Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

FDA Approves First New Alzheimer's Drug In 20 Years; Biden's Justice Department To Defend Trump In Lawsuit Over Rape Denial; "The Office" Star Apologizes For Participating In "Racist" Pageant As A Teen. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired June 08, 2021 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00]

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Doesn't need to tell the government when they've been attacked is just a crazy notion.

But what my letter to the president focuses on is I've seen this for years. I've seen it for years. We have not established any sort of deterrents on cyberattacks.

I remember back to President Obama's response to the 2016 election hack. There was the deportation of a bunch of Russian diplomats (in air quotes), closure of a facility. And, of course, Vladimir Putin turned around and did it again and again and again.

And so what we need to do -- and I've had this conversation with any number of White House officials -- we need to extract a significant cost from those who do this.

Now, the FBI, of course, recovered some of the ransom associated with Colonial Pipeline. But the Russians and the Chinese, and the North Koreans, and the Iranians need to know that if they attack our infrastructure they are going to get that back proportionately. And how we do that, of course, is fairly classified and the right way to do it is a little bit complicated.

But we start -- need to start melting people's equipment, emptying people's bank accounts, and setting up a deterrent. We have never effectively done that and it's time for that to change.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Go on offense a little bit.

Congressman, I want your take on something that I think surprised a lot of people overnight, which is that the Merrick Garland-led Justice Department is taking Donald Trump's side in this defamation lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll, who has accused the president of rape. She's also sued him for defamation for how he responded to her allegations of rape.

The Bill Barr Justice Department said you can't do this because the president can't be sued for defamation while he says things in office as part of his job. Merrick Garland's Justice Department says you know what, we agree with Donald Trump and Bill Barr on this. Are you satisfied with that?

HIMES: No, I'm not satisfied with that. I mean, this is all going back to the previous topic of conversation. This is all, once again, Donald Trump escaping accountability, potentially, for wrongdoing. This is the story of this man's life. So, of course, it's not satisfying.

Now, if you get a lawyer on the show they'll explain to you why every once in a while when the president's equities are at stake -- you know, the Department of Justice. And the president, of course, is not necessarily defending Donald Trump or his behavior but they're defending principles of how you ought to be able to go after a sitting president.

So, no, it's profoundly unsatisfying but we'll need to ask the lawyers to explain to us exactly why it makes sense for the DOJ.

BERMAN: At first blush, are you disappointed in the Justice Department for this?

HIMES: Yes. Since this was about personal conduct prior to Donald Trump becoming president, to me, that sort of feels like he ought to be held accountable the way any other American citizen would be held accountable for his actions. But again, you'll need to talk to a DOJ lawyer about why they think this makes sense.

BERMAN: Congressman Jim Himes, a pleasure to see you. Thanks so much for coming in.

HIMES: Thank you, John.

BERMAN: All right. It could be a game-changer as we look ahead to the next school year. The first drugmaker revealing when children as young as five, Brianna Keilar --

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Yes.

BERMAN: -- might receive their coronavirus vaccines.

And, former "OFFICE" star and Kimmy Schmidt star Ellie Kemper apologizing for taking part in a controversial teen pageant that she now calls racist and sexist.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:37:40]

KEILAR: This morning we are learning more about the effectiveness of coronavirus vaccines. The CDC has actually released a new report that found the coronavirus vaccine leads to milder disease in rare breakthrough cases, which is certainly good news.

So let's discuss it now with our CNN chief medical correspondent and author of the book "Keep Sharp," Dr. Sanjay Gupta. OK, Sanjay, no vaccine is 100 percent effective against coronavirus

but this is -- this is pretty good news about if you do catch it in a breakthrough case.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Right, this is the big -- the big news -- the idea that it's going to prevent severe disease -- this vaccine. We've known that for some time.

We subsequently learned that it was going to make you much less likely to actually get infected -- a breakthrough infection. Ninety percent protection against that. And we know it makes you far less likely to be contagious.

But it was always this question -- OK, I got vaccinated, I still get infected -- how sick am I really likely to be? And that's what this new data is really about, showing that you're far less likely to have a fever, going to spend fewer days in the -- in bed. And you're going to have a lower viral load, meaning you're carrying less virus in your nose and your mouth; therefore less likely to spread it.

So this is -- this is good news. We've known this for some time. People often think of vaccines as sort of binary. Is it going to prevent the illness or not? You can see it can really sort of decrease the symptoms of illness as well.

BERMAN: Sanjay, masks. Some people still are trying to figure out when they should and shouldn't wear them. You have a new essay on this.

GUPTA: Yes. I mean, this is really interesting, right? We've developed these behaviors over the last year, year and several months, about now wearing masks. And as we increasingly are told that we don't necessarily need them, some of those behaviors are sort of built into the point where people will continue to wear them. We're seeing a lot of that.

But really, what this comes down to for a lot of people is sort of assessing your level of risk, which can be hard because we're dealing with a new virus.

So a couple of things. You know, I've been doing a lot of research into this, talking to lots of people. Just how do we navigate risk overall?

First of all, take a look at this map. If you're trying to figure out if you go to a gathering, let's say, of 1,000 people in a place around the country, what is your likelihood of running into someone with COVID? What is the likelihood you're going to breathe in someone else's air and that air has the virus in it? Well, the darker red here, the more likely that is to happen.

[07:40:09]

If you've been vaccinated -- again, as we just said -- you're very unlikely to get sick from this. But might you still potentially be a carrier? What we find is that a lot of people navigate risk by trying to figure

out not necessarily how likely is this to happen to me but, frankly, is it worth it? Is it worth it that I go to this particular event, is it worth it that I go to the concert or whatever, and then balancing it that way -- or as somebody told me, who is a psychologist and a professional poker player, would you be willing to bet on it? Would you be willing to bet $100 that you're not going to come in contact with COVID?

Once you're forced to bet on uncertainty, which is what poker players do all the time, it makes -- it forces you to really assess risk in a different way.

If I tell you something is .5 percent mortal, lethal, a group of people will say so one in 200 people are going to die? We need to be really careful. Another group of people may say so I'm 99.5 percent good. I don't have to worry as much.

Same exact data, different interpretations, depending on your level of risk. And you've just got to understand that people navigate that differently.

KEILAR: And look, we were talking about kids being vaccinated. Are you going to bet on your kid's health, right?

BERMAN: Yes.

KEILAR: You don't want to -- you don't want to do that. That's what I'm certainly finding personally. And, John and I have discussed this because he has boys who are older and they are vaccinated. It's amazing.

BERMAN: As of yesterday, yes.

KEILAR: We're leading different lives, right, because my kids are little.

And there's some big news, Sanjay. Moderna's CEO says their vaccine likely is going to be available for children as young as five here by the early fall. Do you think that's true? I want to know.

GUPTA: Yes. No, I -- you bring up a good point, first of all, on the other thing regarding risk. I've had that same calculation. My three girls, by the way, got their second shot yesterday.

You know, the idea that people say well, kids are not as likely to get sick, that is true. But you also balance it with what does the activity that we're trying to get them to do -- is it worth it? That is -- again, this is not easy. We navigate risk in all these different parts of our lives every day, even pre-COVID.

But I think you're absolutely right in terms of thinking about this for kids.

As far as kids your kids' age, Brianna, it's looking very likely. I mean, we heard this from Moderna yesterday that by early fall they are going to apply for an emergency use authorization for kids as young as five. That's what they're anticipating.

It's likely that Pfizer may even go earlier than that, so maybe early September. Who knows?

The real crux for them right now is they've got to figure out the right dosing for these kids. They have pretty good evidence this thing works. They have pretty good evidence that this vaccine generates antibodies, even in young people. But now they've got to make sure they get the dosing right and that could take some time. That's where we sort of get to the early fall timeframe.

KEILAR: Yes, I can't wait.

BERMAN: So, Sanjay, the FDA approved a new Alzheimer's drug yesterday. This got a lot of attention because there are questions about exactly how effective it is.

What can you tell us about this drug and how much of a difference it really will make?

GUPTA: This is a fascinating story overall in just drug development.

And what I can tell is there's controversy over this drug even though it is now approved because there were essentially two trials and the trials had contradictory results. One trial, at a high dose of the drug, showed that it really did not seem to offer benefit. Another trial -- subsequent trial -- showed that it may have offered a little bit of benefit.

We can show you specifically. So the drug, Aducanumab -- by the way, if it has "mab" at the end -- this is a little pro tip -- that usually stands for monoclonal antibody, a term that many people now know over this past year. So whenever you see mab, that's a monoclonal antibody drug, which is what this is.

It targets amyloid plaque. That's the plaque that's often associated with Alzheimer's disease. And it showed some reduction in amyloid plaque.

The question was OK, great, you reduced the plaque. Does it also improve symptoms? And that's where the sort of contradictory studies came in.

What you hear from the FDA -- and this goes back a few years -- is that for certain diseases like Alzheimer's that have tremendous unmet need -- really haven't had a therapeutic in Alzheimer's in 20 years now, roughly. When you have something like this -- lots of people suffer from it -- a tremendously unmet need -- your bar for the level of evidence may be a little bit lower and that's probably what we're seeing here.

They've also said look, we're going to continue to follow this drug -- essentially, a sort of phase-four trial if you will. And if it -- if it doesn't sort of hold up it is possible the FDA might rescind this. But for now, this is going to be the first new, approved Alzheimer's drug in two decades. KEILAR: Which is very exciting but also tempering, I think, our expectations. This isn't the silver bullet --

GUPTA: Yes.

KEILAR: -- but it's so good to see progress there.

Sanjay, great to see you.

[07:45:00]

GUPTA: Yes.

BERMAN: Also for the neurosurgery decoder ring. Like, now I know what -- you know, what those letters mean.

KEILAR: That's right -- mab, mab. We learn something from you every day, Sanjay.

GUPTA: I do my best.

KEILAR: New overnight, the Biden Justice Department is arguing that it should be able to represent former President Trump in a defamation lawsuit brought by columnist E. Jean Carroll. Carroll's lawsuit alleges that Trump defamed her when he denied raping her in the nineties.

In an appeals court brief, DOJ lawyers argue that Trump was an employee of the government at the time and acted within the scope of employment. In October, a district judge rejected the Justice Department's attempt to replace Trump in the lawsuit.

So we need to discuss this, right? There's so many questions here. Let's talk about it with CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams.

OK, explain how they got to this point because surely this not -- you know, this is not Merrick Garland saying I really want to go to bat for Trump. It's not about going to bat for Trump.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Right. It's two questions when you read the brief.

It's number one, is the president an employee of the federal government? That's a big portion of this brief, and the answer is yes. I mean, come on, that's a slam-dunk even though Carroll argues that he's not. Yes, the president.

Then, are the president's actions within the scope of his employment? Because the president had issued statements and spoken in press conferences and so on -- which are necessarily the duties of the president, even though he committed the acts of defamation, allegedly -- those were deemed to be within the scope of his employment and that shields him from lawsuit under the federal law.

It's a pretty -- like, I get how they got there. It is a pretty aggressive reading of federal law to say that a president when committing an act of defamation from the dais or from the press conference that he's now speaking within the act. Because think about it. What would ever disincentivize a future president from always committing acts of defamation or just saying whatever he wanted when speaking publicly because he knew he would be shielded?

BERMAN: I feel like this decision teaches us a lot --

WILLIAMS: Yes.

BERMAN: -- about the Justice Department now and how the Justice Department is going to act separately from politics now.

Aside from the merits of this case specifically, it feels like we've learned a lot about what Merrick Garland promised in his delivery here, which is --

WILLIAMS: Right, because if they were to have immediately changed course in this decision it would have appeared to be a straight political decision that look, we don't like Donald Trump. We don't like William Barr and how they did things before, and therefore, we're going to go back on this decision.

What they were ultimately trying to do is protect future government employees and future presidents. Like I said, it's an aggressive reading of the law with the goal being trying to minimize the number of times that future employees of the government and presidents can be sued.

KEILAR: And certainly -- look, a lot of critics of President Trump's are going to look at this and say why? Why should he be protected from this?

But at the same time, isn't there an argument to be made that one, it is the presidency -- it's not Trump himself. But also, you can't be not OK with the Justice Department as it operated under Trump and then be not OK with it trying to right itself and trying to be the --

WILLIAMS: Right.

KEILAR: -- the objective presence in government that it is supposed to be.

WILLIAMS: And it's not just the Justice Department, it's Donald Trump, right? And it's people -- many people in the public just feel that Donald Trump wasn't held accountable for his actions, right, over the course of several years. There were two impeachments and insurrection -- you know, all of the above, and I think that's getting lumped into this decision here.

People are regarding this as well, there you go again. You're failing to hold Donald Trump accountable. But this is a bigger decision than just one man and one pretty -- a president who engaged in some pretty reprehensible conduct. But it's bigger than him.

BERMAN: And again, we're told the White House had no knowledge of what the Justice Department is doing here. This does show the separation and does show, perhaps, how this department will behave going forward.

One other bit of news overnight, which is that federal investigators have apparently asked for records of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's book --

WILLIAMS: Right.

BERMAN: -- and book deal and the research that went into it. And this has to do with the type of reporting that went into deaths in nursing homes.

What do you think they're looking for here and what would this type of information reveal?

WILLIAMS: Right. I mean, look, if you're investigating deaths in nursing homes in a state, a treasure trove of information are the past drafts of a governor's book about deaths in the state in a -- in a pandemic and what they -- and I believe they've also spoken to employees and seen drafts of the book. And so, I think it's just to gather data and it's quite useful now.

Now, what the governor has done, as many do in a similar position, is attack integrity of the investigation and say well, the people running for governor are coming after me.

But this was an entirely valid -- entirely valid subpoena and an entirely valid request for information, it's just politically sensitive.

BERMAN: Elliot Williams, great to see you. Thanks so much for coming in.

WILLIAMS: Seeing you in person.

BERMAN: Yes, very nice.

KEILAR: Here we are.

BERMAN: All right.

The actress Ellie Kemper is apologizing after a social media firestorm over her participation in a controversial pageant as a teenager.

[07:50:05]

CNN's Laura Jarrett joins us now with the details -- Laura.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR, "EARLY START": John, many people these days when faced with something from their past that they aren't so proud of go on the defensive. They say they've been canceled.

But, Ellie Kemper says she wants some good to come from this experience. Candidly drawing attention to her own privilege, she's not shying away from calling out a group with a past and a purpose that she now says she rejects.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JARRETT (voice-over): She's best known for her quirky comedic charm in shows like "THE OFFICE" and "UNBREAKABLE KIMMY SCHMIDT."

ELLIE KEMPER, ACTRESS: Scene from "THE UNBREAKABLE KIMMY SCHMIDT."

JARRETT: Now, Ellie Kemper is apologizing for her past participation in a popular debutante ball historically put on by a group of wealthy white people in St. Louis and co-founded by a Confederate officer.

Last week, old newspaper clippings surfaced on social media featuring this photo. The image from the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch" shows Kemper being crowned the queen of love and beauty at the Veiled Prophet Ball in 1999.

The now-41-year-old actress addressed the backlash in an Instagram post on Monday, writing quote, "When I was 19 years old, I decided to participate in a debutante ball in my hometown. The century-old organization that hosted the debutante ball had an unquestionably racist, sexist, and elitist past.

I was not aware of the history at the time but ignorance is no excuse. I was old enough to have educated myself before getting involved. I unequivocally deplore, denounce, and reject white supremacy."

The event is hosted annually by a Missouri-based organization which excluded Black and Jewish people until the late 1970s.

The Veiled Prophet Organization issued a statement last week saying, "Our organization believes in and promotes inclusion, diversity, and equality. We absolutely reject racism and have never partnered or associated with any organization that harbors these beliefs."

Meanwhile, Kemper says the recent criticism is giving her a chance to grow, saying, "I want to apologize to the people I've disappointed, and I promise that moving forward I will listen, continue to educate myself, and use my privilege in support of the better society I think we're capable of becoming."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JARRETT: After her apology, Kemper has received a ton of support on social media. Her former co-stars like Mindy Kaling and Rainn Wilson have come out in support of her on Instagram. And one fan writing on Instagram, quote, "See, this, my friends, is a damn good apology."

John.

BERMAN: Laura Jarrett, thank you very much -- interesting.

JARRETT: Sure.

BERMAN: So, a damning new report this morning into the intelligence failures leading up to the January sixth insurrection. We're going to speak to one of the top Democrats who authored this report about what it specifically does not include.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:57:08]

KEILAR: What does staying competitive with China have to do with ex- President Trump's border wall? Nothing. But a bipartisan bill designed to keep the U.S. in step with China is barely squeaking through the Senate. And, John Avlon tells us some of the ridiculous reasons why in today's Reality Check.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It's time to talk about the three B's -- bipartisanship, Beijing, and Biden. Because later today, the Senate is expected to finally pass the bipartisan U.S. Innovation and Competition Act -- a nearly quarter of a trillion investment in high-tech research and development designed to counter China's rise.

Now, the fact that the U.S. is advancing industrial policy at all is a BFD. Because after years of Republicans campaigning on fears of China's dominance, the Senate is finally doing something about it, backing President Biden's call for democracies to outcompete authoritarian regimes.

But its rocky path to passage shows how reflective partisanship obstruction can slow down even those few bills where there is wide bipartisan support. It doesn't exactly bode well for issues where's there's no sign of (INAUDIBLE) divide, like voting rights.

Now, this bill basically boosts research and development in critical technology so we don't have to rely on foreign suppliers. It should be an easy win for a 50-50 Senate, right? Well, Democrats investing in business, backing American manufacturing to counter China -- but no, this is Washington.

To tell you the full absurdity, we're going to have to talk about Sen. Ron Johnson because the Wisconsin senator and part-time conspiracy theorist tried to link funding for Trump's border wall with the China bill, which obviously has nothing to do with each other. Democrats actually decided to humor him by allowing Johnson to offer an amendment. It failed, which made Johnson furious and he tried to hold the bill hostage, bringing the Senate to a standstill for hours.

Now, almost as much of an insult to common sense came in the form of Republican complaints that this bipartisan bill was too partisan. Now, keep in mind that Senate leader Chuck Schumer allowed Republicans to offer more than a dozen amendments, which ultimately led to substantive additions like revisions to punish China for I.P. theft and forced labor.

No wonder the co-sponsoring Republican senator, Todd Young, praised a fairly strict forward and uncomplicated regular process, saying I can't recall when this has happened since I've been in the U.S. Senate.

Now, it's not his imagination. There have actually already been more amendments allowed on Senate roll call votes this year than there were in any of the Trump-McConnell years. But that's not stopping many Republicans from complaining about Biden and Democrats being insufficiently bipartisan.

Check out this howler of a heading from a Mitch McConnell op-ed. "Democrats must choose bipartisan solutions over grasping for raw political power." That's some primo projection.

Remember, after Trump's COVID relief bills passed with broad bipartisan margins, not a single Republican voted for Biden's American Rescue Plan, which didn't stop many of them from trying to take credit for the stimulus back home.

Then there was Republicans' shameful vote to oppose a bipartisan commission to investigate the January sixth Capitol attack, even from those senators who'd been talking about supporting it only days before.