Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Head of D.C. National Guard Testifies to Congress He Was Given Memo Removing His Authority to Engage with Crowds Day before January 6th Capitol Riot; Republicans Plan to Delay Passage of $1.9 Trillion COVID Bill As Much As Possible; Dr. Fauci: "Ill-Advised" and "Risky" to End Mask Mandates Now. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired March 04, 2021 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL, (R-TX): This threat is credible, and it's real. It's a rightwing militia group. (END VIDEO CLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: So far not a word from the former president.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Also, curious, intriguing, and disturbing testimony from the head of the D.C. National Guard. He said it took three hours for him to receive approval for the Guard to assist on January 6th, three hours. But honestly, there's even more than that. He says the Defense Department changed the rules on him for how and whether to deploy the day before the attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM WALKER, COMMANDING GENERAL, D.C. NATIONAL GUARD: The Secretary of the Army's January 5th letter to me withheld that authority for me to employ a quick reaction force.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: The Defense Department created new rules, new rules for a mob that was fully expected to be full of Trump supporters.

Let's start, though, with the new threat today, where things stand. CNN's Shimon Prokupecz live outside the capitol. Shimon, give us the latest.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes, John, you'd think with all the security, the idea that people are still planning to try and attack this Capitol, you'd have to think they are pretty crazy and pretty brazen. You have all of this fencing continually surrounding the Capitol, but then there are other layers of security in an effort to try and prevent any kind of attack. You have National Guard troops. And then there's Capitol police surrounding the Capitol here. A lot of them also heavily armed. And I just want to show you something here, John. You see there's a capitol police officer there with a dog, bomb- sniffing dog. And what they're doing is as these buses are pulling up, a lot of these buses, they carry National Guard troops that have been stationed here at the Capitol. So they use the bomb-sniffing dog to sniff through the bus to make sure there are no bombs on the bus. That's the level of security that we're seeing out here.

All of this, of course, comes as chatter, there is chatter that the FBI is monitoring, that other law enforcement officials are keeping an eye on that indicates that militia groups still want to attack the Capitol through explosives, through other measures. And that is very concerning for authorities. And as you said, so concerning that House members decided that they are not going to be in session today. They are staying home out of concern over this threat.

And, of course, what is fueling all of this is the fact that these conspiracy theorists believe that there is an illegitimate president, that Joe Biden didn't win the presidency. And, obviously, part of who is feeling that, the former president, Donald Trump.

CAMEROTA: Shimon Prokupecz, thank you very much for all of the reporting on the ground there for us.

Joining us now, CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash. She is the co-anchor of CNN's STATE OF THE UNION. Also with us, CNN's White House correspondent John Harwood. John, I want to start with you, because I sat down with a group of former QAnon believers earlier this week. They clawed their way out of the conspiracy theory. And I can tell you that this is a date, March 4th, they've had circled in red on their calendar for a long time, since January 6th. They actually believe that this is the day that Donald Trump makes his triumphant return to Washington, D.C. Of course, the difference this time around, I would imagine, is that he's not there ginning up any crowd and inviting them to show up at a certain hour and telling them that they're all going to march to the capitol. So what's the feeling on the ground there?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, he's not here ginning them up, but he's also not tamping down this theory either. We saw from Michael McCaul telling Jake Tapper over the weekend that it's on the president to try to put down the expectation among his people and put down this threat. He's not doing that.

But one thing that members of Congress can understand more acutely now than they ever have is the idea that there's a threat against them. So the House has gone out of session. The Senate remains in session. But after multiple people for multiple reasons underreacted to the threat before January 6th, and the American democracy got third-degree burns and five people lost their lives that day, they are not going to underreact this time, and that's why you have got this heightened level of security threat. We'll see whether any actual offensive or militia violence materializes, but people aren't taking any chances.

BERMAN: I will tell you, you use the word underreact. One of the things that I think we learned in much more detail yesterday, Dana, was that the D.C. National Guard underreacted because they were told to underreact, at least in the days before. A memo literally telling them, we're changing the rules for how you respond to a mob that they knew was going to be a Trump-fueled mob. Just listen to what Major General William Walker said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM WALKER, COMMANDING GENERAL, D.C. NATIONAL GUARD: So the memo was unusual in that I was -- it required me to seek authorization from the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense to essentially even protect my Guardsmen.

[08:05:06]

So no civil disturbance equipment could be authorized unless it came from the Secretary of Defense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: I remember hearing your voice covering that that day, Dana, noting that the mob was being treated differently than the protests over the summer, for instance, because they were told to, and they knew it was going to be a Trump mob. It's just there's still so many questions.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: What remarkable testimony yesterday. You're exactly right. We learned so much from that one moment and others like it. So the open question that we don't know the answer to is why. Was it an overcorrection from having so much police and military presence in the summer, or was it more nefarious? Was it that the political leaders at the Defense Department didn't want that presence because of the kind of protests that we knew was going to be there. And that kind of protest was pro-Trump. And that kind of protest was a pro-Trump protest with the then-president actually planning on being there in the first place.

And we need the answers to those questions. At that same joint committee that has been holding those hearings said in a bipartisan way, at different times, Roy Blunt, one of the top Republicans, Amy Klobuchar, one of the chairs, said that they do intend to try to get answers from the former Secretary of the Army and the former acting Defense Secretary to get the answers to why. Why did that change happen? And, basically, was it because they were just people coming to Washington to support Trump?

CAMEROTA: Yes, first of all, the idea it's an overcorrection might be a little bit more believable if it happened in the summer after the Lafayette Square Park thing. But, John, this was January 5th it landed on the commander's desk, January 5th, as people, as the pro-Trump mob was already swarming into the Capitol. And they're told not to be able to use their protections such as helmets and body armor and weapons? Don't issue more ammunition or bayonets or batons or ballistic protection? How else can you interpret it than somebody gave the instruction -- in this case, it's the acting secretary of defense, not to go after the pro-Trump mob? HARWOOD: Well, Alisyn, as Dana just said, we need to know the answers

to why there was that directive that went out ahead of time, but I think the most striking thing that came out from the testimony yesterday was the idea that after that emotion-laden phone call to the head of the D.C. National Guard at 1:49 on the 6th, while the violence was under way, it took over three hours for the directive to come to him to send those D.C. National Guard troops. That, to me, whatever happened before January 6th, what happened on January 6th, that long delay is inexplicable. And I think the default assumption you have to make, to Dana's question, was it something more nefarious, that is the most nefarious thing that I think we've heard in this entire episode, even more so than whatever orders were placed before January 6th. And Congress is going to pursue those answers, and I think that strengthens the case for some sort of 9/11 commission to actually get a definitive response to why that occurred.

BERMAN: Dana, major developments in terms of the $1.9 trillion relief bill that the Senate, we think, will take up in some form today. Number one, the president has agreed to change the threshold, lower the threshold or the cap for when people can receive the $1,400 stimulus. It will now be after $80,000 for an individual, $160,000 for a family no money. It had been higher.

We're also learning, I think, the new parameter for how Republicans are going to treat the Biden administration. There is nothing that they won't do to get in the way of what Joe Biden is proposing, even certain things that they have agreed on in the past, because, look, this relief measure we believe will pass. It is inevitable. But Ron Johnson is trying to slow it down as much as possible, doing whatever he can to make it more difficult to pass even though the outcome is inevitable. Read the bill out loud on the floor for 10 straight hours, offer amendments ad infinitum. Tom Cotton delaying the confirmation of Merrick Garland just because he can for a few days, not because it will prevent him from being confirmed, just because he wants to delay it for a few days. What does this tell you?

[08:10:00]

BASH: That they are looking for atta-boys and fame in the conservative media world. And I have to tell you, I was talking to a Republican who doesn't agree with them, an elected Republican yesterday, who said, fame in conservative media is intoxicating, and that is in large part what this is.

There's also their own political future. Tom Cotton, it's pretty obvious that he is seriously considering running for the Republican nomination for president in 2024. Ron Johnson is potentially on the ballot. He's up for reelection. The question is whether he actually runs. It looks like the move that he's making to have a spectacle on the Senate floor, reading this bill, which could take like 10 hours to do, is theater with the goal of his own political future and maybe even that fame.

But it also, more importantly, it tells us, I think this is what you're getting at, John, why the Biden administration just decided to kind of go for broke and do everything that they thought that they wanted to do when it comes to the progressive point of view and the point of view of the economists in the Biden administration, saying this is what you need to do to get the economy going, and don't compromise, because no matter how much he compromises on this particular issue, he is still going to get pushback from Republicans. So this is why the strategy was, get everything you got in here and just push it along and negotiate where you have to with the Democrats to get enough votes, which is what that compromise you just put on the screen was.

CAMEROTA: Dana --

HARWOOD: Guys, can I just make one closing point? That is all of these things are related. That is the January 6th insurrection, the resistance on COVID relief and on nominations, the resistance on voting rights which Democrats passed last night. Yes, it is on Joe Biden to seek compromise with Republicans, but there's also a burden on Republicans, and if they adopt a strategy across the board of massive resistance, whether it's physical resistance, as we saw on January 6th, or simply massive all-out political resistance, the onus is on Republicans as well, and it becomes futile at some point for Joe Biden to seek compromise in that circumstance.

CAMEROTA: Yes, apparently compromise is not as intoxicating as fame in MAGA media, which is really an important insight.

BASH: Not at all.

CAMEROTA: Thank you both very much.

Exactly one month ago on NEW DAY, a top infectious disease expert warned of a category five hurricane because of these new coronavirus variants. What does he think now that we are here a month later and that some states are ending mask mandates? He's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:16:31]

BERMAN: Dr. Anthony Fauci sounding off about states that are easing restrictions and ending mask mandates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I don't know why they're doing it but it's certainly from a public health standpoint, ill-advised. It just is inexplicable why you would want to pull back now. I understand the need to want to get back to normality, but you're only going to get yourself back if you just completely pull -- push aside the public health guidelines.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Joining us now, Michael Osterholm. He's the director of the Center for Infectious Diseases, Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. Professor Osterholm, always great to see you and have you on.

They are ending these mask mandates at a time that you have warned, a time of great peril. You were very concerned about the rise and prevalence of the new variants in the United States and you've just put out some research about how quickly they are spreading, what we can expect and what that all means. What do you see?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH & POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Well, as I mentioned to you four weeks ago, you led with the teaser earlier is the fact that we knew B.1.1.7., the variant from the united kingdom was coming to the United States, spreading across the United States and about four weeks ago it was about 1 percent to 2 percent of the viruses we find in individuals who are ill with COVID-19.

Right now, we're seeing in states like Florida, California and Georgia, those numbers between 20 percent and 30 percent of the viruses obtained. And we're seeing across the United States also a major increase that's harder to understand how much that increase is just because we don't have good surveillance for these viruses in many states.

But the bottom line message is that if we look at what's happened in Europe, you look at what's happened in the Middle East, once that number crosses about 50 percent of the virus isolates or the virus is obtained are these B.1.1.7., we see a major surge in cases. Right now, that number is doubling about every 7 to 10 days that I just shared with you so expect in the next two to three weeks, we're going to see a number of areas in this country, I think, that will follow exactly what we've seen in Europe and the Middle East.

And we're going to see a surge in cases and everything that the governors are doing right now to relax all the public health recommendations that we've made are only going to be a major invitation of this virus to spread faster and farther.

CAMEROTA: Why don't they know that? Why don't the governors in Texas and Mississippi know that the top scientists are saying that this variant is about to begin doubling and then from there, it's, you know, off to the races?

OSTERHOLM: I can't answer that question. If I could, I'm sure I could win a few Nobel Prizes to understand why people do what they do like this. The evidence is clear. It's compelling.

You can't get a more direct message than you're hearing right now from the CDC director. And I think that is a situation right now where, as we've talked about many times on this program, we're really good at pumping the brakes after we wrap the car around the tree. And that's what we're doing here.

We are denying the gravity of the situation before us and for whatever expedient reason that might be. But we'll pay a price for it.

BERMAN: What price? I mean, what do you think happens, given the mask mandates are being lifted, which is obviously -- will have a negative impact on what you're talking about now, but more people are being vaccinated. We're getting up to 2 million people a day right now.

OSTERHOLM: We are. And, in fact, that's the kind of the tale of two cities right now. Remember, this virus is anywhere from 40 percent to 50 percent more infectious than the previous viruses that we've been dealing with.

[08:20:03]

They also are more likely to cause severe disease. So the good news is in fact, just what you said, we do have right now about -- potentially 7 percent of our population vaccinated, fully vaccinated. Another 7 percent to 8 percent that have at least one dose which I think is still a very, very good news story.

So this is very positive. But when you add that number together with the number of people who have been previously infected and likely have immunity against this virus that's coming from the United Kingdom, we still only have about 35 to 40 percent of the population that would be protected.

Now think about that. For the whole last year, for all the pain, suffering and death and illness, we still are only at about 40 percent. So if you look at what's left out there in terms of the human wood that is left to burn in this coronavirus forest fire, we've got a lot.

And so add that together with the following. More infectious, more severe illness and we're loosening up everything. You put those two together and I think the question is, what is going to happen? None of us can say with certainty other than to say it's not going to be good.

CAMEROTA: But does this new variant respond to these three vaccines that are on the market right now? I mean, those prevent severe illness. So the fact that this new variant shows more illness, does the vaccine nullify that?

OSTERHOLM: Now, one good news issue about this virus, even though it's more infectious, more likely to cause severe illness, the fact is that the vaccines work well against this virus, unlike some of the other variants where we have problems. So, that is very, very good news.

On the other hand, right now, we have almost 25 million individuals, 65 years of age and older, that don't have access to vaccine right now or won't in the immediate weeks ahead. That's where we're going to see a lot of severe illness. And so on one hand, yeah, the vaccine works. The second thing is it doesn't work if it's not in your arm.

CAMEROTA: Michael Osterholm, always dispensing the tough medicine for us, we really appreciate hearing from you. Thanks.

OSTERHOLM: Thank you. Thank you very much.

CAMEROTA: So now to this. More than three years into the #metoo movement, why are some powerful men still not getting the message? How could they have missed that message?

Two women who have played a big part in the movement join us next with their thoughts on why this is happening.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:26:19]

CAMEROTA: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo expressing regret after allegations from two former aides of sexual harassment came forward and another woman alleges an unwanted advance at a wedding moments after meeting the governor.

Here's how he explains his action.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO (D-NY): I now understand that I acted in a way that made people feel uncomfortable. It was unintentional, and I truly and deeply apologize it. I never touched anyone inappropriately. I never knew at the time that I was making anyone feel uncomfortable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Joining us now is Irin Carmon. She's a senior correspondent at "New York Magazine," one of the reporters who broke the news of sexual harassment and assault allegations against Charlie Rose. Also with us, Nancy Erika Smith, a civil rights attorney who represented Gretchen Carlson in her case against Roger Ailes.

Great to see both of you.

Irin, how -- I'm sorry, how do powerful men miss the memo from 2017? I just -- I thought we all got it. I thought that when you ask your young female employees in the office about their sex life and if they ever have had sex with an older man, I thought that you were now on notice that that was not appropriate. So, how did he miss that, Irin?

IRIN CARMON, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: You know, I think it strains credulity that Governor Andrew Cuomo did not know that he was making these women uncomfortable. Not only did we have the awakening, you know, you were just alluding to. He was also the top lawyer in New York state. He was the co-founder of the Women's Equality Party. He was, you know, he's aware of the definition of sexual harassment, which includes a hostile work environment for your employees.

So I think the idea unintentional, in particular for someone like Andrew Cuomo who is, if nothing else, fully in control of his actions, knows exactly what he's doing and someone in New York state who is known to rule by power. The notion that he didn't know what he was doing to me was the craziest thing he said yesterday. He absolutely knew what he was doing.

CAMEROTA: Nancy, he also said I never touched anyone inappropriately. Well, we have the picture. I mean, we have the picture of him taking a stranger's face, a young woman in his hands and she says moving in to kiss her.

So, I mean, note to 60-something year-old men, we don't just mean private parts when we say touching inappropriately. So, but, Nancy, one more thing, legally speaking, is there a difference between that moment with a stranger at a wedding and the two women who were his aides in the office? Legally speaking, is one illegal and one just inappropriate?

NANCY ERIKA SMITH, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: One is inappropriate and one is illegal. You could say it was an assault to touch her back, touch her face and then lean in to kiss her. But probably it would not meet the legal level.

The other two women clearly suffered sexual harassment in the workplace, both of them lost their jobs as a result. Couldn't stay there any longer, as you can imagine. The other women who work there who know about it or see it also live in a hostile work environment.

And his intent is irrelevant. The idea that I'm 63 years old, I'm the governor of New York, I'm a lawyer, and I go around hugging and kissing strangers, subordinates, 25-year-old women who work for me? I discuss strip poker. I ask women about their sex lives, specifically.