Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Mitch McConnell Vows Supreme Court Vote in 2020; More Confusion Over CDC COVID-19 Guidance; U.S. on Verge of 200,00 Coronavirus Deaths. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired September 21, 2020 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:03]

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Brianna.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Stephanie Elam, thank you.

Our special coverage continues now with Kate Bolduan.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Kate Bolduan. Thank you so much for joining us this hour.

You need to prepare yourself because the hour ahead has a lot of moving parts and some very important live events that are likely to be playing out for us.

First, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, he is expected to speak from the Senate floor any moment now, his first real public comments about the brewing Supreme Court confirmation fight ahead.

What is the case that Senator McConnell will make for holding hearings and a vote on the Supreme Court nomination just 40-plus days until the election?

Also President Trump, he is set to leave the White House any minute now. He's going to be heading to Ohio. And what that -- as that often means, an impromptu press conference could be coming shortly. We're tracking his movements, as always.

And Joe Biden, he's in Wisconsin, where he will be speaking this hour as well. And we are going to bring all of that to you live. We are standing by to stand by, because a lot will be happening.

This all comes as United States is on the cusp of possibly just -- possibly just hours away from hitting a terrible milestone, 200,000 Americans killed by the coronavirus; 28 states, as you will see, are now reporting more cases this week compared to last week.

That is a lot of red and orange on that map, more than less. Eight of these states are seeing an increase of at least 50 percent. The seven- day average of daily cases is now above 40,000 again, bringing the country to the brink, to the brink of a point once seen as unthinkable, 200,000 people dead from this virus.

The president seemed to share that view in the not-so-distant past. I want to play for you what President Trump said in March about what his measure of a good job would be.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we can hold that down, as we're saying, to 100,000, it's a horrible number, maybe even less, but to 100,000, so, we have between 100,000 and 200,000, we all together have done a very good job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: So, by the Trump of March standard, he has definitely not done a very good job in responding to this crisis.

Fast forward to today. Facing the death toll that we are, the president says he's doing a phenomenal job.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're rounding the corner, with or without a vaccine. I hate it when I say that, but that's the way it is. We're rounding the corner on the pandemic. And we have done a phenomenal job, not just a good job, a phenomenal job.

On public relations, I give myself a D. On the job itself, we take an A-plus, with the ventilators, and now with the vaccines that are years ahead of schedule.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Well, he can say what he wants, but take a look at the reaction from Wall Street right now, just one of his favorite markers of success.

The mounting death toll and fears over a second wave have been sending stocks plunging since this morning, the Dow falling more than 800 points at one point, now, as you can see, about 730.

And, with all of this happening, the CDC is once again changing its guidance on COVID and how it can be transmitted.

CNN's Elizabeth Cohen, she's been tracking this very closely. She's joining me right now.

Changing and then re-changing or doubling back, I guess, Elizabeth. I mean, you need to be tracking this closely, because it's changed and changed back again. Can you help us understand what is going on here?

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: It's a bit like watching a tennis game. You go like this, you go like this, you just -- it just goes back and forth.

So, in a nutshell, this is a debate, Kate, about how coronavirus spreads. The CDC has always said that it spreads directly. In other words, you're sick, you're less than six feet from someone, they cough on you, they sneeze on you, they spit on you a little bit, you get a direct hit.

What's been debatable is whether it can spread a different way, which is that you cough or sneeze and you have COVID. Do those particles linger in the air, maybe they kind of blow over to somebody who's eight feet away? Maybe someone who's 20 feet away walks into your airspace and is able to breathe that in. Can it be aerosolized in that way?

So, the CDC up until Friday, they just emphasize the within six feet way. Then, on Friday, they changed it to say there's growing evidence that it can spread in this aerosolized way. And then, this morning, they changed it back again and said that was a mistake. We didn't mean to change the guidance. We're going to put it back to the way it was, which didn't go into the aerosolized transmission.

Now, I spoke to a federal official who is close to this -- familiar with this situation. And what they said is, they said, look, this was not political pressure. This wasn't anyone from the Trump administration. This -- the CDC goofed. The CDC hit publish on guidance before they were supposed to.

[15:05:05]

They hit publish on the guidance before it had been properly reviewed by everyone at the CDC. So, the bottom line is, they're still looking into it. And we're going to keep track of that Web site and see if they make any changes -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Yes. I mean, the confusion, not helping, regardless of if it's a goof or not.

I mean, also, Elizabeth, the chief adviser to the administration's vaccine program, he spoke out this morning, that -- he said that we're going to learn about the coronavirus vaccine efficacy as early as October, as late as January.

Does that fit with everything that you have been tracking with a vaccine timeline?

COHEN: If what Moncef Slaoui meant, if what Dr. Slaoui meant was, we're going to learn something about the efficacy, and this means that we could find out, yes, it works and put it on the market, then, no, it does not jibe.

This gets very wonky and very weedy, and I'm going to sort of simplify it as much as possible. But in order to learn about efficacy, you need to have a certain number of people in the trial become sick with COVID. And then you can see, oh, did we give that person the vaccine or did we give them the placebo?

So there's a number that you want to see get sick, but there are smaller numbers that are set out ahead of time. So, if X-number get sick, we will take a look and we will see, how many were placebo and how many were vaccine?

Is it possible that we will hit one of those early markers by the end of October? Maybe. Every expert I have talked to said that's very unlikely. And they say it's even more unlikely that, when you do look and see, how many of these sick people got the vaccine and how many got a shot with a placebo, a shot that does nothing, that, when you look at those numbers, that you're going to get a definitive, aha, see, the vaccine works, that that is extraordinarily unlikely.

Doctors, vaccinologists who've been doing this for years use the word impossible when they describe this. They say that, mathematically, it is just not possible that we're going to get that kind of a readout that early and that the FDA will have time to look at it and kind of adjudicate the whole thing by Election Day.

BOLDUAN: The wait continues, though, regardless.

Great to see you, Elizabeth. Thank you very much.

Joining me right now -- I have got a lot more questions than answers, it seems, every time we speak -- Dr. Tom Inglesby, director of the Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

It's good to see you again, Doctor. Thank you for coming in.

First, just I'd like to get what you make of this confusion over the transmission guidance coming from the CDC.

DR. TOM INGLESBY, DIRECTOR, JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR HEALTH SECURITY: Yes, well, I think we just heard a really good story about that just a moment ago. And I think that all sounded completely right to me.

Over time, we have had very definitive evidence about the spread in short-range respiratory droplets. And I think the general consensus of the public health community around the world is that that continues to be the dominant form of spread.

But there has been some evidence over time that there are cases that are unexplained by short-range droplet spread. And so I think there's been an assumption in the public health community that there has been some contribution of longer-range aerosol spread, although a much smaller amount, as compared to respiratory droplets.

I think CDC's guidance is really important, because they're the agency that can judge, can put together all the evidence and assemble it and make a top-line professional judgment about how much that's contributing.

Unfortunately, what's happening right now is that we have had so much interference with the science process, with the recommendation process in the last month that these kinds of changes, it sounds like there's some people saying that it was just kind of a review mistake, but you can't help -- you can't fault people for wondering whether there was some kind of political interference, given that it's been occurring in the last six weeks. So I hope it wasn't. I hope we get some clarity soon. I do think that

there probably -- we will see that there is some contribution of aerosol spread, but most likely the dominant form will continue to be respiratory droplet.

BOLDUAN: And just the fact that we're about to learn that 200,000 people have died from coronavirus in this country from a public health standpoint, can you reflect on this for me?

INGLESBY: Yes, I mean, it's tragic. It's incredible that, in this relatively short period of time, we have had 200,000 people die from this disease. That makes it the second leading cause of death in the United States this year, after heart disease and before lung cancer.

Hundreds of thousands more have had to be hospitalized. We don't yet know the toll of long-term complications, something that I don't think we have focused nearly enough on in the last six months. But there are many people who've survived the illness, only to go on to have longer term problems and not feel like themselves or be chronically ill. We haven't studied that enough yet.

And (AUDIO GAP)

BOLDUAN: Doctor, I think -- I think we just lost the connection with Dr. Inglesby.

[15:10:03]

Thank you, Doctor. I really appreciate it. I really appreciate, always, for your insights, your guidance and your health -- your help.

Right now, we are waiting, as we have mentioned, to hear from Joe Biden, as he campaigns in Wisconsin, as a new front opens up in the race for the White House. Of course, we're talking for the Supreme Court. We're going to bring that to you as soon as it happens.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: All right, we're going to go to the Senate floor right now. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is speaking.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): ... just a lawyer, no, not just a lawyer but a leader.

From majority opinions to impassioned dissent, her life's work will not only continue to shape jurisprudence, but also enlighten scholars and students for generations.

By all accounts, Justice Ginsburg loved her work because she loved the law. In a more ordinary life story, her courage and continued excellence in the face of multiple serious illnesses would itself be the heroic climax, rather than just one more remarkable chapter among so many.

On the court, Justice Ginsburg was a universally admired colleague. It's no wonder that many Americans have taken particularly comfort these past days in remembering her famous friendship with her ideological opposite, the late Justice Scalia.

Together, they made sure the halls of justice also rang with laughter and comity. They rarely sat on the same side of a high-profile decision, but they still sat together at the opera and most any other time they could manage to be together.

So, the legal world is mounting -- the legal world is mourning a giant.

But Justice Ginsburg's fellow justices, a legion of loyal law clerks, and countless many others are mourning a close friend or mentor. The Senate sends condolences to them all.

Yet Justice Ginsburg's impact on American life went deeper still. Friday's loss feels personal to millions of Americans, who may have never made her acquaintance. Justice Ginsburg was a spirited, powerful and historic champion for American women, to a degree that transcends any legal or philosophical disagreement.

[15:15:05]

As she climbed from the middle-class Brooklyn Jewish roots of which she was so proud into the most rarefied air of law and government, the future justice had to surmount one sexist obstacle after another.

And Justice Ginsburg did not only climb a mountain. She blazed a trail. Through deeds, through words, and simply through her example, she helped clear away the cobwebs of prejudice. She opened one professional door after another, and made certain they stayed open behind her.

Directly or indirectly, she helped entire generations of talented women build their lives as they saw fit and enrich our society through professional work.

Law and politics aside, no friend of equality could fail to appreciate Justice Ginsburg's determination.

Finally, while Justice Ginsburg relished forceful writing and detailed argument, she was also, in important ways, a uniter. In recent years, many who considered themselves her admirers and might wish to claim the justice for their political side have come to embrace reckless proposals to politicize the very structure of the court itself.

But Justice Ginsburg remained unswerving in her public commitment to preserving the neutral foundation of the institution she loved.

The entire Senate is united in thinking of and praying for Justice Ginsburg's family, most especially her daughter, Jane, her son, James, her grandchildren, step-grandchildren, great-granddaughter, and everyone who called her their own. Mr. President, I ask consent that the following remarks appear at a

different place in the record.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without objection.

MCCONNELL: President Trump's nominee for this vacancy will receive a vote on the floor of the Senate.

Now, already, some of the same individuals who tried every conceivable dirty trick to obstruct Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh are lining up, lining up to proclaim the third time will be the charm.

The American people are about to witness an astonishing parade of misrepresentations about the past, misstatements about the present, and more threats against our institutions from the same people, the same people who have already been saying for months, well before this, already been saying for months they want to pack the court.

Two years ago, a radical movement tried to use unproven accusations to ruin a man's life because they could not win a vote fair and square. Now they appear to be readying an even more appalling sequel.

This time, the target will not just be the presumption of innocence for one American, but our very governing institutions themselves.

There will be times in the days ahead to discuss the naked threats that leading Democrats have long been directing at the United States Senate and the Supreme Court itself. These threats have grown louder, but they predate this vacancy by many months.

There will be time to discuss why senators who appear on the steps of the Supreme Court and personally threaten associate justices if they do not rule a certain way are ill-equipped to give lectures on civics.

But, today, let's dispense with a few of the factual misrepresentations right at the outset.

We're already hearing incorrect claims that there is not sufficient time to examine and confirm a nominee. We can debunk this myth in about 30 seconds. As of today, there are 43 days until November 3 and 104 days until the end of this Congress.

The late iconic Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed by the Senate 19 days after this body formally received his nominations, 19 days from start to finish.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another iconic jurist, was confirmed 33 days after her nomination.

[15:20:06]

For the late Justice Ginsburg herself, it was just 42 days.

Justice Stevens' entire confirmation process could have been played out twice, twice between now and November 3 with time to spare. And Justice Ginsburg herself could have been confirmed twice between now and the end of the year with time to spare.

The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination. History and precedent make that perfectly clear.

Others want to claim the situation is exactly analogous to Justice Scalia's passing in 2016 and so we should not proceed until January.

This is also a completely false. Here is what I said on the Senate floor the very first session the day after Justice Scalia passed -- quote -- "The Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was a divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago."

Here is what I said the next day when I spoke to the press for the first time on the subject: "You have to go back to 1888, when Grover Cleveland was president, to find the last time a vacancy recrated in a presidential election year was approved by a Senate of a different party."

As of then, only six prior times in American history had a Supreme Court vacancy arisen in a presidential election year and the president sent a nomination that year to the Senate of the opposite party.

The majority of those times, the outcome is exactly what happened in 2016, no confirmation, the historically normal outcome when you have divided government. President Obama was asking Senate Republicans for an unusual favor that had last been granted nearly 130 years before then.

But voters had explicitly elected our majority to check and balance the end of his presidency. So, we stuck with the basic norm.

Oh, and, by the way, in so doing, our majority did precisely what Democrats had indicated they would do themselves. In 1992, Democrats controlled the Senate, opposite President Bush 41. Then Senator Joe Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee. Unprompted, unprompted, he publicly declared that his committee might refuse to cooperate if a vacancy arose and the Republican president tried to fill it.

In 2007, Democrats controlled the Senate opposite President Bush 43. And with more than a year-and-a-half left, a year-and-a-half left, in President Bush 43's term, the current Democratic leader declared that -- quote -- "Except in extraordinary circumstances" -- end quote -- the opposite party Senate should boycott any further confirmations to the Supreme Court.

That is the current Democratic leader a year-and-a-half before the end of the Bush administration.

So, in 2016, Senate Republicans did not only maintain the historical norm. We also ran the Biden/Schumer playbook.

When voters have not chosen divided government, when the American people have elected a Senate majority to work closely with the sitting president, the historical record is even more overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation. Eight times in our nation's history, new vacancies have arisen and

presidents have made nominations all during the election year. Seven of the eight were confirmed. And the sole exception, Justice Abe Fortas, was a bizarre situation, including obvious personal corruption that extended into financial dealings.

And apart from that one strange exception, no Senate has failed to confirm a nominee in the circumstances that face us right now. Aside from that one strange exception, no Senate has failed to confirm a nominee in the circumstances that face us right now.

[15:25:03]

The historical precedent is overwhelmingly, and it runs in one direction.

If our Democratic colleagues want to claim they are outraged, they can only be outraged at the plain facts of American history.

There was clear precedent behind the predictable outcome that came out of 2016. And there is even more overwhelming precedent behind the fact that this Senate will vote on this nomination this year.

The American people reelected our majority in 2016. They strengthened it further in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump on the most critical issues facing our country. The federal judiciary was right at the top of the list.

Ironically, it was the Democratic leader who went out of his way to declare the midterm 2018 elections a referendum on the Senate's handling of the Supreme Court. My friend, the occupant in the chair, was running that year.

The Democratic leader went out of his way to declare the 2018 midterms are a referendum on the Senate's handling of the Supreme Court.

In his final speech before Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed, he yelled, literally yelled, over and over at the American people to go vote. He told Americans, go elect senators based on how they'd approach their advice and consent duties over these weeks.

Unfortunately, for him, many Americans did just that. After watching the Democrat tactics, voters grew our majority and retired four, four of our former colleagues who had gone along with their party's behavior. We gained two seats. They lost four. That was the issue.

Perhaps more than any other single issue, the American people strengthened this Senate majority to keep confirming this president's impressive judicial nominees who respect our Constitution and understand the proper role of a judge.

In 2014, the voters elected our majority because we pledged to check and balance a second lame-duck president. Two years later, we kept our word. In 2018, the voters grew that majority on our pledge to continue working with President Trump most especially on his outstanding judiciary appointments. We're going to keep our word once again. We're going to vote on this

nomination on this floor.

BOLDUAN: All right, we have been listening right there to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laying out clearly and unequivocally when he said, we will vote on the president's nomination, even saying we will vote on that nomination this year.

We're standing by. We will likely hear from the Democratic leader of the House, Chuck Schumer. You can obviously guess he's going to have a very different take on how history has played out with Supreme Court nominations and confirmations in the Senate.

While we stand by for that, let me bring in CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash.

Dana, what stands out to you here?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, as you said, his unequivocal promise that the president's nominee is going to get a vote this year.

This year means the calendar year. This year could mean the lame-duck. However, the majority leader clearly set up a scenario and gave himself a lot of running room in trying to describe the precedent and the number of days it took for some very well-known Supreme Court justices to be -- to be confirmed, laying out the possibility -- I wouldn't say probability yet -- but possibility to actually have a vote before Election Day.

You know, he clearly went down to the Senate floor to push back about -- against Democrats' cries that this is completely hypocritical, arguing that he did say, and quoting himself back in 2016, that it was about divided government.

I don't remember people interpreting it that way, that it was specifically because he was saying that there was a Democrat in the White House and there was a Republican leader, a Republican majority in the Senate.

BOLDUAN: Dana, I'm just going to cut you off...

BASH: Please.

BOLDUAN: ... because we're going to head back to the Senate floor one more time for Chuck Schumer.

[15:30:00]