We had no idea, no way of knowing at the time that Waltz was not committed to democracy."
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): You cannot at the same time love America and hate democracy.
ACOSTA: The problem for the president, he keeps getting beaten in court, one of the latest losses in Wisconsin.
STEPHEN SIMANEK, RESERVE JUDGE: The certification of the results of the 2020 Wisconsin presidential election, after the Dane County and Milwaukee County recounts, is affirmed.
ACOSTA: The president is now trying to take credit for the authorization of the coronavirus vaccine, tweeting to the head of the Food and Drug Administration, "Get the dam vaccines out now," misspelling the word damn.
Sources say White House chief of staff Mike Meadows told FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn to green-light the vaccine by the end of the day or resign. But Hahn says that is not true, adding in a statement: "This is an untrue representation of the phone call with the chief of staff. The FDA was encouraged to continue working expeditiously on the emergency use authorization request. FDA is committed to issuing this authorization quickly, as we noted in our statement this morning."
The president isn't sounding very festive heading into the holidays, as some of his Twitter posts sound straight out of a personal diary, like when he tweeted: "I just want to stop the world from killing itself."
Still, the president's supporters aren't giving up.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jesus is my savior. Trump is my president.
QUESTION: Do you genuinely believe that he...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Kicked Joe Biden's ass? Yes, I do. Yes, obviously.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA: A source close to the White House Coronavirus Task Force said it is odd Meadows would warn the FDA to hurry up and authorize the vaccine, when the agency is about to do just that, adding it is as if Meadows and the president simply want to jump on the vaccine bandwagon at the very end.
And on top of all of that drama, earlier in the day, the Senate approved a stopgap spending bill to avert a government shutdown. The bill now goes to the president for signature. So, let's hope, after this week, Wolf, they avert that government shutdown -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Yes, let's hope. All right, Jim Acosta at the White House, thank you
Also, tonight, president-elect Biden is urging Americans to have confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines, saying they have been developed and are being reviewed without -- repeat -- without political influence.
[18:05:03]
Let's go to our senior Washington correspondent, Jeff Zeleny. He's covering the Biden transition for us.
Jeff, the pandemic was again at the top of the mind for the president- elect as he introduced the more top members of his incoming team.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, there were more Cabinet members here today.
And president-elect Biden does take office in just 40 days, but he says that presidential leadership is needed right now, as is a national court-ended strategy to fight COVID-19. But he did mark that grim milestone of more than 3,000 deaths in a single day.
He also moved to reassure Americans about the safety of that vaccine. All of this is coming as he is shaping his government, a stark contrast from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: As tough as things are now, I firmly believe better days are ahead.
ZELENY (voice-over): President-elect Joe Biden heralding the vaccine for COVID-19 as a bright light during a time of dark sorrow and said politics should be set aside to guide America through the coronavirus crisis.
He reassured the nation the vaccine was scientifically sound, soon to be fully authorized.
BIDEN: We are just as grateful to the scientists and the public experts who evaluated its safety and efficiency, free from political influence.
I want to make it clear to the public. You should have confidence in this. There is no political influence.
ZELENY: Tonight, Biden also scolding Congress for failing to reach agreement on an economic relief package.
BIDEN: Millions and millions of Americans simply can't wait any longer. We shouldn't, we can't get bogged down in issues that don't help people.
ZELENY: Forty days before taking office, Biden introducing another round of Cabinet picks today, and once again turning to trusted allies with whom he has long relationships.
BIDEN: They bring deep experience and bold new thinking. Above all, they know how government should and can work for all Americans.
ZELENY: Biden now has settled on more than half of his Cabinet, with several familiar faces from the Obama era, the latest wave, former Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough as VA secretary, former Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack coming back for the same role, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to lead the Domestic Policy Council.
But many are in new roles, like Katherine Tai, the new U.S. trade representative.
KATHERINE TAI, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE NOMINEE: Trade is like any other tool in our domestic or foreign policy. It is not an end in itself. It is a means to create more hope and opportunity for people.
ZELENY: Ohio Congresswoman Marcia Fudge is one of the new additions, nominated today as secretary of housing and urban development.
REP. MARCIA FUDGE (D-OH): We will help people believe once again that their government cares about them, no matter who they are.
ZELENY: Yet some of the flashbacks are stirring criticism from various corners of the Democratic Party, particularly from progressives. Biden is not feeling defensive over his selections, aides insist,
saying they're experienced, crisis-tested and diverse. One top Biden ally telling CNN: "Are familiar faces so bad after the last four years?"
BIDEN: Some are familiar faces. Some are new in their roles. All are facing new circumstances and challenges. That's a good thing.
ZELENY: Biden and vice president-elect Kamala Harris also being named the "TIME" magazine person of the year, a nod at her historic rise as the first woman to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. It is the first time that a vice president-elect has been chosen.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZELENY: Now, Biden was also asked today when he planned to take the vaccine. He did not answer those questions, but aides say they're waiting to see when that final authorization happens from the federal authorities.
So, that could come as early as next week, as Mr. Biden plans to roll out more members of his Cabinet here, as well as head to Georgia and campaign for those Senate seats -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Jeff, thank you, Jeff Zeleny reporting for us.
Let's bring in CNN political correspondent Abby Phillip, CNN commentator Van Jones and lawyer and contributor Ben Ginsberg.
Ben, just a little while ago, the president publicly lobbied the U.S. Supreme Court, tweeting -- and I'm quoting now -- "If the Supreme Court shows great wisdom and courage, the American people will win perhaps the most important case in history."
How likely is that?
(LAUGHTER)
BEN GINSBERG, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: About zero, Wolf.
I think the Supreme Court is not going to be too eager to disenfranchise 20 million Americans who, even if the justices find some mistakes in the laws, they nonetheless were the laws that the voters used to cast their ballots on Election Day. Not the voters' fault, even if the justices don't like the laws.
BLITZER: Are you, though, concerned that, what, 18 other Republican attorneys generals from other states have signed on to this Texas lawsuit?
GINSBERG: Well, concerned, yes, because I think it shows how the Republican Party has a bit lost its way in all of this process.
I mean, states' rights used to be one of the major things that Republicans relied on as a core tenet. In fact, when President Trump decided there couldn't be a national testing program or masks or getting PPEs for people, it was because the states had the rights to do things on their own, the way they best saw.
[18:10:13]
And here, all of a sudden, you have got Republican attorney generals and members of Congress signing on to a brief that takes away the fundamental right of the time, place and manner that states have to set their own elections.
BLITZER: Yes, states' rights used to be an important issue for Republican conservatives. In this particular case, not so much.
You know, Van, more and more Republican politicians are supporting the president in this effort, including, what, 126 Republican members of the House of Representatives, including the Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy.
What does it tell you?
VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It says you don't have to worry about a second edition of "Profiles in Courage" coming out any time soon.
You know, this is -- it's a national embarrassment. It is a global embarrassment. The president is going to keep dragging this dead cat through every court in America, trying to get it to the Supreme Court. The problem is the smell it leaves behind.
The problem is that you have a country where you have to have some respect for the institutions, you have to have some respect for the voters. And the president is setting a terrible example. This thing is over. It has been over.
The Supreme Court is not going to step in and grant this fantasy for the president of the United States. And the sick part about it is, every one of those congresspeople knows that. It is a scam. It is a trick. It is just something that they're doing, so they don't get in trouble from the tweeter in chief. But they're doing great harm to our country, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
BLITZER: You know, Abby, these Republicans, they still refuse to stand up to the president, those who signed on to this, but he's going to be out of power in 40 days, out of the White House. It is coming very, very quickly.
Why do they continue to do this?
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: He is going to be out of the White House, but he is not going to be out of power, in the sense that he's going to have pretty much unrivaled control over the Republican base.
And in every single one of those states that you just showed on that map where they signed on to the briefs, these are states where President Trump is the most popular political figure. These are also states where any Republican running statewide or at a district level in those states is feeling that they are required to toe the line with President Trump in order to have any kind of political future in the Republican Party.
You know, Wolf, just a few minutes ago the Trump campaign announced that they are going to air new ads amplifying these false claims of voter fraud and these completely debunked claims of wrongdoing in the states that the president continues to contest. And it just signals that the president is not going to let this go, because this is a key to his own political future.
He has to hold on to his hold over the Republican Party in order to have the kind of power and influence that he wants to have over the next four years, when he already knows, by the way, that he is not going to be in the White House.
They're preparing his quarters at Mar-a-Lago as we speak. The president is fully aware of this, but he wants to be able to have an enormous amount of power over a major political party, even when he is no longer in office.
BLITZER: And, Ben, it is interesting, because, since November 3, he has raised a ton of money with all of these e-mails he is sending out seeking funds for his campaign, more than $200 million so far.
How much leeway will he have in the years to come? Let's say he raises another $100 million. What could he do with that money if he announces he is going to run in 2024? How much could he spend, for example, on legal expenses and other expenses?
GINSBERG: Well, the laws regarding these sorts of leadership PACs, as they're called, are pretty loose.
And so, he can certainly use it for political activities and traveling around. If the legal bills are related to what happens post-White House, he probably could use that. He might want to bring some legal actions on what his version of the American people are.
And he will -- he can't use it for personal use, but there can be a blurred line if he is going around acting as the titular head of the Republican Party.
BLITZER: Well, let me just press you on one thing. Let's say he is charged in New York City or New York state with a crime. Can he use this money to pay his legal bills, the money that he is raising right now?
GINSBERG: Well, if I was advising him, I would say no.
But I think that if he went ahead and tried to do it, remember that that would have to go in the first instance to the Federal Election Commission, which is a three-Democrat/three-Republican group, and he has appointed the three Republicans on it now.
So, it becomes a litmus test for them. So, it is a questionable legal area without a real firm place to decide it.
[18:15:02]
BLITZER: Yes, that's a good point.
You know, Van, where do you see this going right now?
JONES: Well, I think that we're going to have 40 more days of shenanigans and nonsense, degrading respect for American institutions.
And then we're going to have an inauguration. I think Abby Phillip is correct. This is unprecedented. Berlusconi in Italy was like this. He was president. Then he had to leave office. He kept dominating Italian politics out of office, became president again, the whole time was under criminal investigation, was seen as kind of a lecher.
This is the kind of stuff we have not had in American politics, an American Berlusconi that has turned politics into entertainment and just won't leave center stage even when he leaves office. This is a big challenge for Joe Biden. It's a big challenge for the Republican Party and it's a big challenge for America.
How do you govern and get stuff done when this kind of crap is going on and won't leave center stage?
BLITZER: Well, we will see what the Supreme -- U.S. Supreme Court decides. We're standing by for that.
Guys, thank you very, very much.
Just ahead, I will speak live with the attorney general of Wisconsin. That's one of the states targeted in this far-fetched Texas lawsuit to overturn election results. The attorney general of Wisconsin, Josh Kaul, is standing by live.
We will talk to him when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:44]
BLITZER: We're back with breaking news on that Texas lawsuit seeking to throw out millions of Americans' votes.
The U.S. Supreme Court could respond at any moment to the suit that has been widely ridiculed as totally baseless.
We're joined now by the top law enforcement officer in one of the states targeted in this Texas lawsuit, Wisconsin's Attorney General Josh Kaul.
Attorney General, thank you so much for joining us.
As you probably noticed -- maybe you didn't -- I will share it with you -- the president is now actively lobbying the Supreme Court justices, tweeting this -- and I will quote from his tweet: "If the Supreme Court shows great wisdom and courage, the American people will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our electoral process will be respected again."
So, Attorney General, how do you respond to the president of the United States?
JOSH KAUL (D), WISCONSIN ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is really stunning. You have a candidate who has clearly lost an election by millions of votes in the popular vote and by a healthy margin in the Electoral College who is trying to lobby the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an election in his favor.
He's actively asking our U.S. Supreme Court to steal an election. But the good news is, it is not going to happen. The case that he's filed is totally meritless, and I'm confident that it is going to be rejected very quickly.
BLITZER: It could be rejected fairly soon from the U.S. Supreme Court.
And you are right. He did lose in the national popular vote by more than seven million votes. As far as the Electoral College, our projection is 306 for Biden, 232 for Trump.
In a filing this morning, the Texas attorney general, though, said your state, Wisconsin's maladministration -- that was the word they used -- of the election -- quote -- "makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes."
But you have had no-excuse absentee voting for years, and Biden won your state by nearly the same margin Trump did back in 2016, right?
KAUL: That's right.
This suit is an act of desperation. You know, we have the same basic system in place that we had four years ago, when President Trump won Wisconsin. We had recounts conducted in our two largest counties. And what that process has shown over and over again, both in a recount this year and in prior recounts, is that we have a system that is reliable and accurate.
And I would note, we consistently have much higher turnout than Texas. Our system is working much more effectively than theirs is. And so, it is really inappropriate for them to be attacking it.
BLITZER: Your colleague the Michigan attorney general, Dana Nessel, says, if Texas were to prevail in this suit -- I'm quoting now her -- she says: "It is the end of democracy in the United States."
Do you agree with her?
KAUL: It would be total chaos if they were to prevail.
They are asking for four states' presidential electors to be selected not based on what voters have said. They're asking for the Supreme Court to entirely disregard that and instead to have state legislatures, politicians, selecting our next president.
That would be profoundly undemocratic. And it is the kind of logic that you expect to see in a dictatorship, not in a democracy.
BLITZER: Separate from this suit before the U.S. Supreme Court, we have also just learned that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow on yet another, a very separate Trump challenge.
What is at stake here? Because the Electoral College, as you know, will meet on Monday to certify all of this.
KAUL: We have a challenge process for elections in Wisconsin, and that's -- this case arises out of that process.
The president is involved in multiple suits, including that one, but this one was heard today by a circuit court in Wisconsin. The judge who heard the case rejected the arguments that were made, and now the state Supreme Court is going to be reviewing that.
But, again, I'm very confident that the court will uphold the decision that the lower court made and that the electors in Wisconsin will move forward, as they have been certified.
BLITZER: And, in Wisconsin, you have officially certified the outcome, the vote count in your state. It is a done deal, right?
KAUL: That's right.
These legal challenges remain, but, again, they are totally baseless. And, ultimately, I'm extremely confident that the result that the voters selected, which, in Wisconsin, was Joe Biden by a margin of about 20,000 votes, is the result that will be the one that Electoral College has reflected in its totals.
[18:25:02]
BLITZER: The Wisconsin attorney general, Josh Kaul.
Attorney General, thank you so much for joining us.
KAUL: Thanks for having me.
BLITZER: Just ahead: As we await the FDA's expected authorization of the first COVID vaccine here in the United States, we're going to have the latest on the race to get the first Americans vaccinated within the next few days.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
BLITZER: A huge turning in the coronavirus pandemic could be happen at any moment now. We're awaiting word from the Food and Drug Administration on the first authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine here in the United States.
Let's go to CNN's Nick Watt. Nick, there's a major operation underway to distribute vaccines after the FDA gives the go ahead.
NICK WATT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. And last we heard the FDA and Pfizer were negotiating what's going to go on the label. Do they mention allergic reactions after a couple of people in Britain had allergic reactions to this vaccine? Do they mention 16 and 17- year-old can take it? But there's not a lot of data for that age group. But pretty soon, Wolf, looks like it is going to be game on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WATT (voice over): Any minute, the FDA could sign off on that historic thumbs up --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, we do have a favorable vote.
WATT: -- from their advisory panel.
ALEX AZAR, SECRETARY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: The FDA informed Pfizer that they do intend to proceed towards an authorization for their vaccine.
WATT: Medics, shippers are ready for the most complicated and consequential vaccine rollout in American history.
BRADY SCOTT, RESPIRATORY THERAPIST, RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER: It is a beginning of the end of this crazy pandemic.
WATT: This weekend, the CDC will likely sign off on the vaccine and who gets it. Maybe Monday, shots in arms.
AZAR: We could be seeing people getting vaccinated Monday, Tuesday of next week.
WATT: But it will be earliest this spring before most people can get a vaccine.
The challenge meantime, keeping as many Americans alive as possible.
DR. ROBERT REDFIELD, DIRECTOR, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION: Probably for the next 60 to 90 days, we're going to have more deaths per day than we had in 9/11.
WATT: Already averaging well over 2,000 lives lost every single day, that will rise because we're also averaging, well, over 200,000 new cases every day. And that number has never been higher.
Los Angeles just smashed its daily case count high.
MAYOR ERIC GARCETTI (D-CA), LOS ANGELES: In this year of constant crises, this is the greatest crisis we have ever faced.
WATT: In Virginia, an overnight curfew kicks in Monday.
GOV. RALPH NORTHAM (D-VA): If you don't need to go out, go home. This is just plain common sense.
WATT: New York City and all of Pennsylvania will close indoor dining again.
GOV. TOM WOLF (D-PA): We need to take further mitigation actions to protect Pennsylvanians and stop the spread of COVID-19. We all hoped it would not come to this.
WATT: It has, but at least there is now real hope.
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: If we have a smooth vaccination program where everybody steps to the plate quickly, we could get back to some form of normality reasonably quickly into the summer and certainly into the fall.
WATT: The economy back, up and running, all kids back in school.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WATT (on camera): And remember, when the vaccines Pfizer is not the only game in town. The federal government just announced they're going to buy another 100 million doses of Moderna's vaccine, so doubling their holding of that one. And next Thursday, that FDA committee is going to meet to discuss the Moderna vaccine, and, barring any hiccups, authorization should follow pretty soon after. Wolf?
BLITZER: All right. Nick, thank you. Nick Watt reporting from L.A., thank you very, very much.
Let's discuss all of this with our Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Sanjay, I want to begin with the White House actually pressuring the FDA commissioner, Dr. Stephen Hahn, to authorize this vaccine tonight. You spoke with the commissioner earlier this week. You asked him about his meetings with the White House, whether he had been pressured. I want you and our viewers to listen to what he told you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. STEPHEN HAHN, COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: People may say, hey, it is an emergency, why would you worry about the process, why would you worry about the scientific review that you are doing? And it is my job, it is our job to explain that, and that's what happened. So it was nothing more than that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right. We are going to get to -- we're going to get back to Sanjay in a moment. We have huge breaking news coming from the United States Supreme Court right now on Texas' bid to try to overturn the results of millions of American voters. Jessica Schneider is joining us Right now.
All right, Jessica, tell us what the United States Supreme Court has just decided.
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, for the second time this week the Supreme Court is rejecting efforts from Republicans to block the election of Joe Biden. We have just gotten the order in from the Supreme Court, and they have rejected Texas' bid to file this complaint at the Supreme Court, asking the Supreme Court to stop the certification process in four crucial battleground states.
This is a pretty succinct order, not as succinct as we saw earlier in the week, but this is an order blocking Texas from even filing this complaint at the Supreme Court.
[18:35:04]
So, the way that the Supreme Court is putting this is they are rejecting this effort because of a lack of standing for Texas. They put it this way, saying, Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the matter in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
So, Wolf, the court in this case saying, Texas, you can't even file this case at the Supreme Court and, as such, all of your requests for blocking the certification, for asking the legislatures to instead appoint electors, all of that is blocked. This is a shutdown of Republicans' efforts to block this election in favor of Joe Biden here.
It is notable that this is an unsigned order. However, two of the justices, Justice Alito as well as Justice Thomas, they dissented in part. They said that Texas should have at least been able to file this complaint because they said it falls within their original jurisdiction.
As we talked about, the Supreme Court does, in fact, have original jurisdiction over state versus state disputes, but it has never been taken to this level. These are usually disputes that the Supreme Court hears about boundary disputes or water rights issues.
So in this case the Supreme Court completely shutting this case down, yet another major loss, Wolf, for Republicans, the second time this week from the Supreme Court. And we have seen dozens of other defeats all over the country here, Wolf.
BLITZER: Yes, a huge, a huge slap in the face of the Texas attorney general and all of those who supported the Texas attorney general, attorney generals -- Republican attorneys generals in, what, 18 other states, 126 Republican members of the House of Representatives Including Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican, the minority leader in the House, and, of course, a huge slap at President Trump himself who repeatedly, over these past few days, has been publicly tweeting, lobbying the United States to go ahead and accept this case, which they have rejected.
Is it fair to say, Jessica, this was a 7-2 decision, if there were two justices, Alito and Thomas, who were dissenting at least, in part, or is that going too far?
SCHNEIDER: Well, these are unsigned orders, Wolf, so we don't know exactly what the vote breakdown was here. We do know that there -- the noted dissents were two, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas. We don't know exactly how the other justices came down.
So two justices dissenting, an unsigned order, but, effectively, you know, this ends the Republicans' bid at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court saying, Texas, you can't even file this because you don't have standing. It will be interesting to see, like you said, how the president responds to this, how the nearly -- or more than 100 Republicans in Congress respond to this seeing, as they all signed on promoting this. But the Supreme Court here saying, we're not getting involved, Texas, you don't have standing to dispute how other states conduct the elections.
BLITZER: Was this just a one-sentence decision, order by the U.S. Supreme Court, as was the case earlier in the week when they rejected another Republican-backed effort to undermine this election or was this -- did they go into a little more in depth?
SCHNEIDER: They went a little bit more in depth, Wolf. We saw a very succinct order on Tuesday that basically just said, denied. That was when the Supreme Court denied Republicans' efforts to stop the certification in just one state, Pennsylvania, this, of course, looking to stop the efforts in four crucial battleground states.
This is a one-page order, and the order itself, it has two sentences essentially. So it is a bit more than we've seen. You know, it says that they've denied this motion for Texas to file this complaint and then it says that it doesn't -- Texas doesn't have a judicial interest in this. They have no standing. And then immediately after that, it is noted that Justice Alito and Thomas, they note their dissent for the sole reason that both of them believe that because the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction here that Texas should have at least been able to file this dispute.
You know, maybe it wouldn't have gone any further than this, but they say that Texas has the right to file this suit at the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court very clear on this despite those dissents that Texas won't have that chance to argue in court, won't even have the chance to make their case that these votes should be extinguished. You know, we are talking about more than 10 million votes that Texas was calling into question here in these key battleground states.
And now, the Supreme Court is saying, Texas, you can't even make your case, you can't come to the court with this kind of issue, and you really, you know, can't dispute how other states conduct their elections. That was at the core here, Wolf. The Constitution says quite clearly that the manner of elections is left to the states. Every state administers it may be slightly differently, but Texas can't now swoop in and question how these four battleground states conducted their elections.
[18:40:06]
That was the big issue here.
Texas said, because these various states put in different rules about mail-in balloting and that those rules were actually implemented not by the state legislatures but by the governors or by secretaries of state, that's what Texas had a problem with. But the Supreme Court here effectively saying states are allowed to do -- to conduct their elections in manners that they see fit, in manners that they have approved, and Texas and other states cannot come in now and question that and bring this all the way to the Supreme Court, Wolf.
BLITZER: A complete, a complete rejection of the president's arguments, the Texas attorney general's arguments and all of these other arguments. This should end it once and for all. The United States Supreme Court, the second time this week, completely rejecting any effort to undermine the results of this election.
What I want to do, Jessica, and I want Jim Acosta to stand by and our legal analysts as well, what I want to do is to read very -- it is very brief what the United States Supreme Court has just released, this order. It is Texas v. Pennsylvania et al.
The state of Texas' motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under article three of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its election. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
And then this order goes on to say this. Statement of Justice Alito with Justice Thomas joins. In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of the bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona versus California. I would therefore -- 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.
So that's significant as well. That's the whole thing. That's the whole statement, a complete rejection of this Texas attorney general's effort to try to undermine the outcome of the presidential election which saw Joe Biden win the election.
Jim Acosta, I don't know if you are getting any reaction at the White House yet, but this is a huge slap in the face of the president and his supporters.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: No reaction from the White House yet, Wolf. But, remember, the president was pinning his hopes on this lawsuit for days, saying that he was hoping that the Supreme Court would have the courage and wisdom to decide in his favor, and this ruling from the Supreme Court just obliterates the president's last-ditch attempt, this desperate and dubious attempt, widely-ridiculed attempt as well, to have the results of the election thrown out, to have millions of votes thrown out and have the Supreme Court decide the election in his favor.
And I think that section of what you just read there, Wolf, from the Supreme Court, I think is very important. The Supreme Court is saying right there in the text that Texas cannot tell other states how they can conduct their elections.
One of the guiding principles that you and I know all too well, Wolf, following the Republican Party over the last ten years from the tea party to Donald Trump is that Republicans and conservatives have talked about states' rights.
And here in this Texas lawsuit that's just been thrown out by the Supreme Court, they were contradicting themselves. They were saying that states could tell other states how to conduct their elections and that the Supreme Court could come in and rule on the behalf of Texas and these other states that were joining forces with Texas and these 100 some odd House Republicans who were supporting the president in that effort as well. And so it just obliterates this attempt on the president's part, on the part of his team to have these results thrown out, Wolf.
And I think what we've seen over the last several weeks from the president, and it's building up until this moment, is that he and his team and people like Rudy Giuliani and so on, they have been trying to manufacture some kind of constitutional crisis. It has been a cockamamie constitutional crisis that they've been trying to manufacture in the hopes that the Supreme Court would somehow rule in their favor.
And even having this veneer of seriousness by having these other House Republicans and other states sign on, it was just destined to go nowhere, and that's what we're seeing tonight. The last thing that the president can pin his hopes to now is that somehow members of Congress, when they officially count the electoral votes on January 6th, will somehow -- there will be some sort of Hail Mary there that will throw the election to him. That is doomed to fail as well, Wolf. It is over. It has been over, and it is over again tonight, Wolf.
BLITZER: And it is clear the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court has concluded now it is over, totally, totally, over. In 40 days, Joe Biden will be sworn in as the next president of the United States. In 40 days, the current president of the United States will then become the former president of the United States. The Supreme Court has reached this decision.
[18:45:00]
And Ariane de Vogue, our Supreme Court Reporter, just sent me this. And I just want to read this. The court did not provide a vote count but there were no dissents to the order made public, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Thomas would have allowed the case to be filed with the court, but they both emphasized they would grant no other relief.
So, it's over. It's a done deal.
Laura Coates, our legal analyst, is standing by.
Laura, you read the few sentences that the Supreme Court just decided. As we've been saying now for the past couple of days, the Supreme Court is going to reject it. They rejected it and they rejected it without serious and any real dissent.
LAURA COATES, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Absolutely right. They essentially said, Texas, you have no dog in this fight. You have no right to decide or dictate how other states administer or decide their elections. You know that the Constitution says that every state has an opportunity to decide how their elections are run, and you want to come in, not before they decide how to administer it, but only because the person you hoped to be the victor did not win. They didn't even go into all of the arguments about laches, which is
what I just described, or the arguments about state rights. What they said is, why do you think you are the appropriate person to come before us and literally -- well, figuratively, stand before us and argue this case. That's what standing is about. But you really have no dog in this fight.
And the only reason is you're reading from Ariane de Vogue and Jessica talking about this notion about how Justice Alito and Justice Thomas said, look, we do have original jurisdiction, meaning we have interpreted since Marbury versus Madison in the 1800s if there's a dispute between two states, we can look at those cases. Unlike the majority of cases, that we are the highest appellate court, meaning you have to work your way up the totem pole before you get to the big dogs here.
Well, the states issues between two states, they do have original jurisdiction but it has largely been reserved, as you know, wolf, to things like water rights or boundary disputes. And in any event, as Justice Alito and Thomas made clear from our reporting, that neither of them would have actually, even if they had listened and gotten through the door for original jurisdiction, would have granted no other relief.
So even if they were willing to bend an ear, they still had nothing. And why? Because there's no evidence. Because the courts have always found and the Constitution says it is the states who get to dictate it, and because this looked to be a very last-ditch effort that was intended to undermine the will of voters. We don't want to be in a country where nine justices suddenly usurp the will of 300-plus million eligible voters in the United States of America, and this court did not want to weigh in.
BLITZER: Yeah. Very, very important.
You know, Ben Ginsberg is with us as well.
Ben, it is interesting, I think very significant to underscore how serious this rebuke of this Texas lawsuit was that the three Supreme Court justices nominated by President Trump himself, they did not publicly dissent from this order, right?
BEN GINSBERG, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Exactly right, Wolf. That's also consistent with the Trump nominated-judges who heard these cases in lower courts and appellate courts. None of the Trump appointees on any federal bench thought for a nanosecond this case had any merit. That's really significant.
And as Laura just mentioned, that Alito and Thomas did this on purely procedural grounds over original jurisdiction and gave absolutely no quarter at all to the Trump substantive arguments is really significant.
BLITZER: Stand by for a moment. The attorney general of Wisconsin, one of the states targeted in this ill-fated Texas lawsuit, Josh Kaul, is still with us right now. And, Attorney General, you must be very, very pleased. I'm sure you're
not surprised. None of us are surprised. We all anticipated the Supreme Court would reject it, but what's your reaction to the way they did it?
JOSH KAUL, WISCONSIN ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, this is great news for democracy and for the rule of law. As you were just hearing, none of the justices who the president appointed to the Supreme Court noted a dissent, and he had, you know, made a big show of the fact he said he needed to have justices on the Supreme Court for the election, but that's not how the rule of law works. Justices decide based on the facts and the law and not based on the parties in the case.
Today's decision vindicates that principle and it also does so based on an argument that we made and others made that this is not a matter for Texas to get involved in. This is about Wisconsin's elections and the elections of the other three states. The Supreme Court has sent a clear message that that's Wisconsin's business and the business of other states and not Texas's right to get involved in other states' affairs.
BLITZER: Yes, this Texas lawsuit went after your state, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, now completely, completely rejected.
[18:50:03]
So from your understanding, attorney general, it's over now. The Electoral College will formally convene on Monday, make it official, and then on January 20th, Joe Biden will become the next president of the United States.
KAUL: That is what will happen. We still have a couple of states pending in Wisconsin, one in state court and one in federal court. But we are at the point of the process now like at the end of the football game, where Aaron Rodgers takes the snap and he kneels down. There's no question anymore about what's going to happen here.
BLITZER: Yeah, it's a done deal, and I assume at some point, all these Republicans are going to have to accept the fact that there was a democratically held election in the United States, that Joe Biden won in the national popular vote, he won by more than 7 million votes, and in the Electoral College, you need 270 to be the president of the United States, he got 306 and Trump got, what, 230 -- 232 electoral votes.
So, it's a pretty decisive win including in your state of Wisconsin. So, you're pleased right now it's going forward.
KAUL: That's right. The will of the votes of the people of Wisconsin has been respected. Our electoral votes, I'm confident, will be cast based on the choice that the voters made. This is a real vindication for our democracy and I'm glad to see the Supreme Court issued this ruling so quickly.
BLITZER: Yeah, very quickly, indeed. Earlier in the week one sentence rejecting an earlier effort by
Republicans to do away with the results of this election in this particular case. There were four or five sentences which I read.
Attorney General, thank you so much for joining us.
I want to bring in Preet Bharara, our CNN senior legal analyst, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
So, Preet, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court order?
PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: (AUDIO GAP)
It's over. It's definitively over. It's been over for a while.
And two points I guess I would make. One is, everyone knew, the lawyers in the case, every expert lawyer, every non-expert lawyer, anybody who's looked at this understood that the Supreme Court was not going to be the savior for Donald Trump in connection with this lawsuit from Texas. It wasn't going to happen. Everyone knew it wasn't going to happen.
And nonetheless, 126 members of the House signed on to an amicus brief, 18 or 19 Republican state attorneys general. That's an odd thing if you're a lawyer and you think they knew or must have known that this was doomed to failure. Why tilt at windmills if you're going to fail?
It's because they wanted to give some grist to Donald Trump, face saving to Donald Trump. What I don't understand is knowing you're going to fail miserably in a court that is stacked by the way with conservative justices, six of them Republicans, three appointed by this president himself, what does that mean for your efforts to save face? I kind of don't get it.
But the second point I would make is, you know, it's a non-legal point but it's an institutional point about our democracy, and that is President Trump has tried through the lawsuits and tweets and through other blathering that he does at a podium to undermine the results of the election. He's done it again and again and again by saying silly things about what happened and about the outcome.
He sometimes talks about the fact that a judge ruled against him as a point about Barack Obama as if that's, you know, decisive. What do they say now after they've lost in every court in the land, high court, low court, state court, federal court, made all the mistakes that they made? (AUDIO GAP)
In the Supreme Court, where I said, he's appointed three of the justices, what is the excuse they can give for why that happened? Who is there to blame at this point other than the lack of the case that they had? So, I hope in some measure, by overplaying their hand and going too far, in some cases certainly but in this case in particular, that it gives grist to the people who can say, look, it was legitimate. The results should stand and nothing that Trump says about it is correct. BLITZER: You know, I want to bring Ben Ginsberg back into this.
Ben, you've studied all of this for many, many years. First, all these court cases that were brought by the Republicans defeated, defeated, defeated, what, about 50 cases in various courts around the country. Then the attorney general of the United States, Bill Barr, he publicly tells "The Associated Press", no evidence of widespread fraud. He cites not only the investigation for the Department of Justice and an investigation for the Department of Homeland Security and an investigation by the FBI, he's rebuked obviously by the president as we know.
And now the Supreme Court twice this week has rejected all these motions. It's a done deal. It was predicted.
I guess all these Republicans now have no choice but to accept reality, but how much of a stress test did all of this put from your perspective, Ben, on American democracy?
GINSBERG: I think it put a huge stress test on our democracy, that we've never had a president of the United States talk about fraud the way the president did pre-election, and filed those suits, and then post election speaks for itself.
You know, Wolf, it's five weeks after election day. And the institutions of our democracy held against this onslaught. And so, we should be -- we should be really proud of that. And at the same time, the Republicans who did follow Donald Trump really have an obligation now to make the country strong again, to heal the chinks that Donald Trump tried to put in the foundation of the country and the democracy.
BLITZER: Very significant moment in American history right now in this order, it's called an order in pending case. Texas v. Pennsylvania et al.
You know, Laura Coates is still with us as well.
Laura, I ask this question of Ben Ginsberg earlier. Were you surprised that three Supreme Court justices nominated by President Trump did not publicly dissent?
COATES: I'm not because three of -- two of them, at least, were involved with Bush v. Gore. I think the president of the United States always fundamentally misunderstood what the role of the Supreme Court was in that case. When he was making the overtures as recently as today, for those Supreme Court justices in particular perhaps and generally for the Supreme Court to try to somehow be his salvation politically speaking, he didn't understand what the case was really about and the limited role they wanted to play because there actually at the time was some dispute about perhaps who in that specific state.
But there's not that controversy right now. You're not having a dispute where you're going to be willing to go outside of original jurisdiction. And, frankly, as was made clear by each of them, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett recently in their confirmation hearings, was that they did not intend to be marionettes, they have said, of the president of the United States. And they were going to rule according to the law.
Well, the law cannot be anymore clear than what the constitution says, Wolf, about who's role it is to decide how to actually administer elections. In Texas, it has no business deciding how Georgia or Wisconsin or any other state facilitates it.
And one last point, remember the hypocrisy involved here because this particular attorney general is arguing that these other states abused their executive authority and used the pandemic as a pretexts to usurp the role of the legislature when his own state of Texas extended the ballot deadlines and changed certain voting rules. The fact that he never even called into question his own state was a blaring red flag that this was never about the substantive law.
BLITZER: I want to go back to Jim Acosta who's covered the president for all four years.
Jim, if the president were to do the right thing, you tell me if there's any chance this would happen at all, he'd go into the Oval Office, address the American people, acknowledge he lost, congratulate Joe Biden, say let's work together, let's have a smooth transition, I'll be with you at the inauguration on January 20th. What are the chances that this president would do what so many other presidents have done over all of these years, congratulate the winner and move on?
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right now, Wolf, I would say less than zero. I just spoke with a Trump advisor a few moments ago. I asked is there any chance Trump gives it up now and in the words of this advisor, quote, no way.
So even after the president has lost at the Supreme Court time and again, he can't appeal to some kind of Star Chamber or anything like that at this point. He's done. He's finished.
I think it's beyond the realm of anything possible at this point that this president would make that kind of statement that you were just talking about. I remember when Al Gore, you know, made that statement after that very contentious battle over Bush v. Gore, Al Gore came out in front of the American people and said it was time for him to go. There is just nobody inside the president's team who believes at this point who believes he's capable of doing that.
And so, for the first time in so many years, generations, it's unlikely, Wolf, we will see an outgoing president attend the inauguration of the incoming president. It's a crying shame of this country.
BLITZER: It really is a pity, because the right thing for this president to do would be to acknowledge the fact, move on, accept the will of the American people, more than 7 million vote lead for Joe Biden in this election, very decisive win in the Electoral College say it's over, it's time to move on. The American people have spoken. The democracy works.
That would be the right thing for this president to do. Maybe, I don't know, you think the chances are less than zero. We can only hope that this president will get some advice from other Republicans who will come forward, associates of his and say, Mr. President, it's over. Accept what has happened. Move on.
We shall see what the next steps are. We're going to have special live coverage will continue on all these historic moments unfolding right now.
"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" picks up our coverage.
