Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Congress Moves to Hold Mark Meadows in Contempt; Russia Tensions; Pfizer Announces Booster Shots Protect Against Omicron. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired December 08, 2021 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Ana Cabrera picks up our coverage right now.

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello, and thanks for being with us. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

We begin with an answer, at least partially, to what has been perhaps the biggest question since the Omicron variant was first discovered. And that is whether current vaccines would be effective against this new variant.

Today, Pfizer announcing three doses of its vaccine, so those two original shots and a booster, do protect against Omicron. They put it simply like this: Three doses are to Omicron what two doses are to the original wild-type COVID-19 variant.

Pfizer also saying that while two doses may not offer sufficient protection against Omicron, they could still prevent severe disease. And South Africa says that's essentially what they are witnessing in real time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANGELIQUE COETZEE, CHAIRWOMAN, SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION: I think this is like the scope of the vaccines regarding Omicron, but interesting enough, it's mild disease.

And that is what was also -- what has always been said, It's supposed to protect you at least between 94 percent and 96 percent and hospitalization. If I look at the facts, in the public sector hospital, the majority -- and I know it's 90-plus -- of people in the ICUs are unvaccinated people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: I want to get straight to CNN's senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen.

Elizabeth, this seems like good news. Tell us more about Pfizer's data.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Ana, it certainly is good news.

I think there was a lot of fear that, because Omicron has so many mutations on the spike protein, that the vaccine wasn't going to work very well. And the vaccine certainly takes a hit, but it still is protective, it appears against, severe disease.

Now, before I talk about the data that Pfizer has, I know that people listening are thinking, yes, well, Pfizer thinks three shots is better than two. What a surprise that a pharmaceutical company wants to sell more shots.

And while I understand that cynicism and, to some extent, share it, it is interesting and important to note that the Pfizer data really meshes with data from a South Africa lab and also meshes with what doctors, like the doctor we heard from, are seeing in South Africa. It all completes sort of a very similar picture.

So let's look at what the Pfizer data and the South Africa lab data together show. What they found is that two doses of Pfizer may not provide sufficient protection against infection with Omicron. In other words, if you have had two doses, you might still get infected with Omicron, but, let's face it, if you don't get very sick, that's not necessarily a very big deal.

But what they did find is that two doses may still give significant protection against severe disease. Significant is the word that Dr. ALEX Sigal, the researcher in South Africa, that's the word he used with me when I spoke used with him last night. He thinks that two doses will give significant protection against severe disease.

But it's very clear from the Pfizer data that the third dose may give more robust protection. So I think what this has a lot of people asking is, well, is this basically a three-dose vaccine? Is this a vaccine like many other vaccines that ought to be given in three doses?

So, Ana, our colleague Kate Bolduan had a discussion about this earlier with Dr. Anthony Fauci.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: I don't see that changing tomorrow or next week. But, certainly, if you want to talk about what optimal protection is, I don't think anybody would argue that optimal protection is going to be with a third shot.

Whether or not it officially gets changed in the definition, I think that's going to be considered literally on a daily basis. That's always on the table. It's going to be a matter of when, not if.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: Now, it's interesting.

I think the bottom line of what Dr. Fauci is saying here is, look, get your vaccine, of course, and get a booster. It doesn't really matter what the definition is. We know that you ought to get the original vaccine and then six months later ought to get a booster -- Ana.

CABRERA: So, again, we're talking about Pfizer right now. When can we expect data on Moderna and J&J's vaccines?

COHEN: So, Moderna has said that they expect to have data in about a week or so. Johnson & Johnson says they are looking into it about how their vaccine will do against Omicron, but they haven't given a timetable yet.

CABRERA: OK. We know you will keep us posted.

Elizabeth Cohen, thank you.

I want to talk more about all this with Dr. Leana Wen. She's the former Baltimore health commissioner, as well as author of "Lifelines: A Doctor's Journey in the Fight for Public Health."

Dr. Wen, right now, the recommendation now is for adults to get a Pfizer or Moderna booster six months after the second dose. J&J is two months after the first dose.

Just considering these latest developments, could that booster timeline change?

[13:05:03]

DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: It could.

And I think that our federal health officials should be actively evaluating this, so that we're not behind when it comes to the recommendations, although I will say that the data emerging from South Africa, the emerging -- the data from Pfizer out this morning are not surprising.

Actually, this is what we have been anticipating all along, that there's good news and bad news, the bad news being that there's some degree of immune escape, that two doses may not work as well as against previous variants. But I actually think that it's really good news that the third dose does appear to give that really significant additional boosting effect.

And so it adds more reason for everybody to get a booster, certainly who's eligible, but also I do hope that our federal health officials will be quick to reevaluate the definition of what it means to be fully vaccinated, especially in light of what we're learning about Omicron.

CABRERA: And so now it's three doses are needed. Before, it was two doses were good enough.

What about the next time a new variant emerges? Is there, I guess, an end to getting booster doses?

WEN: Well, at this point, we don't know. And when we look at the pattern of other vaccines -- for example, you look at the hepatitis vaccine, that's a three-dose vaccine. Polio vaccine is a four-dose vaccine.

Then you have the tetanus dose that requires a booster every 10 years, the flu vaccine that requires basically a new shot every year. It may be that the COVID vaccine is one of these categories. It may be that it's three vaccines and we're done for a lifetime. Or maybe you need to get regular boosters.

We don't know the answer to this, although I will just add one more thing here, which is that scientists are working around the clock looking into this. And, right now, the takeaway for the American people should be that a third dose appears to be necessary at this time.

That's what's going to protect us now against Delta that's really prevalent, also will protect us against Omicron.

CABRERA: And it is the Delta variant that's wreaking havoc here in the U.S. right now. We're seeing cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are all going up, especially in the Midwest.

Michigan, for instance, has more hospitalizations right now than at any other point in the pandemic. Same with Maine. Why?

WEN: We're definitely seeing this Delta wave hit across the U.S. right now, and it seems to be ebbing and flowing and in different parts of the country.

First, we saw the Delta wave really hit the South hard. Now it appears to be hitting the Upper Midwest. And this may be something that sweeps across the country at different points. This is actually what makes me really worried about Omicron.

There are preliminary results from South Africa, for example, showing that prior infection with another variant like Delta may not protect you against Omicron. And so it's possible that, if Omicron becomes dominant here, the parts of the country that are not yet vaccinated and boosted may get hit hard by an Omicron wave.

The best way, of course, for us to prevent that from happening is getting the vaccination and the booster dose, too.

CABRERA: We have every reason to believe Omicron is causing mild disease in vaccinated people.

And yet, today, there's expected to be a bipartisan vote in the Senate against President Biden's vaccine mandates for employees and employers, with the Democrats Manchin and Tester signaling that they will be voting with Republicans on this.

It's still unlikely for this to become law, because it would have to pass the House, and, of course, President Biden's not going to sign it, but, still, a bipartisan vote against vaccine mandates. How much harder does this make it to get every American vaccinated?

WEN: Yes. I mean, we're talking here about ensuring the safety of workers and their families. You know, there's another path for the Biden administration to be

pursuing, too, which is to -- instead frame this as a testing and masking mandate. Nobody is saying, I don't think, at least, that we should just let workplaces have no standards whatsoever.

We're saying that workplaces have a duty to ensure that their employees are safe. So why not reframe this as everybody needs to be tested and masked? But if you are vaccinated and, ideally, boosted, then you can opt out of that testing and masking?

That might be a different framework that's not so much about compelling people to be vaccinated, because, ultimately, that's not the goal. The goal is not just to get people vaccinated. The goal is to stop COVID infection. And so frame it as testing and masking, in the same way that we have TSA pre-check, right?

Everybody has to have their I.D. and bags checked for devices. But if you have TSA pre-check, you're able to bypass that. Maybe that's a different way of reframing the argument.

CABRERA: That's an interesting idea.

Dr. Leana Wen, good to see you. Thank you for all you do. Appreciate your time.

Both President Biden and Russia's Putin are weighing in now on their tense virtual summit. And, this morning, President Biden has a stern warning for Putin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I made it very clear, if, in fact, he invades Ukraine, there will be severe consequences, severe consequences, economic consequences like none he's ever seen or ever have been seen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:10:05]

CABRERA: Earlier today, Putin said his country does not want confrontation with anyone. That's despite the massive Russian troop buildup on the Ukrainian border.

CNN national security correspondent Kylie Atwood is at the State Department.

Kylie, what's the next step, I guess, in this diplomatic process then?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, Ana, we know that this conversation turned tense at times.

The national security adviser, however, described it as a useful conversation. And that's because, he said, the president was crystal clear about what the repercussions would be if Russia invades Ukraine. So, to your question as to what's next, the White House said that both

of the presidents ordered their teams to conducts follow-on conversations. We will wait and see what comes from those conversations to see if there is a diplomatic path forward here.

But in terms of why the stakes are so high here, a top State Department official testified on the Hill yesterday and said that what Russia is doing here is similar to what it did in 2014, but also said that this is much larger and much more lethal in scale. So, it is a really dramatic moment, and surely a test for the Biden administration and their foreign policy.

CABRERA: Kylie Atwood, I appreciate the update. Thank you so much.

Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as Australia, all joining the U.S. in a diplomatic boycott of the 2020 Beijing Winter Olympic Games. Still, all four countries are expected to have their athletes compete. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying that a sporting boycott is not sensible.

Chinese officials continue to spar with the boycotting countries. A spokesperson for the U.S. Chinese Embassy calling it -- quote -- "a pretentious act" and a grave distortion of the spirit of the Olympic Games.

Stunning new developments in the Capitol insurrection investigation, the January 6 Committee officially moving forwards to hold former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in contempt, the committee also revealing new details from e-mails and text messages that they obtained from Meadows, which include a 38-page PowerPoint presentation on -- quote -- "options" for the 6th of January.

Plus, right now, closing arguments are under way in the trial against Jussie Smollett. And prosecutors are wrapping -- just wrapped up moments ago. The defense will try to convince a jury next that the actor did not fake a hate crime.

Stay with us. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:16:59]

CABRERA: Bowing to former President Trump and brushing off a congressional subpoena.

The January 6 Committee is now moving forward with criminal contempt proceedings against former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows after he refused to appear before the committee for his scheduled deposition this morning.

Meadows' lawyer saying he will no longer cooperate, blaming overreach by congressional investigators.

Let's discuss with CNN's chief political analyst, Gloria Borger. And, Gloria, we're learning more now about the documents Meadows has

handed over, which the committee says includes -- and I quote here -- "a November 7, 2020, e-mail discussing the appointment of alternate slates of electors as part of a direct and collateral attack after the election, a January 5, 2021, e-mail regarding a 38-page PowerPoint briefing that's titled 'Election Fraud, Foreign Interference and Options for 6th of January.'"

That was to be provided on the Hill, and, among others a January 5, 2021, e-mail about having the National Guard on standby.

So, first, I just want to get your reaction to these stunning details about what Meadows has already given this committee.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, it's quite remarkable, and also a complete turnaround now to say he's not going to cooperate after he has handed over these kind of documents.

It makes you wonder who was going through these documents as they were going to hand them over to the committee. But, in any case, let's look at this in context. This November 7 -- don't forget the election was November 3. November 7 was the day that the networks all said Joe Biden was going to be the next freely and fairly elect the president of the United States.

So, on November 7, Mark Meadows was already having some kind of e-mail conversation about what a direct and collateral attack, as it was called, after the election, and, on November 5, he was having communications about potentially having the National Guard on standby for what was to occur presumably on either that day or January 6.

And then this PowerPoint, I'd like to see what it says, in an e-mail about election fraud, et cetera, et cetera. And you will recall that, on January 6, it took an awful long time to get the National Guard over there to the Capitol.

Yet there was an e-mail on January 5, presumably about that -- having them on standby.

CABRERA: So many more questions...

BORGER: So many questions.

CABRERA: ... just given those little bread crumbs of details of what's in this trove of documents...

BORGER: Exactly. Yes.

CABRERA: ... that have already been handed over, which we're learning also included some texts from Meadows in the days after the election.

And, in this letter it says that: "The text messages you did produce include a November 6, 2020, text exchange with a member of Congress apparently about appointing alternate electors in certain states as part of a plan that the member acknowledged would be highly controversial and to which Mr. Meadows apparently said it: "I love it."

[13:20:03]

Gloria, Meadows was texting with members of Congress.

BORGER: He was.

CABRERA: And the committee apparently has other text exchanges, too.

BORGER: Well, they will figure out who the member of Congress was, and, presumably, they will ask the member of Congress about that communication.

But it really does show -- it's not remarkable that the White House chief of staff is communicating with somebody in Congress. Happens all the time. But it shows you how deeply involved Mark Meadows was in promoting the big lie and trying to figure out a way to promote the big lie and, presumably, in trying to figure out a way how to reverse the election and hand it to Donald Trump.

And that is exactly what the committee is investigating. And you could argue that it has nothing to do with executive privilege, which is why he handed it over, because they weren't communications with the president of the United States.

Even if you believe that he has the right to claim privilege on that for a former president, these are communications with other folks. So he handed it over. And, presumably, as we have reported, the president is furious about this and grows more and more furious about this as he sees what was in his book and as he reads now what is in these documents.

CABRERA: Gloria Borger, I appreciate you. Thank you for joining us.

BORGER: Sure.

CABRERA: And now let's bring in Norm Eisen, get the legal take here. He's a former White House ethics czar and former U.S. ambassador. He's also someone who served as special counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during President Trump's first impeachment trial.

Norm, your reaction to these new details, a 38-page PowerPoint that includes options for January 6 and some of these communications that we're now learning about. Your thoughts?

NORMAN EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Ana, thanks for having me back.

First, it sounds as if the documents, we will need to look at them, and we will eventually get to look at them. They're further evidence of the alleged election fraud scheme that the committee is probing here.

If the American people voted for Joe Biden as president, you can't, for example, float alternative slates of presidential electors. So it's an assault on American democracy. It appears to raise issues under the election fraud laws, for example. Secondly, it sounds as if there's some important evidence there about

-- that may relate to the president's failure to act. What are these National Guard communications? And, then as Gloria reflected, Mark Meadows is incriminating himself and then refusing to show up. He's writing book talking about subjects, and then refusing to show up.

He's setting himself up to go the way of Steve Bannon, prosecution for criminal contempt.

CABRERA: We will get to that in a second, but just back to this idea that they have so much already, right?

This, what we're learning, is all part some 6,000 documents the committee already has from Meadows. So, can Meadows put the genie back in the bottle by reverting back to executive privilege now?

EISEN: Ana, the genie has left the bottle and is doing laps around Washington, D.C., and the country. So there is no reverting.

He's providing more evidence of what we already know to be one of the most shocking conspiracies in American history, where the American people chose, and a United States president, aided and abetted, apparently, by his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, is talking about things like alternate slates of electors?

There was a legitimately chosen slate of electors. So, no, there's no putting this genie back in the bottle, and he's not going to be able to dodge culpability by refusing to cooperate. Now we have the documents. There's a saying: People lie. Documents don't.

CABRERA: The committee does say it's moving forward with contempt proceedings against Mark Meadows, which you support, you say.

But, I mean, this still effectively delays the committee's search for answers, doesn't it? Just look at Steve Bannon. His case isn't until July of next year, when his trial will be for contempt. And, as you point out, his case is pretty straightforward here.

EISEN: The principal importance of criminal contempt is to demonstrate that there are serious consequences if you don't cooperate.

And, remember, Ana, there are hundreds of individuals who are cooperating, many thousands of document that have come into the committee, and they're already putting together what appears to be a compelling narrative. We will have public hearings. There will be a mosaic of evidence presented.

[13:25:09]

So, although I would like to see a faster trial of Bannon -- and Meadows' trial will presumably be after Bannon's -- the more important -- you have these two non-cooperators, but the more important message is, hey, if you don't cooperate with the committee, you're going to face consequences. That's why they're getting all the other evidence that is coming in to help them tell the story. CABRERA: We're also learning Roger Stone is planning to plead the

Fifth. That's another tactic we have been seeing. Former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark is another one. His attorney has indicated he will take the Fifth.

Here's Congressman Adam Schiff addressing this issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): If they're asserting the Fifth merely to cater to the president's whims or cover up for the president, that is not a proper use of the privilege.

But we will have to do our best to divine if they're properly invoking the Fifth or using it as a stratagem to keep information...

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Norm, how does the committee figure out who can plead the Fifth legitimately and who's just trying to stonewall? And what can they do about it?

EISEN: Well, Ana, there are serious criminal issues here, as we have been discussing.

If you lose an election, you can't then attempt to tell lies or commit fraud to hang onto your office. So, to the extent there was a conspiracy, election fraud or otherwise, there's criminal issues.

But you can't just say, I'm going to take the Fifth on Twitter and that's the end of the story. These individuals will need to show up. They need to answer questions. They will need to assert the privilege. They may need to explain the basis. There may be questions where it doesn't apply. They have to produce documents.

The Fifth Amendment has much narrower application to documents. And then, if the committee determines that it's a legitimate invocation of the constitutional privilege, the committee can go to court and can get an immunity order to force testimony, if the testimony is important, or if the committee thinks it's illegitimate for whatever reason, like you wrote a book.

Roger Stone has talked a lot about these episodes. Others invoking the Fifth have gone on Steve Bannon's podcast to talk about what happened. If the committee determines that it was illegitimate, it can proceed with contempt.

So, the committee has tools to probe what's happening and to respond.

CABRERA: Norm Eisen, it's great to have you here. Thank you so much.

We are following new developments now in two major trials. Right now, closing arguments are under way in the Jussie Smollett trial. Remember, he's accused of faking a hate crime, and his defense attorneys just argued that the prosecution's case is built on the testimony of certified liars.

Plus, opening statements now under way in the trial of Kim Potter. She's the former cop who claims she mistook her gun for a Taser when she shot and killed unarmed black man Daunte Wright.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)