Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Georgia Republicans Pass Sweeping Bill Restricting Voter Access; Biden: The Filibuster Has Been "Abused" In "An Extreme Way"; Former CDC Director Says He Thinks COVID-19 Originated In Chinese Lab But Has No Evidence. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired March 26, 2021 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:08]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: Now to the sweeping effort to rewrite voting rules across the country. Overnight, Georgia Governor, Republican Governor Brian Kemp, he signed into law a huge package of new voting restrictions.

Among other things, the law limits ballot drop boxes, bans offering food or drink to voters who are waiting in line to vote, and it imposes new I.D. requirements for absentee voting. What's happening now in Georgia? Make no mistake it's really just the tip of the iceberg.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice that has been tracking these efforts, more than 250 bills to make it harder to vote have been introduced in 43 states since the start of the year. Joining me right now for more on this is Damon Hewitt. He's the Acting President and Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Thank you for coming in. What is your response to Georgia's Governor signing this massive bill into law last night? What does it mean for voters in that state?

DAMON HEWITT, ACTING PRESIDENT, LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW: Well, thanks for having me. Look, it's not just response to the Governor or to the state legislators who voted for this retrogressive legislation that would turn back the clock. But for others who have with such fervor, pursue these agendas throughout the country, were not going to let you roll back the clock.

This is really as so many have said, Jim Crow, under a different name under a different guise. And we should be making it easier for people to vote, especially amidst the continuing pandemic, especially amid such economic insecurity, especially given that we had record turnout of so many millions of people who voted in the 2020 election cycle. Why should we be going backwards? We actually need to go in the other direction and go forward. And so this is just a blatant attempt to try to wrest power, grab power, and to stop democracy in its tracks.

BOLDUAN: I want to ask you about at least one piece of the now law in Georgia, banning and making it a criminal to offer snacks or water to people waiting in line to vote. What does that have to do with election security? HEWITT: Absolutely nothing. What it has to do with is trying to somehow stop and retard civic participation and communities and people supporting each other? Look, we know that in early voting periods and certainly on election days outside of a pandemic type of atmosphere, we know that there are long lines at polls, wait too long. That's been documented for many years.

BOLDUAN: Especially in Georgia and majority minority communities.

HEWITT: Exactly. And that's because of a lack of infrastructure, lack of personnel, lack of investment in the Democratic infrastructure and off -- which is often intentional. And so now this is doubling down on the problem making it worse, not only do we have to stand in line, if we elderly, infirm, ill, or worried about other health concerns or have a job where you threatened to lose pit.

Not only do you have to stay in the line for a long time, now you're on your own. This is what the message is. You're on your own. Your community can't help you. Your community doesn't matter. And your voice, your voice and your vote don't matter. That's the message that's being sent.

BOLDUAN: What should the legal challenges to this now look like?

HEWITT: Well, the challenges are pretty standard as far as what the law is. There's still some continued vitality to the Voting Rights Act. Although the Supreme Court tried to get key provisions and get that key provisions several years ago, which essentially allow for this type of thing to happen without being checked by the U.S. Department of Justice and other organizations prior to them going into effect.

But there's still continued vitality. We believe that these provisions are not just discriminatory in terms of a disparate impact on communities of color. We believe this is intentional racial discrimination, and we intend to prove them.

BOLDUAN: I mean, bottom line, if this -- let's just take Georgia, this law stays in place. What is the next election cycle look like?

HEWITT: With this law in place, the next election cycle will be thrown into relative chaos. Because just as we have people used to and accustomed to expanded ballot access ways, common sense ways for everyone to be able to vote to their comfort level and to this safety needs, all of a sudden, we're pulling the rug out from under them.

So we expect rampant misinformation. We expect significant confusion. But we also expect, however, is what we also saw in 2020, that communities of color that impacted communities that rural communities who were also impacted, will rally and will help them rally through our work at the lowest Committee through the National Nonpartisan Election Protecting Coalition and hotline 366-OUR-VOTE. We will help them rally, but it will not be easy.

BOLDUAN: Damon, thank you for coming in.

HEWITT: Thank you so much.

[12:35:00]

BOLDUAN: Dominion voting systems just filed a huge new lawsuit and this is directly related to the conversation I was just having about Georgia's voting laws. This time the lawsuit from Dominion is against Fox News, the company that had Dominion had been vilified by Donald Trump and his supporters during the 2020 election, and was the target of baseless conspiracy theories about the presidential election. Venezuela, China, you come up with it, you make it up, it was thrown at them.

Now it's suing Fox News for $1.6 billion. They say the network's engaged in reckless propagation of enormous falsehoods aiming to quote, profit off of these lies. Another voting system company, Smartmatic, has already sued Fox for $2.7 billion. And that was back in February. CNN has reached out to Fox for comment, but so far we have not heard back.

Coming up for us, has President Biden really actually seriously made clear his position now in a key question in Washington, the question of the filibuster. Coming up, what Biden said and why this fight over what sounds like boring Senate rules, why it's so important.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:40:49]

BOLDUAN: One major topic during the President's press conference yesterday one major question on Capitol Hill is what to do about the filibuster. It's the weird word for the Senate rule that dates back to the 19th century that slows legislation down in the Senate. It requires 60 votes to end debate and move along any bill in the chamber.

Yesterday, the President was pressed on his position of whether the filibuster should stay or go because it's a key question with a slim Democratic majority in the Senate now. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: John Lewis's funeral President Barack Obama said he believed the filibuster was a relic of the Jim Crow era. Do you agree?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes.

COLLINS: If not, why not abolish it if it's a relic of the Jim Crow era,

BIDEN: Successful electoral politics is the art of the possible. Let's figure out how we can get this done. And move the direction of significantly changing the abuse of even the filibuster rule first. It's been abused from the time it came into being by an extreme way in the last 20 years. Let's deal with the abuse first.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: So, where is this headed and what really is the President's position?

Joining me now, two men who know the power of the filibuster, former Republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, and former Democratic senator from Alabama, Doug Jones, it's great to see you guys. Thank you for being here. Senator Jones, do you know what President Biden's position what he's saying here? Do you think he's ready to throw it out?

DOUG JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No. Yes, I think, look, he's being very consistent. He has said, first of all, he wants to work with people on both sides of the aisle to get things done. But he wants to get things done. And he doesn't want the filibuster to be an impediment to actually getting things done. He's going to reach out. He's going to continue to reach out on every topic, whether it's voting rights, guns or immigration, he's going to continue to reach out.

But if he runs into a brick wall, then something's got to give because as he said, over and over, he's a doer. He wants to get things done for the American people. That's why he was elected.

BOLDUAN: So he's walking closer, you think to saying, yes, throw it out then?

JONES: Well, I think he's certainly walking closer, because right now he's getting a stiff arm on so many subjects. And he is going to make sure that he gets things done. That's his mandate. And I think that he can work with folks. And I think, look, he's not going to be set in stone on any issue. I think he can be flexible on a lot of these issues. But at the end of the day, he wants to have some success in his term as President of the United States.

BOLDUAN: Look, Senator Flake, you push back on Donald Trump when he was calling for Republican Senate Majority to get rid of the role. What do you think of what President Biden is saying about this?

JEFF FLAKE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, Joe Biden has always looked at the long term. I mean, if you look at his career, he's spent a lot of time in the Senate. He, along with virtually everybody, when they're in the minority, want to keep the filibuster. But it's frustrating as all get out when you're in the majority. I understand that. I've been in both.

But I hope it stays. It's the one mechanism that still forces the parties to work together. And it will keep us from see sign back and forth every two years between majorities. So but obviously, it's frustrating when you're in the majority, particularly with a very slim majority, like the Democrats have right now.

BOLDUAN: Yes, but frustrating doesn't necessarily mean you change it, right, as you're getting at Senator Flake.

FLAKE: Right. BOLDUAN: I mean Senator Jones, I mean what does the -- what needs to be I guess, definition of terms is what is needed first and foremost, almost. What does the filibuster actually do? Do you think it creates complete lockdown and chaos like Joe Biden put it yesterday? Is it a Jim Crow relic that Barack Obama described it as and has said? Or does it force senators to compromise like others say?

JONES: Well, Kate, and unfortunately, it's really all of the above. And what we've seen over the last few years, though, is that the filibuster that Joe Biden discussed yesterday, where people literally had to get on the floor and talk and talk and talk and not yield the floor, just like Strom Thurmond did against the Civil Rights Act.

[12:45:07]

Those kinds of things have been eroded. And now someone can block it. And you just go about the Senate business. And I think one step would maybe be to look at making the filibuster do exactly what it was originally intended. And if someone wants to filibuster a bill, let them hold the floor for days and days and days, because two things happen. One, they get tired. Number two, the public gets tired. And actually, number three, it gives an opportunity to talk and to see if there's areas of agreement where people can find that has happened time and time again in the history of this country.

The filibuster has been used --

BOLDUAN: But doesn't it still require -- right, but doesn't it still require the question of 60 votes, which is where it begins and end.

JONES: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Even -- and that's still the question.

JONES: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Do you throw out the 60?

JONES: But many people will vote to end debate on a bill to simply let a vote happen, that has happened time and time again in our country. And again, during the filibuster, often people get together and they find the common ground where they can make the changes, and you can get more than 60 votes for the passage of the bill.

BOLDUAN: One of the reason -- one of the things that filibuster has been used for very recently, while it really affects everything, Senator Flake, is when it comes to voting rights legislation that we've been seeing moving in the Congress, right? On all of these efforts across the country, your state of Arizona, just last night in Georgia, this attack on voting rights that Republicans say, some Republicans say, is about voter confidence in the system. Why isn't the Senate and I mean, Senate Republicans doing more to help? Give me your take?

FLAKE: I think they will. And just let me say for the record, I think a lot of what's going on around the country, almost all of what's going on in terms of so called voter integrity is just a blatant attempt to make it more difficult for people to vote. It's not a good thing for the country. It's not a good look for Republicans.

I do think there are a good number of Senate Republicans who will work with Democrats to make sure that voting access is guaranteed, and that we don't go down this road. H.R.1, though, has some extraneous items that I don't even think have the support of all Democrats in the Senate. So I think that the parties can come together on that issue. I certainly hope that they do.

BOLDUAN: Senator Jones, where do you think this is headed with the -- I mean, you can talk about it in relation to voting rights, or just in general with the filibuster. Do you think they are on a crash course to -- do you think Biden will eventually get to a place where he supports throwing it out?

JONES: Perhaps so, but I don't think we're there yet. I think Jeff is absolutely right about areas of agreement, common ground on voting rights, and those extraneous matters that really do not touch on voting rights and voting access. I think that's going to be a big test.

If they can find some common ground on that and pass a voting rights bill, I think that sends a strong message about how we can do things. But eventually you've got some thorny issues on immigration and gun rights and some other things like that, that are going to make it more and more difficult. We're not there yet on the filibuster, but we're going to be moving that way. I just hope they'll find the common ground on one issue that they can then work on others.

BOLDUAN: I really appreciate both of you coming on and your perspective on this. And I -- dare I say we made the filibuster interesting today. Senator Jones also on a serious note, I know that your state was the worst hit with this dangerous weather overnight, so sending our best. Thank you very much.

JONES: Thanks so much, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Thanks, Senator Flake.

FLAKE: Thanks, Kate.

[12:48:45]

BOLDUAN: Still ahead, the former CDC director offering up what he says is just his opinion, but diving into a controversial topic about the origins of the pandemic. And now Dr. Anthony Fauci is responding. Sanjay Gupta is here with that big interview.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: For the first time the former director of the CDC is speaking out on when and where he thinks the coronavirus pandemic originated. Here is Dr. Robert Redfield, when he sat down with Sanjay Gupta.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DR. ROBERT REDFIELD, FORMER CDC DIRECTOR: If I was to guess this virus started transmitting somewhere in September, October in Wuhan.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: September, October.

REDFIELD: That's my view, it's only opinion. I'm allowed to have opinions now. You know, I am of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped out. Other people don't believe that, that's fine. Science will eventually figure it out. It's not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in laboratory to infect the laboratory worker.

GUPTA (voice-over): It is also not unusual for that type of research to be occurring in Wuhan. The city is a widely known center for viral studies in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has experimented extensively with bat coronaviruses.

(on camera): It is a remarkable conversation I feel like we're having here because you are the former CDC director and you were the director at the time this was all happening.

(voice-over): For the first time, the former CDC director is stating publicly that he believes this pandemic started months earlier than we knew and that it originated not at a wet market, but inside a lab in China.

(on camera): These are two significant things to say Dr. Redfield

REDFIELD: that's not implying any intentionality, you know. It's my opinion, right? But I am a virologist. I have spent my life in virology. I do not believe this somehow came from a bat to a human. And at that moment in time, the virus that came to the human became one of the most infectious viruses that we know in humanity, for human to human transmission.

Normally, when a pathogen goes from zoonotic to human, it takes a while for it to figure out how to become more and more efficient in humans to human transmission. I just don't think this makes biological sense.

GUPTA (on camera): So in the lab, do you think that that process of becoming more efficient was happening? Is that what you are suggesting?

REDFIELD: Yes. Let's just say I have coronavirus that I'm working on it. Most of us in the lab we're trying to grow virus, we try to help make it go better and better and better and better and better and better so we can do experiments and figure out about it. That's the way I put it together.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BOLDUAN: Sanjay is joining me now. I mean, Sanjay this was part of really important documentary that you've been working on for months. But wow, I mean, Redfield says that this is opinion but the fact that he's comfortable enough to go there publicly, it's going to have an impact.

[12:55:09]

GUPTA: Yes, I think it will. And it's an informed opinion, obviously. He was head of the CDC at the time. He has access to data and knowledge that, you know, most people don't have. So when you look -- when you hear his thoughts on this, it's in involved sort of lots of different information that he had access to.

The World Health Organization calls the lab leak theory, extremely unlikely. Chinese officials have even started proposing this multi origin theory saying, the pandemic originated in several different places, you know, so that's been unsubstantiated. But the point is a year into this, we still don't know exactly how this pandemic where it started.

BOLDUAN: And Dr. Anthony Fauci is now responding to questions about this.

GUPTA: Yes, so you know, he was -- we -- he is part of the documentary film as well. But he was asked specifically about this after he heard for the first time with Dr. Redfield said, so take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I think what he likely was expressing is that there certainly are possibilities, as I mentioned just a few moments ago, of how a virus adapt itself to a efficient spread among humans, you know, one of them is in the lab and one of them, which is the more likely which most public health officials agree with is that it likely was below the radar screen, spreading in the community in China for several weeks, if not a month or more, which allowed it when it first got recognized clinically, to be pretty well adapted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUPTA: So there you see, Kate, I mean, even between Dr. Fauci and Dr. Redfield, you know, it's still not clear even to them exactly how to say for certain where this thing originated.

BOLDUAN: Where this came from has obviously, then a very big question. Why does this question -- this answer to this matter so much?

GUPTA: Well, you know, I think first of all, obviously, this was a devastating pandemic, you know, I mean, 500,000 plus people have died in the United States to 2.75 million people around the world. And, you know, people, I think, understandably, just want to know, what -- where did this start, what exactly happened?

But I think more to the point, and this was sort of the focus of the documentary as well, Kate, is there are lessons to be learned. I mean, even right now, there are lessons to be learned because we're still in the middle of this pandemic. But there's lessons to be learned to try and prevent future outbreaks. You know, there's regulation around labs, things like that, how you're actually tracking early zoonosis, all these sorts of things make a difference.

And you know, we probably haven't paid enough attention to it in the past. This will help shine some light on exactly what the lapses were, and how they can be avoided in the future.

BOLDUAN: Considering how this kind of wades very quickly into some pretty messy geopolitical issues. Do you think that there's a chance like we don't ever get an answer?

GUPTA: That that is possible. You know, it's interesting, because Dr. Redfield said to me as part of that interview, and by the way, there was 20 hours' worth of interviews with all these doctors. But he said, science will eventually figure it out. I'm not sure, you know, it's not clear. We are waiting for this big 300-page report that's coming from World Health Organization along with other partners, to see what they conclude. They may not have a satisfying conclusion in the end to be able to say one way or the other. So it may end up being more just conjecture.

BOLDUAN: I was just looking down, Sanjay, because we also have some new information coming in that I want to read to you that the U.S. intelligence community says that it is standing by its statement on the origin of the coronavirus from almost a year ago that it is still examining the way they put it is whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.

A spokesperson with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said that there's no update on that statement from last April, which also said that the virus was not manmade or genetically modified, just your reaction to that.

GUPTA: Well, you know, first of all, with regard to that last part, not manmade or genetically modified. I don't really know anyone who's suggesting that that was the case. I think what you're hearing in terms of the school of thought here is that this was an existing coronavirus in nature that was then brought to the lab to be studied.

And as Dr. Redfield put it, to make it more -- to make it better he called it, but those are called the gain of function sort of thing. So, again, we may not know the answer to that, but that is sort of the theory that Dr. Redfield is putting out there.

BOLDUAN: Sanjay, bravo to you on this project. It's been a long time in the work so thank you for that and bravo to your whole team just producer just small, Davide Cannaviccio, I mean the whole team, congratulations.

GUPTA: Thank you.

[13:00:02]

BOLDUAN: And for all of you don't miss this unprecedented event with Dr. Gupta. The CNN Special Report COVID War, The Pandemic Doctors Speak Out. It airs Sunday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.

Thank you all so much for joining me. I'm Kate Baldwin. Brianna Keilar picks up our coverage right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)