Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Nation on Verge of Surpassing 200,000 Coronavirus Deaths; Fierce Showdown on Capitol Hill over Replacing Justice Ginsburg; More Colleges Canceling Spring Break to Help Slow Virus Spread. Aired 10- 10:30a ET

Aired September 21, 2020 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: A very good Monday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: And I'm Poppy Harlow.

This morning, President Trump says he is down to a handful of Supreme Court picks to replace the trailblazing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and he says he will announce his announcement either on Friday or Saturday this week with the balance of power on the nation's highest court at stake and the election just weeks away. This is going to be an epic battle on Capitol Hill and it is already in full swing as the Republican -- as Republicans vow a fast confirmation. More on that in just a moment.

SCIUTTO: Yes. You just can't underestimate the effects, including on this coming election. And as the nation closes in on just a grim milestone of 200,000 deaths from coronavirus, President Trump this morning, again, denies the reality.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're rounding the corner, with or without a vaccine. They hate it when I say that but that's the way it is. We're rounding the corner on the pandemic, and we've done a phenomenal job, not just a good job, a phenomenal job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: It's just not true. It's not true. The data belies that claim. And right now, look at the map, that's 28 states across the country seeing a rise in cases.

CNN's Alexandra Field, she joins us now with the latest.

Okay. So how many states, how bad and what are experts attributing this to at this point?

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely no evidence that we are rounding the corner here. In fact, experts are saying that there is a clear spike in the number of cases. What isn't clear is whether we can attribute this to Labor Day gatherings or whether this may suggest a resurgence for the fall and winter months ahead.

The data is very clear. We're seeing the numbers tick upward. If you look at the national average over the last seven days, we're seeing this upward climb now averaging around 41,000 new cases every day across the country. The map spells it out as well. It doesn't look good. 28 states seeing increases in cases of more than 10 percent in just the last week.

All that have as the CDC is issuing new guidance that should make it even more clear just how easy it is to transfer this virus. Previously, the guidance from the CDC was to stay six feet apart. They have said the virus could spread through droplets, meaning coughing, sneezing, talking. Now, they're saying, we can transfer it to one another just by breathing. That's how simple it is. Jim, Poppy?

HARLOW: Yes, really important update to the guidance. People are confused at this point since it's been changing. Thank you, Alex, for the reporting.

As Alex just mentioned, the CDC has changed its COVID-19 guidance again. That's we've talked about. And it now says, as she mentioned, it can be commonly spread through viral particles in the air.

SCIUTTO: With us now is Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen. So, Elizabeth, listen, we're learning more about this, scientists are learning more about this as we go, right, and there have been many updates to our understanding as we go on. How significant is this one, and what does it mean, I mean, crucially, about all the kind of steps that we take to try to prevent the spread, including masks?

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'll tell you, Jim, when I first heard about this, that they made this change just in the past couple of days, I thought what took them so long. In April, in April, the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science groups there is, wrote a letter to the White House saying this, a letter that was made public. This has been known for months. I don't know why it took the CDC so long to put this on their site.

But let's take a look at exactly what the CDC is saying right now. They are saying the coronavirus most commonly spreads when people are within six feet of each other. This is me, not them saying it. Think of it as a direct hit. You're standing next to someone. They sneeze, they cough, they spit a little when they talk, it hits you, you get hit.

However, they say there is growing evidence that droplets can remain suspended in the air, so, in other words, someone with coronavirus spits a little bit, hangs in the air, you're nowhere near, you're on the other side of the room but then a little while later you walk by that airspace, you could inhale it. And that is why they are now saying -- the CDC is now saying, stay at least six feet from others whenever possible. That at least part is new. They have been saying six feet for months and months now but saying at least six feet is new for them.

So, really, the message here is really stay as far away from other people as you can and certainly wear a mask when you have to be near people. Jim, Poppy?

HARLOW: Before you go, Elizabeth, we know the president has talked about wanting and hoping for a vaccine by Election Day. Has there been any update on where we are because 42 days out now?

COHEN: Right. There has been no change.

[10:05:00]

Every expert that I've spoken has said there is just pretty much absolutely no way that we're going to have a vaccine approved and available by Election Day, including people who are within President Trump's own government.

And let's talk a little bit about why. In order to get it approved, that's hard enough. That takes long enough. But then to get it on the market and widely available, that's even harder. Let's take a listen to what White House task force member Brett Giroir had to say on that point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADM. BRETT GIROIR, WHITE HOUSE CORONAVIRUS TESTING CZAR: In front of the Senate, Dr. Redfield and I both said that a vaccine that would be widely available in hundreds of millions of doses would not likely happen until mid-2021. That is a fact.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: It takes a long time to distribute a vaccine to the entire country. And, remember, this is probably going to be a two-dose vaccine so you've got to distribute it not once by twice. Jim and Poppy?

SCIUTTO: Elizabeth Cohen, good to have you, as always.

We're joined now by Dr. Megan Ranney. She is Associate Professor of Emergency -- Professor of Emergency Medicine at Brown University. Dr. Ranney, always good to have you on.

So a spike in cases, I mean, notably, we're almost right on the nose two weeks out from Labor Day weekend. And we saw spikes after Memorial Day and July 4th weekend. Is that the most likely explanation for what we're seeing right now in this country?

DR. MEGAN RANNEY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, BROWN UNIVERSITY: There are a couple of explanations for why we think that we're seeing a spike in cases. The first is absolutely Labor Day. As you said, we did see those spikes after July 4th and Memorial Day. We know that people were getting together, having family gatherings, having those close encounters that Dr. Cohen just mentioned are likely to spread the virus. The other thing, of course, is that many colleges across the country have gone back and we know that that, that mix of students from across the country is also serving to spread the virus.

And then the third part is that as it starts to get colder across the country, people are going indoors, schools are reopening. And so in areas that already had high levels of community spread of COVID, we're suspecting that going indoors is also leading to the increase in cases, and we're worried that it's only going to continue. This is the beginning of our second wave.

HARLOW: Dr. Ranney, can I ask you about something that has changed in the last few days, and that is HHS Secretary Alex Azar, put out a memo on the 15th of September saying that, basically, anything, any new rules, anything that goes through any of their agencies, including a vaccine, would have to be approved by him, right, quote, is reserved to the secretary.

Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding called this a power grab and he said it wields power to approve a drug or vaccine with an emergency use authorization. What is your reaction to hearing this? What does this actually mean for a vaccine and the timeline?

RANNEY: Yes, Poppy, this is tremendously worrying to those of us on the frontlines, those of us that are scientists and public health professionals. It implies that HHS is going to be serving a censorship function. Our science, our approvals have never had to go through HHS in order to get released to the general public. This is suggesting that they want to have first look and have the chance to edit and potentially suppress or promote knowledge that the rest of the scientific community doesn't support.

HARLOW: So there's no -- there's no law, there's no precedent for saying, you know, the public gets to see all of the data on a vaccine once it's released, totally unedited, that's not mandated to happen?

RANNEY: So the way that it usually happens is that the data on new drugs and vaccines goes to the FDA. There is a committee there that views it and makes decisions about emergency use authorizations or about full approval. I mean, in general, that usually gets released in peer-reviewed publications and then gets available through Freedom of Information Act, et cetera.

What's unusual here is HHS saying that they have the final say, that they get to approve stuff on top of what the FDA or the CDC is doing.

SCIUTTO: Listen, we imagine in this country that a lot of this stuff is written in stone somewhere, institutions, rules, et cetera. It's not. And we've seen so many examples of that prior.

Finally, Dr. Ranney, before we go, I'm curious, in Europe, as Europe has seen something of a resurgence recently, European health officials talked there about the importance of young people as a vector for this, right, particularly as they go back to school. I just wonder what are we learning in this country as a result of that. I mean, does that mean kids going back to university and lower schools is fundamentally dangerous in the midst of this pandemic, or is it how it is being done from community to community?

RANNEY: It's a little bit of both. You know, we're watching the European experience with concern.

[10:10:02]

I've talked before about how we're seeing cases surge in Madrid and the U.K. likely due largely to relaxation of rules around big social gatherings, around bars and parties.

We know that young adults spread this virus efficiently. In other words, college students serve as vectors of spread. And so providing them with safe ways to get together that don't serve as super-spreader events is essential.

Whether or not kids going back to school helps to spread the virus is still a little bit up in the air, the biggest thing is to not put kids back in school without universal masking, without good ventilation and only if there are relatively low rates of COVID in the community.

We are all watching with concern in our country right now as our kids are going back to school, but we think it's safe provided that those three things are met.

HARLOW: Dr. Megan Ranney, thank you for all of that this morning.

Still to come, the president says he will announce a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He'll do that either this Friday or Saturday. We'll take a look at who is on his short list.

SCIUTTO: All right. So aides to Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden, they're telling us that he plans to use the fight over the Supreme Court vacancy to motivate Democratic voters. How will he do that?

And the Emmys pull off a virtual award ceremony. You've got to get used to those. We're seeing more. We're going to tell you which shows and stars won the night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SCIUTTO: Well, without delay, the president says he will announce his Supreme Court nominee by the end of this week setting up, well, it's already under way, really a fierce battle on Capitol Hill as Republicans push to confirm as quickly as possible.

CNN's Lauren Fox joins us now. Lauren, I'm going to keep asking you this question. Does McConnell have the votes?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, that's what we're watching today. As you know, over the weekend, two Republicans, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Republican Senator Susan Collins, who is up for reelection in the state of Maine, both said they will not support a vote before the election. That's important.

Now, Susan Collins went a little further saying she believes that whoever wins on November 3rd should be the person to pick the next Supreme Court justice. But where does this leave us? Remember that McConnell can lose three Republicans. He just can't lose four. So the question is who would be those two other Republicans?

We, of course, had been looking at someone like Lamar Alexander but he said he supports McConnell's decision to advance this nomination whenever that vote takes place.

Now, of course, there are going to be questions about who the nominee ultimately is, but we are keeping an eye on two other senators that I want to talk a little bit about. Mitt Romney, a Republican from Utah who voted with Democrats on one article of impeachment back in January, he's someone to keep an eye out for.

The other person that we are watching is Cory Gardner, who is up for re-election in the state of Colorado, arguably one of the toughest seats out there in terms of Republicans defending. So the question becomes, does he start to feel pressure to put the brakes on this nomination process?

Again, you have to have four Republicans to block this nomination. Democrats can do everything that they want to slow it down, but, ultimately, they aren't in control, either before the election or after the election during that lame-duck period, another timeframe that McConnell could can be eyeing to move this nomination forward. Jim and Poppy?

SCIUTTO: Lauren Fox, didn't happen in 2016, likely to happen in 2020. Thanks very much.

HARLOW: Jeffrey Toobin is here, our Chief Legal Analyst, and Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter. So good to have both of you very much.

Okay. Jeffrey, yours was the first piece I read over the weekend about making the case that Democrats are not powerless, but what power do they have to stop whomever the president chooses?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's really more a power of retribution than a power of stopping. It is true that since the filibuster has been abolished for Supreme Court nominations, it really just takes for -- that with 53 republicans in the Senate and Vice President Pence to break ties, this is really under the control of the Republicans. But there are political tools that the Democrats have to try to force two more Republicans to join with Collins and Murkowski.

Well, the point I was making is that if Biden wins and if the Democrats retake the Senate, then there are real options for the Democrats. They can add two or more seats to the Supreme Court. They can abolish the filibuster. They can grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico. And they can add to the overall total of federal judges, which hasn't changed in decades. So, you know, there are hardball options but the Democrats need to win some elections before they can exercise them.

SCIUTTO: Ariane, just to put this into context, this is not sort of an ethereal ivory tower kind of event here, right, because Supreme Court has enormous power, particularly over many of the Democrats' legislative priorities, even if they were to win, right, the Senate and the White House. Is a 6-3 conservative court one that is likely to block many of those priorities? I mean, you've got Obamacare coming up quite soon, but issues on gun control, voting rights issues. How significant from that perspective?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Well, it's interesting, because while Ruth Bader Ginsburg in this last week was obviously dying, there was an important abortion petition that was pending at the court and the justices obviously still haven't ruled on that.

[10:20:12]

So you're looking at an abortion petition coming up in the short-term. You're looking at other emergency petitions on voting rights that we're going to see.

And then, as you said, this term is going to start a week after the election, they are hearing Obamacare. We may not know the results by then, Jim, but they are going to hear Obamacare, and after that a big religious liberty case. So it's really teed up here. Obviously, they are not going to want to have eight justices, but if he gets another conservative nominee, we already know that last term the conservatives on the court. And I'm not including Roberts there, said that they wanted to look at the Second Amendment again, there's a big affirmative action case that's pending below, as well as issues like Roe v. Wade. So all of that is in front of us so it's why it's such a big deal.

HARLOW: Jeffrey, which tees up perfectly the question of a lot of Democrats talking a lot this weekend about packing the court, trying to do something they would hope successfully that FDR wasn't able to do successfully, though you can argue it helped get some of his new deal legislation through.

Joe Biden said last year in a debate he doesn't think it's a good idea to pack the court. Can you explain to people who are hearing about this for the first time wondering what, what does that mean, how can you get 14 folks on the Supreme Court, how will that work, and do you think it's likely?

TOOBIN: Well, it's interesting. As I go around talking about this issue, many people think that the number of Supreme Court justices is set in the Constitution and that you need a constitutional amendment to change it. Not true. There have only been nine justices on the Supreme Court since 1869.

Before that, the number fluctuated considerably and all it takes is an act of Congress signed by the president to change the number of justices on the court. And there are now many Democrats who believe that if President Trump succeeds in jamming through this nomination at the end of his term or during the lame-duck, they will feel like two seats have been stolen from Democrats, the Merrick Garland seat at the end of Barack Obama's term and now this seat, and they can change it.

They can change the number of justices on the Supreme Court and make it 11. They could make however many justices they want, and that they feel would restore a sense of fairness to the status of the justices on the court. It would be a big step.

1869 is a long time ago. The fact that there have been nine justices is long-established in American life, but it is not set in stone and it's not even set in the Constitution, and it could be changed with an act of Congress.

SCIUTTO: Ariane, before we even get to legislative priorities, as you mentioned briefly, there are voting rights decisions. I mean, before you even get to see a Bush/Gore kind of decision, the voting rights decisions moving through the lower courts. Are they -- I mean, they could make it to the Supreme Court between now and November 3rd with a 4-4 kind of situation here. You know, what are the most significant ones and what does that mean?

DE VOGUE: Well, I'll tell you. One thing on the other -- the vote packing, I remember a couple of years ago covering Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and she was asked about court packing and she said kind of very dryly I think nine is enough, so that's interesting on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But as far as the voting cases, you know, we have already seen some of them. These are emergency petitions, right, that come up to the Supreme Court.

And think back to last April. There was one involving Wisconsin. It had to do with absentee votes. It came out 5-4, and guess who wrote the dissent there, just in April, which was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and she said that the conservatives' reasoning on this case boggles the mind. So we are going to continue to see those as they come up.

And as to the question of 4-4, one interesting thing to look at it is, for instance, we're seeing the Obamacare case come, right. And in the lower court, in Obamacare, that judge struck down the individual mandate and punted on whether the rest of the law should fall. Of course, the Trump administration is here saying the entire law should fall. So if they were split 4-4, that lower court opinion would automatically be affirmed. The Supreme Court would be left having to do that and setting no new precedent.

And you know Chief Justice John Roberts, they all try to avoid circumstances like that, but with an eight-member court, issues like that could come up.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And I suppose I should have said 5-3, right, in terms of conservative-liberal there. But, folks, if you think this doesn't affect you and your life immediately, think otherwise. It's a big deal. Jeffrey Toobin, Ariane de Vogue, thanks so much.

A lot of college students will be studying instead of partying this spring break as more schools scrap the break entirely because of the outbreak.

[10:25:07]

We're going to have the details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]

HARLOW: Do you remember college spring break? A lot of us do.