Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Vaccine Numbers Fall Short of Projections; Sen. Josh Hawley (R- MO) Will Slow Elector Count; Interview with Sen. Angus King (I-ME). Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired December 31, 2020 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:37]

JOHN AVLON, CNN HOST: Top of the hour now, I'm John Avlon in New York and you're watching a special New Year's Eve edition of CNN NEWSROOM.

As President Trump rings in the New Year in Washington, the countdown on his presidency numbers just 20 days, and the president ends 2020 by amplifying more fact-free conspiracy theories about the election.

2021's first week will feature an election protest in Congress to a Joe Biden win that's never really been in doubt. More on that, ahead.

But first, a sobering end to a sad year, 3,740 American deaths, a single-day high to close out 2020. More than 125,000 Americans in hospital wards? That's another record.

And a new worry this hour, South African researchers say a new mutation of the virus is spreading and it could potentially impact the effectiveness of the vaccines.

While vaccines are being administered, 2.7 million shots in the arm is another disappointing metric when measured against initial expectations. Operation Warp Speed promised the vaccination process would be quick, and normal life would come back to normal -- something like that -- just around the corner. Instead, there are new calls today, including from Dr. Anthony Fauci, for the U.S. to rethink its vaccine strategy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: We know form the clinical trial that the optimal time is to give it on one day, and then for Moderna, 28 days later; and for Pfizer, 21 days later. But you can make an argument -- and some people are -- about stretching out the doses by giving a single dose across the board and hoping you're going to get the second dose in time to give to individuals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: All right, let's get to CNN's Kristen Holmes. Kristen, how significant a shift would that be in the current U.S. vaccine strategy?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, it would be an enormous shift. And it's one that I've spoken to several senior administration officials about, and they say they're not quite there yet in taking that on as a serious option.

Here's why: We are still light years away from where we need to be on production. Production is a huge issue. As we know, eventually, we are going to need to vaccinate 330 million people. We also know that right now, that number is about 14 million vaccines or a little over 12 that have actually been distributed, and that's just the first dose.

So the idea that you would take an entire second dose out of the running and just hope -- hope for it to be ready in time? That's not a risk that many of the health experts I'm talking to really want to take.

Now, while we're talking about this number, I want to pull them up for you. You have that 2.7 number you talked about, this is vaccines distributed. This is a far cry from that 20 million number that we had originally heard about, heard expected, really, by today. Again, we're looking at just over 12 million that have been shipped.

Now, we are starting to hear from Operation Warp Speed officials as well a federal health officials who are acknowledging that they are far behind. Earlier in the week, it was a lot of just blaming it on the lag in reporting. Now you're seeing still that blame, but also taking some responsibility, acknowledging that they just aren't where they need to be.

Now, one of the things that Dr. Fauci mentioned was the states, how exactly to focus on the states and make sure that they had what they needed to get those shots into arms. Take a listen to what he said this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FAUCI: Rather than stepping in and taking over, I think it would be maybe better to give more resources and to work with them, in tandem with them. In other words, not saying, we're taking over, we're going to do your job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: So what is the situation with resources, what exactly do these states need? Well, I've talked to multiple state officials across the country who just say this process is very difficult. When you talk about storing or transporting a vaccine like this that requires this ultra-cold temperature, something that most of these states have never seen, these medical professionals have never dealt with, they need more resources for that storage and also for the training needed to administer the vaccine -- John.

AVLON: Never been done before. Kristen Holmes, thank you very much, Happy New Year. As the virus runs rampant through the country, vaccines and a seamless

rollout, it's more crucial than ever. Yet even the current assistant secretary of health admits the government needs to be doing a better job. So far, nearly 12.5 million doses have been delivered, as you've heard, but fewer than 3 million Americans have actually had the shot.

[14:05:04]

Dr. Chris Pernell's a public health physician and a participant in a COVID vaccine trial. Dr. Pernell, good to see you again. What do you make of those numbers?

CHRIS PERNELL, PUBLIC HEALTH PHYSICIAN: Well, they're disappointing, if I could be really truthful. I think they represent that we just don't have the necessary mobilization forces to get the numbers vaccinated that we need.

I've been having these conversations daily, and I actually see some movement along the decision journey. What I don't want to have happen is that people approach the decision that they would like to get vaccinated, but we don't have vaccines available to vaccinate them. I don't want there to be an additional delay because on the back side of that or the other end of that, that's just too much a (ph) cost (ph).

We need to make sure that these states have infrastructure support, that states have locations that are designated that are large enough to facilitate mass numbers of folks getting vaccinated, we need to make sure these states have direct resources like funding that is funneling down to localities.

And I'm just skeptical if all of that has been thought through with the rigor that's necessary to achieve the job.

AVLON: Well, what are you seeing at your hospital in terms of the delivery of the vaccine and the coordination between the manufacturers and the state government?

PERNELL: Look, things are going pretty good for us so far, right? So, so far, we've been able to get both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine shipments across New Jersey hospitals, we've been able to get health care workers vaccinated, you saw news of a first health care worker being vaccinated a little over three weeks ago in New Jersey, and we actually see health care workers actually demonstrating demand, right? Demand for that vaccine.

We've had a pretty good performance in our state, but I'm more concerned about what's happening across the nation as a whole.

AVLON: All right, now we just learned that the new highly contagious South African variant may pose a challenge to the existing vaccine. One of the researchers studying the strain said the more we study this variant, the more worried we get. So how worried are you that the vaccines we've been waiting may not work on this new strain?

PERNELL: Look, John, let's keep this in perspective. What we're finding from this particular variant (ph) in South Africa and across multiple variants that have emerged is, at times, it appears that they may be higher in transmissibility, so that's the most concerning thing, right? Meaning that there's spread of coronavirus quicker. We don't have data to date that they're more lethal, so that is comforting for me.

The other concern is where the mutations are happening along the virus itself. Are the mutations in sequences of the binding areas of that spike protein, where we know that the antibody response is most rigorous? What is, let's say, comforting to know is that the vaccines that we have available to date both produce a strong polyclonal antibody response.

What does that mean? They produce neutralizing antibodies along various aspects of that spike protein, so we're not to the point where we say, hey, this definitively won't work, but we definitely have to keep watching it and we've got to follow the data closely.

AVLON: Dr. Chris Pernell, thank you very much.

PERNELL: Thank you.

AVLON: To politics now, and the promise of chaos next week. Happy New Year. Republican Senator Josh Hawley says he's going to put his name behind an objection to the election results on January 6th. So let's get right now to CNN's Phil Mattingly in Washington to break it down.

Phil, any word on other senators planning to join this Hawley escapade?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, not officially but I think the expectation is it's very possible. Senator Hawley himself said yesterday that his office had heard from several offices after he announced that he was going to object, and I think there's been several Republican senators who have been very coy about what they plan on doing January 6th.

And it's worth talking about what the practical actual implications are of this. This is not going to overturn the election, this is not going to change the fact that Joe Biden will be inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States on January 20th.

What it will do is draw out what is usually a fairly pro forma process. When the House goes to count the electors, any time there's an objection, if it's paired with a House member and a senator, then the House and the Senate have to recess, have up to two hours of debate and then vote.

And the vote is the issue that some Republicans have a big problem with at this point in time, because what I'm being told right now -- and this actually reflects what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned his members of a couple weeks ago, John -- was that what an objection would do is basically force Senate Republicans to either vote with the president -- somebody they've all been loyal to who commands such praise and love in the Republican base -- or vote for reality, and that is that Joe Biden won the election. And while that doesn't seem necessarily like a difficult vote to a

normal person, when you're up for re-election in 2022 or you're up for re-election in 2024, it becomes more complicated. And I think that's where you've heard frustration from the Republican side.

I will say though, to your initial question, we just had eight House Republicans from Pennsylvania come out and say that they're going to object as well; expect the numbers to grow. Obviously the president has been ginning this up and, as we've seen over the course of the last four years, Republicans in Congress tend to respond to that.

[14:10:06]

AVLON: That's an important reality check. This is about two hours of debate, and then a very difficult vote, a trap of their own making politically. Phil Mattingly, thank you very much, my friend, Happy New Year.

All right, moments ago, President Trump walking back into the White House, returning early from Mar-a-Lago to prepare for a new attack on democracy. What to expect from the chaos ahead.

Plus, there's no sign that the bill on $2,000 checks is going to get a vote in the Senate. Senator Angus King of Maine joins me to talk about why.

And yet another reminder, Wall Street is not Main Street. New job numbers on the real impact of this pandemic on American families.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:09]

AVLON: President Trump is back in Washington, cutting short his holiday and focusing on undercutting the election of President-elect Joe Biden.

"Stop The Insanity," screams the message to the president from the front page of the usually Trump-supporting "New York Post." And an editorial Wednesday, in the usually supportive "Wall Street Journal," warns that Trump's involving his vice president could backfire.

Quoting here, "Mr. Pence is too much of a patriot to go along, but the scramble to overturn the will of the voters tarnishes Mr. Trump's legacy and undermines any designs he has on running in 2024. Republicans who humor him will be giving Democrats license to do the same in the future. And then it might matter."

To discuss all this and more, I'm joined by Mark McKinnon, host of "The Circus" on Showtime, former campaign adviser to the George W. Bush and McCain presidential campaigns; and Julian Zelizer is a CNN political analyst, a historian and professor at Princeton University.

It is good to see you both. McKinnon, let's kick it off with you. What kind of trap is Donald Trump setting for Republicans with this January 6th stunt? MARK MCKINNON, FORMER ADVISER, GEORGE W. BUSH AND MCCAIN CAMPAIGNS:

Well, it's -- you know, John, I was just thinking as you were reporting that the president's coming back to the White House, you know, obviously he can do whatever he can and wants to from wherever -- if he's at Mar-a-Lago or whatever, but I just -- it struck me, it was the first time in my life that I was worried about a president being back in the White House and worried about the damage that he could do, doing his job.

So the question is, we've all been asking, is what can he do between now and the 6th, what can he do between now and the 20th. And I think the answer is he's going to break just about everything he can on his way out, and that was what he planned to do initially, that's basically what he ran on.

And the interesting thing, again to your point that you just made, is I get the sense that while, you know, Donald Trump has a lot of equity with his base, but even with his base, John, I think ultimately the whining and the sore loser routine is going to get old.

On the other hand, I think he's going to have a presidency in exile. He knows that the best way to get the spotlight is to at least say that he's running, and he'll be jamming (ph), you know, Joe Biden every day. And so the circus will continue, no question.

AVLON: The circus goes on. But to your point, this is a sign of weakness, not strength, all these stunts on the way out the door.

Julian, I want to bring you in for the historical perspective, because even some Trump supporters -- and you saw the comments from the "New York Post" and the "Wall Street Journal" -- are warning that this kind of assault on democracy we have seen -- and let's not normalize it -- since the election will tarnish his legacy even in the minds of some supporters. What's your sense of how history will judge Donald Trump?

JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I don't know about his supporters, but I don't think this will be very favorably looked at years from now. The attacks on the democratic processes -- which have been an integral part of his presidency and have accelerated since Election Day -- are bad for democracy, kind of increasing distrust in our elections --

AVLON: Of course.

ZELIZER: -- in the presidency, is not a good thing.

And also, this affects our pandemic policy. Right now we are rolling out a vaccine, it's going very slowly. And to have the president taking up this much oxygen on that and not helping with the transition is going to also have effects in terms of how we think about him. So I think this won't be something that will be looked at well at all, decades from now.

AVLON: I think you're being gentle. Just to stick with you, Julian, you know, we saw Andrew Johnson had a tantrum and refused to attend the inauguration of his successor, Ulysses S. Grant; is there any other precedent for this kind of performance, destructive behavior on the way out the door in presidential history?

ZELIZER: There's really not. If you take 1860 and the, you know, literal breakdown of the republic, this is not what presidents do. They can be angry, they can be tense with the incoming administration, but they either focus on pushing for policies that they didn't get done, either through executive orders or through legislation, or they fade away quietly and help with the transition. This destructive moment of instability is not part of our presidential history, and he's just added it to the textbooks.

AVLON: McKinnon, after you worked for Kris Kristofferson, you worked for George W. Bush and John McCain. That Republican party that took patriotism and honor and duty seriously, is that MIA for good because of the sway Trump has had on the base and the fear it's inspired on the part of so many House members?

(CROSSTALK)

MCKINNON: -- could be MIA longer than I had anticipated, John. I thought that there was a good possibility that Trump would lose, but it's quite clear now that he's not going anywhere. You know, I mean, he'll be in Mar-a-Lago but as I said, it'll be a presidency in exile. He'll say that he's running right up until he doesn't in order to maintain a hammer lock on the Republican Party.

[14:20:01]

So the notion of rebuilding of the Republican Party, I think is going to be pushed off a ways. Because as we've seen, from even what's happening on January 6th among Republicans, is that nobody's going to wander far from the Trump flock any time soon. So those people who think about country over party and compassionate conservatism are unfortunately going to have to be waiting a while, I'm afraid.

AVLON: McKinnon and Zelizer, thank you very much for all your perspective, gentlemen. Happy New Year.

MCKINNON: Kick (ph) it (ph), John.

ZELIZER: Thank you, Happy New Year.

AVLON: All right. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell says the bill to send out $2,000 checks has no way to quickly pass the Senate. So we're going to ask Senator Angus King if that's true.

And then the NYPD has a message about Times Square: Don't come here.

We're live on a New Year's Eve like no other.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:25:13]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): There is one way and only one way to pass $2,000 checks before the end of the year, and that's to pass the House bill. Either the Senate takes up and passes the House bill, or struggling Americans will not get $2,000 checks during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: That's Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, just a few hours ago, urging his Republican counterpart, Leader Mitch McConnell, to take up a House bill that would put $2,000 in the pockets of struggling Americans.

So where does the situation stand? Joining us now is independent Senator Angus King of Maine. Senator, let's start with that stimulus. You support the $2,000 stimulus checks, which McConnell has said have no realistic path to pass the Senate as a standalone bill. So the question is, do you agree? Is there 60 votes, could there be 60 votes for a direct $2,000 payment if it was de-linked from the other items?

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): John, I think there are 60 votes but I don't think we'll ever know. One of the peculiar things about the Senate is that one senator can block pretty much anything, and then you're stuck in a kind of procedural hell where it takes three or four days to -- you know, to clear your throat.

But the bill that the House passed could be brought to the floor if the Republican caucus refrained from objecting and Mitch McConnell brought it up. It could be passed, it could have money in the pockets of Americans within the next several weeks. So to say it's impossible is to kind of bow to obstructionism that -- it just isn't so. It could be passed.

This bill, by the way, passed the House by two thirds, which is amazing, a bipartisan majority, the president of the United States supports it and I believe we would get 60 votes in the Senate, but Senator McConnell, I don't think, wants his members to have to take that vote. And -- where they're either having to choose between helping the American people and you know, whatever else -- agenda they have.

So, yes, it could come up but I don't think we can put all the blame on Mitch McConnell in this case, I think there are two or three members of his caucus who would object to the unanimous consent agreements necessary to expedite it.

AVLON: All right.

Well, speaking of another veto by Trump, it's been overridden in the National Defense Authorization Act, of course been overridden by the House as well. But that's being held up by Senator Bernie Sanders over these $2,000 direct payments.

But let's talk about the bill, because Trump objected to provisions in the act, like Section 230, he wants it linked; Confederate bases. But you've been very vocal about one of the great strengths of this bill being the cyber-legislation that in its place. Could you explain why that's so important? KING: Well, John, I worked for a year and a half with a bipartisan group on making recommendations to strengthen our cyber-defenses of the country, and more than two dozen of our recommendations are in this bill. If those recommendations were all together in one single bill, standalone, it itself would be the most significant piece of cyber-legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress.

So there's an enormously important segment of this bill that we really need to get through, and this was before we knew about the SolarWinds hack. I mean, that sort of puts an exclamation point on how important this work is. So that's a sort of sub-piece of the bill that hasn't gotten a lot of publicity. But this bill, this defense act is the most important piece of cyber-defense legislation we've ever had before the Congress.

AVLON: And to your point, it would be -- give more tools to respond to these kinds of an attack. So what's your response to date about the Trump administration's lack of discussion, particularly the president, about the suspected Russian-backed hack? Because this is massive; the president's still silent. Why?

KING: Well, it's baffling. He's issued one tweet, which I think he said it's no big deal and we're not sure it's the Russians. Neither of those assertions are true. And it is a big deal. This goes right to the heart of many of our federal agencies as well as some important private sector agencies.

And by the way, one of the provisions that's in the defense bill would empower our infrastructure security agency to, quote, "threat hunt on the .gov domain," that means look for threats like this, and we might have been able to uncover this much sooner with much less damage.

So this is a very serious matter, John, but I'm afraid it's just the warm-up. I mean, we are so vulnerable to cyber-attack, and you know, just thank the good Lord this isn't the electric grid or the gas pipeline grid or the financial system. But this is, I think, the most serious threat that this country faces right now.

[14:30:02]

AVLON: It sure is.