Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Second Vaccine Trial Paused In U.S. Due To Unexplained Illness; Trump Continues Attacking Dr. Fauci As 33 States See Rising Cases; Trump's Supreme Court Pick Faces Senators' Questions. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired October 13, 2020 - 12:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Some headlines in the coronavirus pandemic now as we wait for the confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. She is nominated of course to be Justice Amy Coney Barrett of the Supreme Court of the United States. We'll go back to that hearing on Capitol Hill as soon as it resumes. A quick lunch break right now.

In the meanwhile, let's get some other headlines, the drug maker Johnson & Johnson now pausing its phase three trial of its coronavirus vaccine candidate that pause because of an unexplained illness with one of its trial volunteers.

CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen joins us now with the details. Elizabeth, what happened?

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: John, we learned from a call this afternoon or just today that this is all very new, this unexplained illness AstraZeneca learned of it just on Sunday, just two days ago. And they said they're not even sure if this participant received the vaccine or received the placebo. They said that it's still being looked into. Let's take a look at an AstraZeneca statement.

What they had to say is that serious adverse events, which is a fancy way of saying a participant getting sick, are not uncommon in clinical trials. And the number of serious adverse events can reasonably be expected to increase in trials involving large numbers of participants.

Now having -- what they're trying to say, and so this is from Johnson & Johnson, what they're trying to say, what Johnson & Johnson is trying to say is look when you vaccinate a whole bunch of people including them in your trials someone is going to get sick. If there is any thought that this sickness might be related to the vaccine, they pause the trial that is the right thing to do.

[12:35:11]

We are told by experts, this doesn't happen all that often, it happens, but it's not how most trials go. Most trials don't have pauses. But certainly when you see an illness that could be caused by the vaccine, the right thing to do is pause the trial.

KING: And Elizabeth, the confusion, they're easy to understand, this is Johnson & Johnson. But the reason --

COHEN: Right.

KING: -- next up is because AstraZeneca had to do the same thing in its trial. What is the status of the other vaccine trials?

COHEN: Right, exactly. So I was talking about Johnson & Johnson. And now let's talk about the other trials. So there have been four trials that have been started in the United States. The first one Johnson or one of them, Johnson & Johnson, as we just talked about is paused. AstraZeneca also paused. They've been paused for more than a month while the FDA considers whether they should continue despite illnesses that have happened in their trials. Moderna started their trial July 27th. And they are still going. And Pfizer started July 27th. And they are still going. So there are also trials that are happening in other parts of the world as well.

KING: Elizabeth Cohen, thank you for that important update.

COHEN: Thanks.

KING: We will stay on top of that, see when they -- if they can get off the pause button, we shall see. Thanks, Elizabeth.

President Trump once again attacking the nation's top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, of course. The President tweeting this morning. Actually, Tony's pitching arm is far more accurate than his prognostications. The President, there referring in politely to Dr. Fauci's first pitch back in the Washington Nationals game in July, the pitch went quite wide of home play. President Trump also dismissing the threat of the coronavirus at his rally in Florida last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women in them, everybody, just give you a big fat kiss. I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I can feel -- I feel so powerful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: CNN's Kaitlan Collins joins us now live from the White House. Well, there's a lot to talk about there, Kaitlan. I'll let you take the lead. But number one, the President essentially mocking the virus at his first rally back on the campaign trail and mocking Tony Fauci. That's an interesting strategic play. They're spending millions of dollars on a new campaign ad featuring Dr. Fauci and the President now attacking his credibility, the marketing people would tell you wrong call.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I think it's clear why the President is going after Dr. Fauci. And it's because on Sunday, if you saw that ad, which a lot of people did during the NFL game Sunday, Dr. Fauci put out a statement saying he did not consent to being used in that ad. He believed his words were being taken out of context. And he said pretty bluntly for a federal health official that he was talking about the work of his other health officials in conjunction with him on coronavirus and not the President's work per se when it comes to the response, which of course, we know how voters have judged that which is poorly so far.

So the President is attacking Dr. Fauci while his campaign is still running an ad using Dr. Fauci's likeness, in an attempt to appeal to voters because they know how popular Dr. Fauci is. So it's interesting that the President even has, Dr. Fauci in an ad because, of course, they have had a heated relationship for months. And a lot of it has come down to the fact that Dr. Fauci has called out some of the unscientific and inaccurate things that the President has said time and time, again, from the big things to even the more nuanced things like something that the President has been saying since he got COVID- 19, which is that he is now immune point blank, just saying that he cannot get it any longer saying, he potentially is immune for a lifetime when obviously, the actual science is still out on that.

And it's a lot more nuanced with a few more caveats. And that's something that, you know, even Dr. Fauci said when he was doing an interview with CNN yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: He has an immune response in him that very likely would protect him from being reinfected. But we've got to be careful about that. Because we're starting to see a number of cases that are being reported of people who get reinfected, well documented cases of people who were infected, after a relatively brief period of time, measured anywhere from weeks to several months, come back, get exposed, and get infected again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now, John, the President has been going after Dr. Fauci for months complaining about how his approval rating is stronger than the President's. But what's different now is that you're seeing Dr. Fauci push back in a way that he hasn't before where before he just chalked it up to politics. He was hesitant to criticize the President in interviews, that's changing now. And he wants the campaign to take down this ad that's featuring him saying he's never endorsed any political candidate that we should know if people are wondering where this could go.

Dr. Fauci has said he is not going to walk away from his position. Of course, he is a career official, it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible for the President to fire him. So that's the dynamic. But what's amazing is seeing it play out in the public eye as we are of course, you know, what Elizabeth was just talking about debating where these vaccine trials are going and where the future of this pandemic here in the U.S. is going. KING: Right. Election Day, three weeks from today, the trend line and the pandemic heading in the wrong direction. Kaitlan Collins, thank you live from the White House. One of the things Dr. Fauci would like is a plan from his President to deal with the fact that 33 of the 50 states on this day, 33 of the 50 states now reporting more new infections now compared to a week ago. But the President on the campaign trail mocking the virus that is now growing across the country.

[12:40:22]

A quick break for us, when we come back, the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett resumes any moment up on Capitol Hill.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:45:11]

KING: We'll take you back live to Capitol Hill in just a moment. The lunch break in the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's pick to the Supreme Court, that lunch break about to end. Again, we'll take you back there live as soon as it happens.

In the meantime, though, take a look at this, long lines at polling places in Georgia. One day after early voting began in that battleground state. This is Fulton County, the home of Atlanta. Average wait time at one precinct get this between two and three hours today. The state's Secretary of State says almost 127,000 people cast their ballots on the first day of in person early voting yesterday.

In Texas early voting also underway beginning this morning just hours after an appeals court reinstated Governor Greg Abbott's order that limits the use of absentee ballot drop boxes to just one location per county. Several groups have filed lawsuits challenging that order which they say will unfairly burden large counties and create health hazards at this time of the pandemic.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is following this story for us. Kristen, the Texas case is a big deal because of big state with sprawling counties.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right, John. And particularly when you talk about the civics groups that are going out there and fighting this decree from the Governor, they're talking specifically about Harris County, which is the third most populous county in the entire country.

And our own Ed Lavandera actually drove from the edge of the county to the one singular drop box that there was, and noted that some residents would have to drive more than an hour --

KING: Hearing up on Capitol is resuming, forgive my interruption, take you back to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island asking the questions.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): What I want to do is go through with the people who are watching this now, the conversation that you and I had, when we spoke on the telephone. You were kind enough to hear out a presentation that I made. And I intend to ask some questions in that area. But it doesn't make sense to ask questions if I haven't laid the predicate, particularly for viewers who are watching this.

So I guess the reason that I want to do this is because people who are watching this need to understand that this small hearing room and the little T.V. box that you're looking at, the little screen that you're looking at, are a little bit like the frame of a puppet theater. And if you only look at what's going on, in the puppet theater, you're not going to understand the whole story. You're not going to understand the real dynamics of what is going on here.

And you're certainly not going to understand forces outside of this room who are pulling strings and pushing sticks and causing the puppet theater to react. So first, let me say why do I think outside forces are here pulling strings? Well, part of it is behavior. We have colleagues here who supported you, this nominee, before there was a nominee. That's a little unusual.

We have the political ram job that we have already complained of driving this process through at breakneck speed in the middle of a pandemic while the Senate is closed for safety reasons and while we're doing nothing about the COVID epidemic around us. We have some very awkward 180s from colleagues. Mr. Chairman, you figure in this. Our leader said back when it was Garland versus Gorsuch. That of course, of course the American people should have a say in the courts direction.

Of course, of course, said Mitch McConnell. That's long gone. Senator Grassley said the American people shouldn't be denied a voice. That's long gone. Senator Cruz said you don't do this in an election year. That's long gone. And our chairman made his famous hold the tape promise if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, we'll wait till the next election. That's going too.

So there is a lot of hard to explain hypocrisy and rush taking place right now. And my experience around politics is that when you find hypocrisy in the daylight look for power in the shadows.

[12:50:13]

Now people may say, what is all this matter? This is a political parlor game, it's no big deal. Well, there's some pretty high stakes here that we've been talking about here on the -- our side. And I'll tell you three of them right here, Roe versus Wade, Obergefell and the Obamacare cases.

Here's the GOP platform, the Republican platform, the platform of my colleagues, on the other side of this aisle say that a Republican president will appoint judges who will reverse Roe, Obergefell, and the Obamacare cases.

So if you have a family member with an interest in some autonomy over their body, under Roe versus Wade, the ability to have a marriage of friends marry, have a niece or a daughter or son marry, someone of their same sex, they have a -- you got a stake. And if you're one of the millions and millions of Americans who depend on the Affordable Care Act, you've got a stake. It's not just the platform over and over again. Let's start by talking about the Affordable Care Act.

Here's the President talking about this litigation that we're gearing up this nominee for November 10th. In this litigation, he said we want to terminate health care under Obamacare. That is the President's statement. So when we react to that, don't act as if we're making this stuff up. This is what President Trump said. This is what your party platform says, reverse the Obamacare cases.

Senator after senator including many in this Committee filed briefs saying that the Affordable Care Act should be thrown out by courts. Why is it surprising for us to be concerned that you want this nominee to do what you want nominees to do? One quick stop on NFIB v. Sebelius because a lot of this has to do with money. This is an interesting comparison.

National Federation of Independent Businesses until it filed the NFIB versus Sebelius case had its biggest donation ever of $21,000. In the year that it went to work on the Affordable Care Act, 10 wealthy donors gave $10 million, somebody deserves a thank you. So let's go on to Roe v. Wade.

Same thing, same thing. The President has said that reversing Roe v. Wade will happen automatically because he's putting pro-life justices on the court. Why would we not take him at his word? The Republican Party platform says it will reverse Roe. Why would we not comment on that and take you at your word? Senators here including Senator Hawley have said I will vote only for nominees who acknowledged that Roe v Wade is wrongly decided. And they're pledged to vote for this nominee. Do the math. That's a really simple equation to run.

The Republican brief in June medical said Roe should be overruled. So don't act surprised when we ask questions about whether that's what you're up to here. And finally, out in the ad world that you have spared yourself wisely, Judge Barrett, the Susan B. Anthony Foundation is running advertisements right now saying that you are set. You are set to give our pro-life country a court that it deserves. There's the ad with the voiceover, she said, she said.

And then Roe, Obamacare cases, and Obergefell, gay marriage, National Organization for Marriage, the big group that opposes same sex marriage says in this proceeding, all our issues are at stake. Republican platform says it wants to reverse Obergefell and the Republican brief filed in the case said same sex relationships don't fall within any constitutional protection.

So when we say the stakes are high on this, it's because you've said the stakes are high on this. You have said that's what you want to do. So how are people going about doing it? What is the scheme here?

[12:55:09]

Let me start with this one. In all cases, there's big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity, one lane of activity is through the conduit of the Federalist Society. It's managed by a guy -- was managed by a guy named Leonard Leo. And it's taken over the selection of judicial nominees. How do we know that to be the case? Because Trump has said so over and over again, his White House Counsel said so. So we have an anonymously funded group, controlling judicial selection, run by this guy, Leonard Leo.

Then in another lane, we have, again, anonymous funders running through something called the Judicial Crisis Network, which is run by Carrie Severino. And it's doing P.R. and campaign ads for Republican judicial nominees. It got 17 million -- single $17 million donation in the Garland-Gorsuch contest. It got another single $17 million donation to support Kavanaugh. Somebody, perhaps the same person spent $35 million to influence the makeup of the United States Supreme Court, tell me that's good.

And then over here, you have a whole array of legal groups, also funded by dark money, which have a different role. They bring cases to the court. They don't wind their way to the court, Your Honor, they get shoved to the court by these legal groups, many of which asked to lose below, so they can get quickly to the court to get their business done there. And then they turn up in an chorus, an orchestrated chorus of any key.

Now I've had a chance to have a look at this. And I was in a case actually, as an anarchist myself, the Consumer Financial Protection Board case. And in that case, there were one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 Amicus briefs filed. And every single one of them was a group funded by something called Donors Trust. Donors Trust is a gigantic identity scrubbing device for the right wing, so that it says Donors Trust is the donor without whoever the real donor is. It doesn't have a business. It doesn't have a business plan. It doesn't do anything. It's just an identity scrubber.

And this group here, the Bradley Foundation, funded eight out of the 11 briefs. That seems weird to me when you have Amicus briefs coming in little flotillas that are funded by the same groups but nominally separate in the court. So actually attach this to my brief as an appendix. Center for Media and Democracy saw it and they did better work.

They went on to say which foundations funded the brief writers in that CFPB case. Here's the Bradley Foundation for 5.6 million to those groups. Here's Donors Trust, 23 million to those brief writing groups. The grand total across all the donor groups was $68 million to the groups that were filing Amicus briefs, pretending that they were different groups. And it's not just in the Consumer Financial Protection Board case.

You might say, well, that was just a one off. Here's Janus, the anti- labor case that had a long trail through the court through Friedrichs and through Knox and through other decisions. And SourceWatch and ProPublica did some work about this. Here's Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. And here's the Bradley Foundation. And they totaled giving $45 million to the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 groups that filed Amicus briefs pretending to be different groups. And both of the lawyer groups in the case funded by Donors Trust, funded by Bradley Foundation in Janus. This is happening over and over and over again. And it goes beyond just the briefs. It goes beyond just the Amicus presentations. The Federalist Society, remember this group that is acting as the conduit, and the Donald Trump has said is doing his judicial selection, they're getting money from the same foundations from Donors Trust $16.7 million, from the Bradley Foundation $1.37 million, from the same group of foundations total, $33 million.

[12:59:59]

So you can start to look at these and you can start to tie them together.