Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Democrats Step up Calls for Voting Law after Georgia Restrictions; Top Medical Experts Who Worked on Coronavirus Response for Trump Administration Interviewed in Documentary; Former HHS Secretary Alex Azar Criticized for Role in Trump Administration Coronavirus Response. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired March 29, 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]

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: NEW DAY continues right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cases are starting to rise again in some states.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A lot of the spread is happening among younger people who are relaxing and getting infected.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there a moment, Dr. Fauci, when you said, OK, this is the big one?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, BIDEN CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER: Yes. The decision to go all out and develop a vaccine may have been the best decision that I've ever made?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are continuing to see the fallout of this sweeping election bill that passed in the state of Georgia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are gaslighting these improvements and fearmongering.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to do everything I can so that we can expand our democracy rather than contract it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.

CAMEROTA: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our viewers in the United States and all around the world. This is NEW DAY. John Berman is off. John Avlon joins me. Oh, my gosh, we are covering so much this morning.

AVLON: There is a ton to get to this morning.

CAMEROTA: Great to have you here. OK, so America's top doctors leading the Trump administration's

pandemic response speaking out for the first time in this incredible new CNN documentary. Dr. Deborah Birx now says hundreds of thousands of Americans could be still alive if the White House had taken the threat of COVID more seriously. The former CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield also dropping a bombshell he believes, without citing any evidence, that COVID-19 originated in a lab in Wuhan. The World Health Organization will soon release its report on the origins of the coronavirus.

AVLON: That's all happening as cases surge across the United States. This morning, new cases are on the rise in 27 states. In Michigan, they've seen an increase of more than 50 percent since last week. New cases are showing up most in younger people.

CAMEROTA: OK, joining us now is CNN White House correspondent John Harwood, and CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen. She is former Baltimore City health commissioner. Her new book "Lifelines, A Doctor's Journey in the Fight for Public Health" is available for preorder now. That will be flying off the shelves.

Dr. Wen, actually both of you, what documentary this was last night? I was riveted, seeing these six top -- the country's top health officials speak out for the first time, and there was really a sense, Dr. Wen, I got of them having had pent-up things to say. They, I believe, felt muzzled. They peeled off their muzzle last night to explain the dysfunction, the chaos, the purely partisan decisions that were made in the Trump White House that, Dr. Birx says, costs lives. Let me just play for anyone who missed it what Dr. Birx said about the death toll.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. DEBORAH BIRX, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE COORDINATOR: I look at it this way. The first time we have an excuse. There were about 100,000 deaths that came from that original surge. All of the rest of them, in my mind, could have been mitigated or the decreased substantially if we took the lessons we had learned from that moment. That's what bothers me every day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Of course she is bothered every day. It's just horrible to hear that. Dr. Wen, what did you hear last night?

DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Yes, I was also very struck by the comments by Dr. Birx, because what she was basically saying was the initial wave of tragedy, maybe that was hard to prevent because it was like a freight train coming at us 100 miles an hour, and before you know it, it was already on top of us.

But after that, we knew what to do. We knew about masking. We knew about the importance of testing. We knew about not having mixed messaging, and this active disinformation prevented us from actually saving lives. I think what struck me even more last night, Alisyn, was how much when Sanjay asked everyone, what is the cause if you were to diagnose what went wrong? They all gave different answers. I think that was the most striking part because it's not as if there was one single thing that went wrong in the response. There were so many.

And actually, this is similar to many cases of medical error, where something went tragically wrong, very few cases could just say, ah, it was that one moment, if we had done that one thing right, everything else would have been fine. In this case, we missed so many moments, and that makes me really worried about the next pandemic, because we have to go back and fix so many aspects of our response, it's not just one thing.

AVLON: But John, the fact that so many doctors who were leaders in this administration's response came forward so quickly and almost feeling liberated to tell the truth about what they had seen and the failures of this administration. What you heard Deborah Birx just say is that 450,000 deaths are attributable to this administration's failures. And it was not just the president. It was a trickle-down environment.

I want to play a clip from Dr. Birx where she says that there was a fundamental environment of unseriousness while she was frozen out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[08:05:06]

BIRX: There was a feeling in the White House from the beginning -- and I don't know if this is true or ot, because I never confronted the president, because I didn't having access to him by that time -- that the president was not supportive of mask wearing in the White House. And that trickled down through every single leader. I would say the majority of the people in the White House did not take this seriously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: The majority of the people in the White House did not take this seriously. She attributes that to 450,000 Americans dead. Does that -- it is so stunning and, we know this is the first of many forensics that will be done, but does that line up with your reporting? And what new did you learn last night on the back of all the work you have done?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, John, I did think, as you guys have just indicated, the most stunning moment of Sanjay's documentary -- and by the way, Sanjay did a terrific job of questioning those doctors -- was the estimate from Dr. Birx that so many of those deaths could have been prevented.

But I think what it shows, and what that clip from Dr. Birx that you just played showed, is that it wasn't just President Trump. Yes, President Trump is an outlier. He is uniquely in American history a president who was almost entirely consumed with his own interests, his own needs as opposed to those of the country. And so he was locked in on the idea that he needed to safeguard the economy and safeguard his reelection. But it also goes to the radicalization of the Republican Party. This

is a Republican Party that fundamentally does not believe in government, skeptical of government action, skeptical of science because science has taken the political debate to places requiring government action that they don't want to go. Climate change is an example of that, but so is the pandemic. And so it was not just the president. The people who were around the president believed in -- had the same impulses as the president to be skeptical of government telling people to wear masks, to be skeptical of taking steps to safeguard public health. That's simply the nature of the modern Republican Party, and it's why they are such a stark contrast with this new administration. President Biden is different from President Trump, but so are the people working from him are different from the people who worked for President Trump.

AVLON: John, one more political thing that came up that I noticed last night, all of these experts, the leading medical doctors last night, these six, I think to a person basically said that they felt that Vice President Pence, who President Trump tasked with handling the coronavirus, did have good intentions. They felt that he was on their side. But almost all of them, I think, also felt that Secretary Alxe Azar was not.

HARWOOD: That was a very interesting contrast. And, yes, I think one of the things about the documentary was that it had these doctors articulating things that we could see in real time. Few people were fooled by the nature of President Trump's response. We knew as it went along that he was defying science, because it was pretty plain. There were some signals for people like Dr. Fauci, but the idea that the president was acting in defiance of the scientific community, that Dr. Atlas was in defiance of the scientific community of people who deal with infectious disease, that was pretty plain at the time.

But Mike Pence at the same time was trying to navigate this situation, navigate a Republican Party that had a more traditional cast to it with this new Republican Party. But the problem is, Mike Pence was not a particularly strong figure within the administration. He was there, he was chairing the task force, but he was not willing or not able to stand up to President Trump in an effective way.

AVLON: Dr. Wen, we spoke to Dr. Dr. Reiner last hour, and he spoke about how personally he felt affected watching these doctors describe this sort of constraints they were in, the Faustian bargain they made, in effect, of trying to stay in an administration while being frozen out, to even suggest that these should be non-political appointees so they would have more freedom to do what they felt was the right thing. None resigned, notably. What do you make of that? Should they have? And what was your personal reaction as a doctor listening to these doctors describe the failures that led to this horrific death toll?

WEN: Well, I actually really sympathized and empathized with all of them as they talked about this very difficult situation that they were in, and especially I empathized with Dr. Birx, who I know many people have maligned and said if she really felt so strongly, she should have quit.

[08:10:00]

But here's the thing. Let's play this out. Let's say that she actually spoke up and said, President Trump, you are wrong. Disinfectants and injecting bleach and whatever else that he said that she really disagreed with. If she had done that, let's say she was fired or she resigned very publicly, what would have happened? She would have been on the outside. She would have joined a large chorus of us on the outside, medical experts on the outside saying the administration is wrong. But would her influence have actually been greater there? Or would it have been inside the administration? She tried her best, I think, under very challenging circumstances to push from change from within, still continuing to work with Vice President Pence, with the others.

She also went on this national tour speaking with governors and mayors. I thought that was also really striking. She said if I'm not allowed to speak nationally to national audiences, I'm going to go local and go speak with county executives and mayors and governors and see what I can do on the local level. I think she really tried her best, and I think it's very difficult for us on the outside to be judging and saying, well, she should have quit. But I don't think if she had quit they would have replaced her with another Dr. Fauci. She would have been replaced with many Dr. Atlas who would have just rubberstamped whatever it was that President Trump said.

CAMEROTA: You make such a good point. Yes?

HARWOOD: Could I just add to what Dr. Wen just said? It is important to remember that the reason that we were not fooled at the time, that we knew the administration was acting in defiance of science, was because of those people on the outside, like Dr. Wen, like Jonathan Reiner, like Celine Gounder, like Ashish Jha, people who were on our air constantly, telling the American people, giving a more accurate read of the danger and the steps that we need to take. And so I think Dr. Wen needs to take a little bow for her contribution to what the public knew at the time.

CAMEROTA: About Secretary Azar, John, he did not choose to participate into this CNN documentary. Sanjay obviously reached out. He chose not to. He takes issue with a lot of their conclusions, the other medical experts' conclusions about him and about the handling of this. But they all seem to be in concert, so he's one voice against theirs. But here is a moment where they are talking about him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. STEPHEN HAHN, FORMER FDA COMMISSIONER: I can 100 percent assure you that I did not shout and scream at the secretary of health and human services.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Did he shout at you?

HAHN: You should ask him that question.

ROBERT REDFIELD, FORMER CDC DIRECTOR: I didn't have really very difficult challenges with the White House. The challenges I had with the office of the secretary.

GUPTA: What happened?

REDFIELD: I think some of the ones that were most notable that I was the most offended by was the calls that wanted me to pressure and change the MMWR.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: OK, so John, change the MMWR, that means change the reporting, change the data, change the reporting on where we are. So what happens next in this?

HARWOOD: Well, first of all, let's remember, Alex Azar came more out of the political side of this debate than the scientific side. So he is naturally going to be a conduit for political pressure to a greater degree than some others who were involved here. And I am sure that is why he did not want to participate. That's why the doctors targeted him.

One of the questions that's going to arise, in fact, Sanjay discussed during the documentary, was do some of the scientific positions need greater protection from politics, longer terms? And the question the country has to wrestle with is to what degree do you change the structure of government in response to a president with unique characteristics and a unique approach to governance which we may not see again, maybe we will. Balance that against what I was saying earlier about the nature of the Republican Party. If the Republican Party wins the White House again, could we be in a similar situation? A tough choice. I would be surprised if structural changes are made any time soon, but that's something to watch.

AVLON: Thank you both for your perspective on that hard-hitting, extraordinary documentary that aired last night. Thank you very much.

All right, Democrats are pushing for federal action to bolster election laws as more states move to limit voting rights. We're going to discuss next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:17:56]

CAMEROTA: Democrats say Georgia's passage of a new voting law will restrict access for many voters, and they're using Georgia as a rallying cry to enact Federal legislation that they say will protect voters nationwide.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BARBARA LEE (D-CA): When you see what is taking place throughout the country, and now especially in Georgia, we have got to protect our democracy and protect the right to vote. This is a defining moment for our democracy and we have to do everything at once.

(END VIDEO CLIP) REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN (D-NY): We need to pass H.R. 1 and we need to pass

H.R. 4, which is the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

The only way to do that in the Senate or one of the ways to absolutely do it in the Senate is to end the filibuster.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Okay, joining us now with what happens next is LaTosha Brown. She's the cofounder of Black Voters Matter. Also with us Ari Berman, who covers voting rights as a senior reporter for "Mother Jones." Great to have both of you here.

Ari, your new piece for "Mother Jones" is called "After Trump tried and failed, Georgia Republicans passed a bill to make it easier to overturn elections." What part of what's happening in Georgia will make it easier to overturn elections?

ARI BERMAN, SENIOR REPORTER, "MOTHER JONES": Well, this is really the most chilling and consequential part of the bill, Alisyn, Allison, because what it does is it allows the G.O.P. controlled legislature to appoint a majority of the State Election Board, which is in charge of certifying elections and overseeing voting rules in the state.

Then the State Election Board is empowered to take over County Election Boards. So you can have a situation where the State Election Board, for example, could take over election operations in Atlanta's Fulton County, the largest and one of the most Democratic parts of the state.

And so remember, Donald Trump tried to get Georgia Republicans to throw out votes. This makes it a lot easier for them to do because they will be empowered to control these crucial election offices, meaning they could challenge election results of it is close elections and they could even decline to certify election results in close outcomes, which is exactly what Trump wanted them to do in 2020, and they could not do.

[08:20:03]

CAMEROTA: Right. I mean, those were the very guardrails. Those were the safeguards what you've just outlined are that -- they kept the results in Georgia from being overturned.

LaTosha, what part of this new law do you find most troubling?

LATOSHA BROWN, COFOUNDER, BLACK VOTERS MATTER: I do you think that's the most egregious part of it, because that is the part that literally completely unpins democracy for them to make a decision just because they don't like the result of it and completely disempowers the Board of Elections who have a different kind of responsibility to the citizens.

I also think -- I think the entire bill is bad. You know, when we look at the criminalizing of groups that are giving water and food and snacks. You know, people stood in line last year, I remember I stood in line

for three hours. We went to some places where people were in line at 12:37 a.m. in the morning, there was some folks that stood in line six, seven, eight, up to 11 hours.

So instead of creating legislation that would actually address that problem, instead, they have actually created these punitive measures to punish folks from showing up and showing out this last election cycle, in spite of the long lines, in spite of those things that we think have been a part of a strategy of voter suppression that the state has done for over a decade.

CAMEROTA: I mean, LaTosha, that one is just so strange. You can't be human, you can't give somebody water when they didn't come with water, because they didn't know they'd be standing in line for eight plus hours? I mean, what is that? How do you explain that? And why do you think that it hurts Democrats more than Republicans?

BROWN: You know, I think there's a couple of things. I think, one, they have shown that they are desperate and they are inhumane. They don't have a moral center. They have been consistent with their actions. So while as shocking as the water is, it is not shocking in terms of how they treat people.

There were seniors that were standing in line -- can you imagine being a senior citizen? There were seniors that were standing in line who had walkers, with three, four, five, six, seven hours, like literally to be able to -- who would have to do it -- there are other people that we actually have to move them to the front of the line.

The point being is that there is a certain kind of inconsistency of care; that they don't care about the voters. This is all about really dissuading people to come out to the polls and vote, and particularly when you're looking at folks who have -- don't have the same amount of resources.

When you look at the wait time, which has been documented on many of the black polling sites as opposed to the white polling sites, there is a longer wait time.

You know, even if you look -- TargetSmart did a poll just recently that showed 77 percent of the people of Georgia -- Georgia citizens -- don't even agree with all that's in the bill. So this is something that a small group, a rogue group of elected officials, of Republicans who want to grab power and are anti-democratic. This is what they did and are all predicated on a big lie.

CAMEROTA: Well, on the flip side of that, Ari, we just had the Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, Geoff Duncan on who said that there are some things in this that are wins for Democrats also.

I mean, he cited the no more signature matches, which was, you know, seen as overly onerous; and the processing of absentee ballots can take place, hence, they can start processing the absentee ballots well before the close of polls, so there won't be that long wait time for results. So is it all bad? Or are there things that were wins for Democrats?

BERMAN: Well, the thing is, Alisyn, if Georgia Republicans had wanted to make it easier to vote, they could have just done that, right? If they wanted to speed the processing of absentee ballots or expand early voting, they could have just passed that legislation?

They didn't then have to make it a crime to give food and water to people in line or restrict mail ballot drop boxes, or add new voter ID requirements or take over the State Election Board or the County Election Board.

So I mean, it's like this was a two-page bill that became a nearly a hundred-page bill, and maybe a few pages have things that make it easier to vote, but 90 pages of the 98 pages make it harder to vote and the question is, why did they do it?

You had Republicans in Georgia who defended the integrity of the election. It was the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia who defended the integrity of the election. What did they do? They passed a so-called Election Integrity Act that undercut the integrity of the election and that shift power from the very Republican Secretary of State who stood up to Donald Trump.

So they are doing exactly what Donald Trump wanted. They are making it harder to vote and easier to throw out votes. They are following the Trump playbook based on Trump's lies so they can get an advantage in future elections and accomplish through legislation, what they couldn't accomplish through litigation and intimidation in 2020.

CAMEROTA: And Ari, just because you're looking at this across the country, is this a harbinger of other things happening in other states this as you call it, power grab?

BERMAN: Absolutely. I mean, Georgia Republicans want voter suppression to become the new normal all across the country. And that's why there have been over 250 bills restricting voting rights in over 43 states in the first two months of this year.

This is the Republicans' top legislative priority making it harder to vote all across the country. That's why it's happening in Arizona, in Florida, in Texas.

[08:25:09]

BERMAN: I mean, my phone is blowing up right now, Alisyn. We've moved beyond Georgia. We're now -- the question is, where are the next states that the dominoes are going to fall?

And they are getting their marching orders from Trump. This has become the top priority of the Republican Party. They want to get an advantage so they can rig future elections because they were unable to rig the 2020 election.

CAMEROTA: We will all stay on it. LaTosha, Ari, thank you both very much for all of your work in this field. BERMAN: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Opening statements begin this morning in the Derek Chauvin murder trial. George Floyd's killing launched a summer of unrest and racial reckoning in America. Is the Minneapolis area ready for what happens today?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: In two hours, opening statements begin in the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

Chauvin is accused of killing George Floyd by putting his knee on Floyd's neck for nearly eight minutes. Floyd's launched a summer of protests and unrest and officials in the Twin Cities are on high alert as the trial gets underway today.

[08:30:10]