Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
The United States Has More Than 200,000 Coronavirus Deaths; Today Top Health Officials Are Testifying On The Hill About The Response To COVID-19; U.S. Intelligence Indicates Russia Is Interferring In The Presidential Election; NYT: Russians Troll Using Trump Tweets in Interference Attempts; FBI Warns Foreign Actors Might Try to Spread Disinformation About Election Results; U.S. Supreme Court Clerks Pay Homage to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Aired 9-9:30a ET
Aired September 23, 2020 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: As the ceremonies begin. Until that, though, we now stand at more than 200,000 coronavirus deaths in this country, and there are growing fears this morning of a brutal fall as 24 states see a rise in new cases. The president calls this milestone a shame - quote, "a shame", but he still then went onto minimize the toll that this is taken on the nation, at one point even mocking his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, for wearing a mask.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Even though we know masks stop infections, save lives. We're also learning this morning that the FDA is considering stricter guidelines when it comes to the race for a vaccine, rules that would push emergency use authorization potentially past election day. That, of course, might spark a backlash from the president who has claimed one could be ready by the election, but might indicate science will rule.
Next hour, the nation's top health officials are testifying on the Hill about the nation's response to this pandemic. We're going to bring that to you live. First though we begin with CNN's Senior Medical Correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen, who has new information on the latest vaccine to begin Phase 3 trials in the U.S. This is a big point of vaccine approval, right, because this is where you test it among thousands of people. What are we learning?
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. As we test it actually among tens of thousands of people, and this is now number four to go into Phase 3 clinical trials. Let's take a look at this list.
So we know that Moderna and Pfizer, they started their Phase 3 clinical trials in tens of thousands of people in July - on July 27. AstraZeneca, sort of an interesting one, started August 31 and then about 10 days later went on hold while the - an illness of one of their participants is being investigated to see if it's related to the vaccine. Johnson & Johnson started today, September 23. Now, when you look at these four, the first two use the same type of vaccine platform or technology. The second two use another type. So the first two use one type, the second two use another type. Neither of the types has ever resulted in a vaccine on the market, so these are relatively new vaccine technologies. We will be interested, of course, to see if they actually work and if they're safe. Jim, Poppy -
HARLOW: I mean, that is so interesting, Elizabeth, that neither of them, the mRNA and the other style, have ever, you know, been approved to take it to market, and now they're trying to do so very quickly. To that end, can you tell us an explain what changed overnight in terms of how the FDA is issuing what appeared to be pretty more strict guidelines at least on the timeline for authorization?
COHEN: Right, and I think, Poppy, you sort of hit a really interesting point here. These are new technologies, and the sources that I'm talking to say there's a little bit of anxiety about this because they've never resulted in a vaccine being put on the market and being given to hundreds of millions of people.
So what we are told from two sources is that the FDA is expected to put a rule on that would say, hey, when you get to a certain point in your trial, a point that neither Moderna or Pfizer has reached yet, you have to wait two more months until you're allowed to apply for an emergency use authorization from the FDA, in other words, permission to put your vaccine on the market.
So it's waiting two months past a certain point in the trial that neither one of them has got to. So you don't even have to get your calendar out to know that that means that neither of these vaccines are going to be on the market by election day, which is what President Trump keeps talking about. And the reason for this is safety, safety, safety. The FDA wants more shots in more arms so that they can see is there a safety problem here? We want more people in these trials so that we can see if this vaccine might possibly cause problems. Jim, Poppy -
HARLOW: Elizabeth, thank you for that reporting overnight. With me now is Dr. Peter Lurie. He is the President of the Center of Science and the Public Interest. He's also critically a former Associate Commissioner of the FDA. Dr. Lurie, I've read your quotes for months now about this. I'm really glad you're here in person. Thanks so much.
DR. PETER LURIE, FORMER ASSOC. COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC HEALTH STRATEGY, FDA: Thank you.
HARLOW: So let's begin with that. The FDA, our sources there are saying two things. Let met just reiterate them. One, the FDA could make these pharma companies wait 60 days after all participants in the trial have gotten a second dose and then go for emergency authorization approval or they may wait for 60 days until at least half of the people have gotten the second shot. Is it safe to just wait for half of the people to have been two months out from this and not all of them?
LURIE: Well really it's a balancing act. On the once hand you want to have additional safety information. On the other hand, you don't want a vaccine that could really benefit people being withheld while additional data being collected that aren't really improving what you know. So I think this is probably a reasonable balance that they're striking. It's important to get that additional safety information because sometimes those signals don't appear for a little awhile after the injection.
[09:05:00]
HARLOW: All right, well let me ask you this. So the FDA's considering these new rules, like basically putting these limits on before they give any away. Can they really enforce that because you were most recently quoted in this really important reporting earlier this week on Monday about Sector of Health and Human Services Alex Azar with that memo on the 15 of September essentially assuming control for what all of the agencies underneath him do and say, right?
Barring the health agencies, which would include the FDA, from signing any new rules, that would include on a vaccine, without him first approving it. So can the FDA do this without him signing off?
LURIE: So I think there may be a couple of different things going on here. I do think that the FDA can enforce this.
HARLOW: OK.
LURIE: And they do so by telling the companies what they expect, and any company would be full hearty to submit something that doesn't comply with what the FDA said they required. So I think that they will go along with this. The second relates to the memo from Secretary Azar, which I do think is something of a power grab by him.
But what it does is relate to new regulations, and these orders that relate to vaccine approval and authorization approval. They really aren't orders. So although (inaudible) this move by the secretary to insist that he be the person who signs all regulations, I don't think that it affects vaccine approval.
HARLOW: So to your point about believing that this move by Secretary Azar is a, quote, "power grab", the Chief of Staff for him, Brian Harrison, said look, this is a housekeeping matter. He said it has no bearing on how the agency deals with COVID vaccines. Explain why you think the HHS Secretary shouldn't have this power.
LURIE: Well you know, what this really relates to is whether or not given kind of person ironically called an inferior officer can sign a regulation, and I speak of somebody who was, in fact, an inferior officer and signed these kind of regulations when I was at FDA.
It adds really meaningless bureaucracy to the process to require that somebody several levels above the level that I held is going to be somebody signing a regulation. I mean, that's just a total waste of time, and it just creates a gumming up of the machinery when it comes to regulations. I think what's really going on is that the Secretary is sending a signal to the White House that he has these (inaudible) and that the whole thing is under control. HARLOW: OK, well it's great to have your insight, Dr. Lurie. I hope you come back soon. Thank you very much. Well still to come, moments from now Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will return for the final time to the Supreme Court. You'll see it live right here.
SCIUTTO: A moment for the court, a moment for the country. And new reporting this morning from The New York Times says that Russian trolls are simply amplifying President Trump's own misleading statements this election cycle rather than bothering to create their own disinformation as they did in 2016. Former National Security Advisor to President Trump, H.R. McMaster, he's going to join me next live to discuss this and many other threats.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:10:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Welcome back. Today the Senate Intelligence Committee is set to receive a briefing behind closed doors on the issue of election security. This on the same week we're learning that the CIA says Russian President, Vladimir Putin, is probably directing Russia's interference once again, and the FBI's warning that foreign actors might try to spread disinformation about the 2020 election results.
I'm joined now by the president's former National Security Advisor, Lieutenant General -- retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. He is out with a new book titled, "Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World". I've got a copy right here. I would really recommend it as a way to understand the new threats faced by the U.S. and others in this environment. H.R., great to have you on this morning.
LT. GEN. H.R. MCMASTER (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Jim, thanks. Great to be with you.
SCIUTTO: All right, so let's start if I can on the news. So U.S. intelligence again indicates Russia is interfering in the U.S. presidential election as well as the broader political conversation here under Putin's direction to help Donald Trump and hurt his Democratic opponent as we saw in 2016. Given your experience particularly with Russia, why does the Kremlin prefer, it seems, President Trump?
MCMASTER: Well Jim, you know, despite this report, I don't know if they really prefer anybody. What they want to do is they want to sow doubt about whoever wins, right, and make sure that Americans lose confidence in our democratic process and in our institutions and in elections broadly but really who we are as a people.
So anything they can do to divide us, and you know, I mean, Putin and the Kremlin they're always -- they're always like a step ahead, right? I mean, they're always thinking about what can we do next to make it even worse for Americans in terms of how we view ourselves and one another, and I think that's what -- I think that's what they're up to, you know? It's what they -- what they -- I don't think they really care who wins along as we doubt the result and then -- and that they're able to polarize us further and pit us against each other.
SCIUTTO: I get that, and I get that Putin, the Kremlin win regardless, right, because any disarray in this country serves their interest, but the fact is they focus their negative disinformation, right, on Hillary Clinton 2016 and now on Joe Biden. Why then that focus if it doesn't matter to them who wins?
MCMASTER: Well it -- well, you know, it's -- well it's a win-win for them, right, because what happens is if they're seen as actively undercutting one candidate, the other candidate wins. The other candidate's discredited. It's like -- you know, it's how can they lose in that scenario, right?
[09:15:00]
So Putin's really sophisticated about this. Jim, like in the 2016 election, what I found as we were looking into this is that the Internet Research Agency, like this front organization --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: For the -- you know, the Kremlin spies running the sustained campaign against us, well, their activity went like way up right after the election. And they had a campaign like ready to go of -- you know, hey, Trump should have won, but you know, the election was rigged. But when Trump actually did win, they had to shift it, oh, well, he would have won the popular vote.
SCIUTTO: Right --
MCMASTER: And so, they're always just trying to sow these doubts about our processes. Hey, what we ought to be proud about though I think and positive about, there have been a lot of adaptations since 2016. I mean, their organizations stood up to protect you know, the election infrastructure, but then also to counter the disinformation and propaganda. This report that you saw, the --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: You know, that came -- you know, leaked or whatever out of the intelligence agency, it's just an indicator. The government is working on this hard. And I think Jim, what we need to do is we all need to work on it hard ourselves, right? I mean, because what Russia does is like they take advantage of any division we have, right? And as we -- we're at each other's throats, you know, from a partisan perspective. You know, Russia is just -- I mean, they're celebrating. You know, this is --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: Great, a great situation for them.
SCIUTTO: I get that. I do. And you see it. Listen, Russia as you know better than me dives into every divisive issue, whether it be take a knee in the NFL, right? Or to election disputes. But what has been missing as you know is a unified American bipartisan response. MCMASTER: Right.
SCIUTTO: You know, you look at a whole issue of provocations recently, you know, bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, arm sales to the Taliban, you know, the poisoning --
MCMASTER: Yes --
SCIUTTO: Of Navalny, which in any other time, you would imagine everybody including the president would be standing up and saying, Putin, stop it, right? But the president doesn't do that. And I just want to play what he said -- I'm sure you heard this, but I just want to play what he said yesterday to a --
MCMASTER: Yes --
SCIUTTO: Rally and ask you a quick question about it. Have a listen.
MCMASTER: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I get along. I like Putin, he likes me. You know, we get along.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: But the fact is, Russia doesn't have our interests at mind -- at heart. Do you have any explanation for --
MCMASTER: Yes --
SCIUTTO: Why the president --
MCMASTER: Right --
SCIUTTO: Won't just utter the simple words, don't mess with us, Russia. I'm on to you.
MCMASTER: Yes, right. You know, Jim, I don't understand it. You know, I wish -- I wish President Trump would just realize, hey, Vladimir Putin is not his friend, right? I mean, he wasn't --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: George W. Bush's friend when George W. Bush looked into his soul, he's not Barack Obama's --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: Friend when he was trying to work with Medvedev. He's not Hillary Clinton's friend when she brought a --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: Reset button to Lavrov. I mean, it's like it's self- delusion. And you know, I wrote about this in "Battlegrounds", it's like this strategic narcissism, right? We define the world as we like it to be and assume that's where it's going to be. And we have to confront the reality. I mean, Putin is the best liar in the world, and he combines this effort to disrupt us, right? To shake our confidence in who we are with these flat denials of even what is so obvious that they've done, right? The poisoning --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: Of Navalny, using like a nerve agent just like they did with Skripal, I remember in Salisbury, England, you know --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: In the Spring of 2018. I mean, it's kind of obvious, I mean, these are people who -- they shot down an airliner --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: Full of innocent people in Ukraine, and they said, oh, that wasn't us.
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: What do you mean it wasn't us. There was incontrovertible evidence. So Jim, it's -- I don't understand it. I think the president should be stronger on this, should be just direct about it, and we should all be direct about it.
SCIUTTO: You in your book, you focused particularly on the threats from Russia and China. And of course, China is a country that the president reversing that --
MCMASTER: Yes --
SCIUTTO: Narcissism if you can say it in terms of our view of the world from previous administrations. One that he's been very direct against. But I wonder, from your perspective, who is the bigger threat including to the elections? Is it Russia or China or they're different kinds of threats?
MCMASTER: Yes, you know, they're different kinds of threat, Jim. I mean, China is a huge threat because of scale, right? I mean, the size of their economy. They've increased their defense spending 800 percent. It's the largest I think -- that I'm aware of, peace-time build-up of a military in history.
And we see them becoming more and more aggressive in so many ways. And so what China wants to do is they want to take center stage, right? This is the narrative of national rejuvenation from Xi Jinping. But Russia realize -- I think realizes that they're weak, right? I mean, they have economy the size of Texas, they have big problems and in the collapse of oil prices.
[09:20:00] COVID, you know, hit them hard, there's a lot of internal dissension now especially in the eastern part of the country. But -- well, Putin's standards are lower, right? He just wants to drag us down, right? And that he --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: And Putin thinks, hey, I'll be the last man standing, right? As I watch the United States, as I watch European countries, right, consume themselves --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: In their vitriolic, partisan politics, and you know, as you mentioned, right? I mean, and what you've written about, Jim, is that what they do is they use whatever issue can divide us, right? So about 80 percent of this Internet Research Agency's efforts are on race, divide us on race.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MCMASTER: Right?
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MCMASTER: And then they go to hot-button political issues like, you know, like immigration or gun control.
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: And so whenever we have these conversations, we're like we're yelling at each other instead of having civil discussions about these issues. We're just playing into --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: Their hands.
SCIUTTO: Yes, I get it. I want to ask you about the coronavirus because your successor, Robert O'Brien, according to Bob Woodward's book told the president earlier this year, coronavirus would be his biggest national security threat of his presidency. We just surpassed 200,000 dead Americans. No clear national plan at this point. Has the U.S. failed from a national security perspective in its response?
MCMASTER: Well, I mean, we haven't done as well as we should have, and I think what you see in this case is, you see how difficult it is to implement, right? You have to get things done, right? You can't just like write a plan, you have to actually implement that plan. And there are three aspects to this.
I'll just go through this quickly which I think is important for viewers to know. First of all, you want to be able to stop it early, right? Stop it where it starts so it doesn't get to your shores. And of course, thank you, China's Communist Party. I mean, they suppressed any of the news of the human-to-human transmission, they didn't -- they shut down, you know, internal --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: Transportation before international, all of that. The second thing is you want to mobilize biomedical response. That's where we had the biggest problems, right? Because we have these very fragile supply chains, right? That we were over reliant on China, but they were biased in favor of efficiency and just-in-time delivery, OK? OK, we can't do that again --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: The pharmaceuticals and personal protective equipment. So mobilizing a response is hard for us, right? Because we don't have like a centralized system, right? It's public and private and it's federal and local. So coordination of the effort. That was the biggest shortfall --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: I think. And the third area is innovation. How do you get therapies, how do you get a vaccine? Jim, that's actually going very well, you know?
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: And I heard your reporting, but I really -- I'm very confident in the vaccine effort. I know a lot of the people that are involved --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: With it, in operation warp speed. That's going to be -- that's going to be on the plus side, right?
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: On the minus side are those first two, stop it early and --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: Mobilize the response. And that's what we have to work on and get better at.
SCIUTTO: It has moved quickly, just finally before I go. We've seen former military leaders and advisors to the president, Mattis, Kelly, McRaven and others question his decisions, question even in some respects his fitness for office.
I know, this is uncomfortable territory for all military leaders, yourself included. Deliberately, in your book, I just wonder from your perspective, given your many years of service to this country as a soldier and a commander. What is the greater duty for military leaders today, to remain apolitical or to share concerns about the well-being of the country? MCMASTER: You know, I think it's both, right? To remain apolitical
and share concerns, but don't do it in a partisan way. Don't get dragged down into the morass of partisan politics. This is why -- I mean, you know, I'm very critical about Trump policies in the book, right?
I mean, I'm very critical. But I'm not going to get into these ad hominem attacks and these petty partisanship. What we have to really do is resist any effort to drag the military into the partisan politics. You know, our founders were very cognizant of this. You know, the -- I mean, George Washington's grandparents fled the English civil war, and so we can never have the military involved in politics. So --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: I think every political leader has responsibility for those two, because, you know, Jim, I mean, there are many examples of this where you know, if you have a partisan agenda, hey, just get some admirals and generals to sign up, you know, for --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: Your program. I think --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
MCMASTER: We have to resist doing that.
SCIUTTO: I get you. H.R. McMaster, the book is "Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World", I got my copy, it's a smart book, it helps you understand where we're heading these days. We appreciate your time.
MCMASTER: Thanks so much, Jim, great to be with you.
SCIUTTO: Bring back Poppy now, of course, Poppy, we have quite a moment this morning. Remembering Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the Supreme Court.
HARLOW: That's right. Take a look at this. Look at these. What a moment. Just look at that image, live pictures on the steps of the high court as we wait for the casket of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to arrive. She'll be accompanied by hundred of her former law clerks. You see them there on the steps. Let's bring in our Jessica Schneider, Joan Biskupic and Ariane de Vogue. Joan, let me begin with you on the significance of this moment and this day.
[09:25:00]
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It's -- I can't overstate it, Poppy. You know, I remember being in the Rose Garden in 1993 when President Clinton nominated her. And he referred to her as the Thurgood Marshall of women's civil rights. And she stood for equality, and now, her casket will be there under the portico of a building that says, you know, "equal justice under law". And she talked about how she hoped that during her tenure, she would
live up to her mother's aspirations for her. And what you just described on the front steps of the Capitol, her clerks and all those people lined up, mothers, fathers with young children. She's -- her legacy in the law is one of equality, certainly.
But her personal stature spoke to so many, so many Americans. You know, and she became the notorious RBG, someone who went beyond the law to touch them in terms of, you know, social pop culture, and just someone who was inspiring in so many ways. So I would say since 1993 to now, we've seen a transformation in America, but it was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was trying to keep the country moored to the guarantee --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
BISKUPIC: Of equal rights.
SCIUTTO: Ariane, I have to say as I watch this image there at the court, I'm getting goose bumps. I have not seen something comparable to that. That show of support. Show of force. A solemn moment. If someone embodied a bridge, right, at the court, it was someone like RBG, was it not?
You know, friendship with Scalia but also the respect on both sides of the aisle. Her confirmation by a near unanimous vote in the Senate. Was she to some degree sadly the last to represent that kind of bridge as the court has become more divided?
ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Well, you're certainly right, Jim. And it was interesting, her relationship with Justice Scalia, but just standing a feet away right now from this army of clerks, you really -- when you talk to them, they say just what you're talking about. That kind of bridge. Working for her was a lesson in the law for sure, but it was also a lesson in life.
She taught them about how to be civil. How to disagree agreeably. Her dearest friend was Justice Scalia. But these clerks right here, they're going to greet this casket. There are a mix of her Supreme Court clerks and her appellate law clerks, and they will greet it, you know, go with it up the steps and then in shifts, they're going to stand guard over this casket while it's here.
A lot of them talked about their lessons, and Poppy will remember when she interviewed Ginsburg, one of the things that she said was to some of the female clerks, you know, you can't -- you can have it all, but you can't have it all at the same time. And that emboldened them through --
HARLOW: Yes --
DE VOGUE: Their clerkship and beyond. And right now, you're seeing the honorary pallbearers, here are some of the clerks coming down who will serve as honorary pallbearers.
HARLOW: Yes, I think about those words all the time, Joan. And her great advice, sometimes it's good to be a little deaf both to your colleagues and in your marriage. It was good advice that she followed. We're waiting for this moment and the casket to arrive, Jessica Schneider, what are your thoughts as you've stood outside that court this whole term, Jess, and brought us the news and the rulings and often heard dissents, right? She is known as the great dissenter.
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right. Often reading those dissents from the bench, Poppy, in her quiet, yet forceful voice. I'll tell you, I've stood out here many times but usually waiting for opinions. It has been quite a moment in just the past few minutes actually.
This entire area has been quiet all morning outside the Supreme Court, but a real hush fell over this building crowd in just the last few minutes when we saw these dozens of former law clerks walking out on to the steps to await the arrival of Justice Ginsburg's casket. There are more than 100 out on the steps here.
And actually, as we're seeing right now, we're looking at the hearse that seems to be arriving here with Justice Ginsburg's casket. We've seen a few of the former law clerks step forward near the street, near first street northeast here.
These appear to be the former law clerks who will be serving as the pallbearers this morning. So, while they serve as the pallbearers, the other 100 or so clerks, they will line the steps as Justice Ginsburg's casket makes its way up the steps and into the Supreme Court, into the great hall. That's where first this morning, there will be that private ceremony. We're expecting it will be close friends, family, the justices.
