Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Former Trump Official Lays Out Coup Plan; Omicron Surge. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired December 29, 2021 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:20]

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Jessica Dean in Washington, in for Ana Cabrera today.

And we begin this hour with the COVID surge, the numbers, the concerns and new comments from the CDC director this morning on CNN defending the agency's decision to cut the isolation period in half for some people.

Her remarks come after the U.S. shattered its record average of daily cases, more than 265,000 new infections yesterday alone. That is the most ever reported during the pandemic.

Nationwide, hospitalizations are well below record levels, except in the case of children. In a troubling sign, pediatric hospitalizations have jumped nearly 50 percent in the last week, approaching a peak not seen since September, when the majority of COVID cases were caused by the Delta variant.

And even these staggering numbers may not show the full picture. In Miami and all around the country, people are lining up, some before dawn, to get tested. Some are waiting hours, others scheduling days in advance.

And for those lucky enough to find at-home tests, the positive results are not reported to the CDC. Now the FDA is raising doubts about those tests' accuracy, especially with the Omicron variant.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky says the nationwide shortage of tests is not what drove the decision to cut the isolation guidance from 10 days to five, but rather, she says, it was based in part on what a pandemic-exhausted nation can tolerate.

We're covering all the angles this afternoon, beginning with CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen.

Elizabeth, can you break down some of these numbers for us?

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Jessica, let's take a look at what is happening with cases.

We have surpassed the peak of cases that was seen in the U.S. in January. So, if we take a look at this graph, what we can see is, we're now at around 265,000 cases per day looking at a seven-day average. And that surpasses the peak from January 11, which was 252,000 cases.

But -- and this is the good news -- hospitalizations are only at about 44 percent of that January peak. On January 14, we had 142,000 daily hospital -- or hospitalizations. Now we're looking at 85,000. So that's obviously a big difference.

Now, one thing you might say, OK, well, then we don't need to worry about this. Who cares if there's a lot of cases? We don't have as many hospitalizations. Here's why we should worry. As these numbers get bigger and bigger and bigger, a certain percentage of them we know are going to end up in the hospital. So a small percentage of a huge number can still be a really big number.

We are already seeing, with children, that hospitalizations have gone way up. If we look at the week ending December 19, there were 206 hospital admissions per day for children in the U.S. Now, for the week ending December 26, there were 305 per day. That is a big difference in a relatively short time.

The numbers are still small, but still a big difference -- Jessica.

DEAN: No question about that.

And what else do we know about the concerns about these at-home tests maybe being less accurate when they when it comes to detecting the Omicron variant?

COHEN: Right.

So, these rapid antigen tests have never been as accurate as a PCR test, but Dr. Anthony Fauci on our air earlier today saying they are still useful. Here's what it boils down to. If you take a rapid test, and it says that you have COVID, you can bet the farm that you have COVID. That result is almost certainly right.

But if it tells you that you don't have COVID, it's not necessarily right. And depending upon your circumstances, you might want to wait and take another test. So, let's take a look at the numbers that show that.

So if you have COVID-19, and you have symptoms, that test is going to be wrong 35 percent of the time. So, if you have COVID-19, you have symptoms, 35 percent of the time, that test is going to tell you you're negative, even when you're positive.

It's even worse if you're asymptomatic. That test is going to be wrong 64 percent of the time; 64 percent of the time, when you have COVID and you're asymptomatic, the test is going to tell you, no, you're negative and you don't have COVID.

So we reached out to Abbott, which makes one of the widely available rapid tests, and they say: "We have conducted lab analyses and tests on the Omicron variant from live virus, including from the first U.S. Omicron case, and BinaxNOW" -- that's their tests -- "detected the virus in all tests we performed at equivalent sensitivity as other variants." [13:05:02]

But, as we just saw with those numbers, it is not always right. If you get a negative, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are negative -- Jessica.

DEAN: Goodness.

All right, Elizabeth Cohen, thanks so much for that.

And let's continue this conversation.

Dr. Esther Choo is a professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health and Science University.

Dr. Choo, great to see you.

We're just listening to Elizabeth talk about these at-home rapid tests, and the FDA, of course, we know saying that they may not be as effective at detecting the Omicron variant.

Dr. Choo, for so many people that are listening, I think they're probably throwing their hands up, like, what are we supposed to do? You're telling us to test at home, and maybe it's not going to catch it. And at this point, what are we to think about all of this?

DR. ESTHER CHOO, FOUNDER, EQUITY QUOTIENT: Yes, great to be with you, Jessica.

I want to add a layer of reassurance about the test. First of all, there's nothing inherent to Omicron that means that rapid tests available on the market right now cannot detect it. The rapid tests pick up a protein that is manufactured by the virus when it is actively replicating.

And that protein is not affected by the mutations that Omicron has or that the previous variants have. So there's no -- if you try to think of, what is the rationale for the fact that it wouldn't pick it up, we don't have a strong rationale?

I think what we're saying is what we have said all along, which is that rapid tests perform differently than PCR. So, yes, it is possible to have virus present that will be detectable by PCR. What the antigens tests add is, they add a layer of, are you infectious right now? Is there virus actively replicating in your nasal passages?

And it may be that it's a lower amount of virus for Omicron than for previous variants. But we should still be able to pick it up. It should still perform pretty well. I think the layer of saying let's do repetitive tests, so, if you have had an exposure, or you have symptoms, doing two tests 24 hours apart at least adds a layer of sensitivity to those tests.

I think that's the way that we should think, rather than saying these tests are not going to work for us or shouldn't be used as a return- to-work or school strategy. DEAN: Yes, no, I mean, there's -- you're right. There's a lot of

nuance there. And I think kind of approaching it the way you're describing, which is, if you're -- remember, this is if you're actively contagious right now. And kind of trying to keep that in mind in how you use them is all really important and helpful to know.

We also know that hospitalizations are not accelerating as the same at the same pace as these new cases are, but we are seeing these child hospitalizations increasing rapidly, up 50 percent since last week.

Why do you think that is? Is it possible that Omicron is impacting children differently? Or is it just that more children are sick?

CHOO: I think it's probably an issue of sheer numbers. I think we are -- Omicron is so infectious. It's the holidays. People are getting together. And we're just seeing a high caseload across the board, in addition to the fact that children in the younger age groups are not yet vaccinated, compared to the older population.

I mean, in the 5 to 11 age range, only 20 percent of children have received the vaccinations. It's even lower in rural areas, less than 10 percent. So we have a long way to go to vaccinate this age group. So we will see. Likely more disease and more severe illness in this age group.

Still relatively rare for kids to get sick, but I will say, given what's happening in hospitals, including in children's hospitals, we already operate very close to the margin in terms of our care capacity in a hospital. We have really contracted our work force. So many people have quit or lost their jobs and health care.

And health care workers themselves are getting sick. So we have this much smaller work force. We never really had a lot of capacity to manage surge, and then on top of that, sheer numbers of Omicron. It just doesn't take a lot of severe illnesses requiring hospitalization to really make hospitals feel very much under stress these days.

DEAN: Sure.

And what are your thoughts as kids get ready to go back to school? Should schools be considering pushing back return dates or going back to online learning? I know so many parents want -- and kids want to be in the classroom? What do you think they should do?

CHOO: Well, Jessica, I mean, I have a personal stake in this, as well as a professional one. I have four kids at home. It's been a long two weeks.

(LAUGHTER)

CHOO: And they do so well in school.

I mean, we have seen the mental health benefits of and physical health benefits of getting kids back in school. And so, I mean, I think there is a little layer of, it depends, and there are circumstances in which individual schools may need to close. I think, by and large, public health officials, health care professionals are all pretty much in sync and saying, let's keep schools open if we at all possibly can. But it will take layered protections on, all these things we have been talking about, good ventilation, good masks.

We're pushing schools to really try to get kids to wear KN95s or KF94s to school, and then layer in -- layering in really good testing strategies for returning to school and good surveillance, and trying to get all families to participate in surveillance programs, so that we can detect disease early and mitigate it, mitigate big outbreaks.

[13:10:05]

I think, if we are willing to be really on top of things, then kids can stay in school and stay healthy there.

DEAN: Yes.

All right, Dr. Esther Choo, thanks so much. We sure do appreciate it.

CHOO: My pleasure.

DEAN: And, as the nation confronts this COVID surge during the holiday travel season, a new possibility hanging over future flights. President Biden now says he would impose vaccine requirements for domestic travel if his medical team recommends it.

A short time ago, the president's chief medical adviser appeared to tip his hand a little bit. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: Everything that is an intervention is always on the table and always discussed, and we discuss it regularly.

Right now, we feel that the masking requirement and the degree of filtration on a plane is sufficient to keep people safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: And joining me now is the international president of the Association of Flight Attendants union, Sara Nelson.

Sara, great to see you. Thanks for making time today.

I just first want to see if your member support a mandate on travelers to protect flight attendants and other crew members.

SARA NELSON, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS: Well, overwhelmingly, the majority of our members are saying that they would like to see this. And so we have been very clear that we should be doing everything we can to get people vaccinated and to encourage people to do that. This is maybe one more way to do that. I do want to be really clear,

though, that, right now, there's not really an operational way to get this done. So it would take a lot of work by government and airlines working in coordination to be able to determine someone's vaccination status quickly to make sure that the operation can continue and this wouldn't just create a meltdown, like we're seeing over the holidays.

DEAN: Yes.

And you heard what Dr. Fauci said. Do you think that this is something that the administration is actually seriously considering, that this could, in fact, happen?

NELSON: I continue to hear that this is on the table. The airlines have spoken out and been against this because of their operational concerns.

But I think we're a nation of problem-solvers. And when we actually decide that we want to solve problems, we can do it. So it's too important to get everyone vaccinated and to keep everyone safe. And, frankly, this is an issue of safety in our workplace.

And that's why we'd like to see a real effort here to see if we can get this done.

DEAN: And is it -- does it come down to a federal mandate in your mind? Because, in theory, individual airlines could choose to do this, I suppose, as well.

But is it going to take, you think, it coming down from the federal government to make it happen?

NELSON: I think it's really important that we have consistency across the industry. And that will require a federal mandate for that.

It would be very difficult for individual airlines to put this in place because we all use the same security lines. We all use the same infrastructure at the airports. And to have different policies with each of these airlines with what people need to bring, it would create mass confusion and make travel much more difficult for people.

So that's why there has to be a consistent policy across the board.

DEAN: Right, to really streamline it and make it uniform.

I know you have been critical of the administration's policies and questioned whether corporate clout was perhaps driving some decisions, like shortening the quarantine guidance.

I want to listen to what the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, said this morning. This was her defending that decision to reduce that from 10 days to five. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CDC DIRECTOR: Many of those cases are mildly symptomatic, if not asymptomatic, and especially among those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated, and then, finally, the behavioral science.

What will people actually do when people need to get back to work? What is it that they will actually do? And if we can get them to isolate, we do want to make sure that they're isolating in those first five days, when they're maximally infectious.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: So, from what you're saying, it sounds like this decision had just as much to do with business as it did with the science.

WALENSKY: Well, so it really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Right, what people would be willing to tolerate and willing to do.

Sara, what do you make of her comments?

NELSON: Well, I'm not sure who those people are that she's talking about would be willing to tolerate.

The people on the front lines who've been dealing with this pandemic for two years have dealt with the stresses and strains and the real concerns from our families that we're going to bring this virus home to them. They are dealing with long COVID. They are dealing with other medical emergencies, where they're not able to get their loved ones into hospital beds because our hospitals are full.

So let's not make a decision now that may provide some relief right now that will have longer-term problems. What Director Walensky was saying there is that there's low chance.

That's cold comfort for the people who know that now we're going to be going to work with more people who are infectious, because there will be people who are still infectious who are coming to our workplace, either workers or who are being forced to come back to work, frankly, because there's pressure from the airlines or other companies to get them back on the job to cover those shifts.

[13:15:03]

Or we're going to have passengers who are coming because they have not tested. The industry asked for breakthrough cases only and testing before people would come back at five days. It doesn't seem like we're even meeting the basic standards to have a level of comfort in this country.

And we really need everyone around this country to have confidence in our public health officials. That is what has created conflict on our planes, because people don't know what to believe. And then flight attendants are left to deal with that and enforce safety measures that are sitting on very loose ground. DEAN: All right, Sara Nelson, thanks so much for your comments. We

sure do appreciate it.

NELSON: Thank you, Jessica.

DEAN: Well, no shame at all.

In a stunning new interview, former White House official Peter Navarro details how he and Steve Bannon worked with over 100 GOP lawmakers in their attempt to overturn the election on January 6. Hear him explain how it was all supposed to happen.

Plus, the Ghislaine Maxwell jury just asked the judge if they'd have to keep working through the new year. What that could mean for a potential verdict.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:20:27]

DEAN: In a stunning new interview, former Trump White House trade adviser Peter Navarro lays out how he and former chief strategist Steve Bannon planned to overturn Biden's electoral win on January 6 and also keep Trump in power.

Navarro tells The Daily Beast -- quote -- "We spent a lot of time lining up over 100 congressmen, including some senators. It started out perfectly. At 1:00 p.m., Gosar and Cruz did exactly what was expected of them. It was a perfect plan. And it all predicated on peace and calm on Capitol Hill. We didn't even need any protesters because we had over 100 congressmen committed to it" -- end quote.

That plan, dubbed the Green Bay Sweep, hoped to drag out the certification process and, in turn, put public pressure on Vice President Pence to send the electoral votes back to a handful of key states.

Of course, that plan never actually had a chance of keeping Trump in power, because Republicans in Congress didn't have the votes to block Biden's victory.

CNN has reached out to Bannon for a response, but we have not heard back yet.

Let's discuss it now with former U.S. attorney Harry Litman. He's also the former deputy assistant attorney general.

Harry, great to have you with us.

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Thanks, Jessica.

DEAN: What do you make of this admission by Navarro at this moment, when we know that the January 6 Committee investigation is in full swing? So many of Trump's allies are really going very quiet. Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon are two that like to be very loud.

LITMAN: Yes, they're not from the quiet wing, are they?

(LAUGHTER)

LITMAN: And that is actually where I start, Jessica.

These are provocateurs. You could also call them scoundrels. And Peter Navarro is selling a book. So, is it possible that he and Bannon were feverishly planning things like this and even had that neat, keen, good marketing name the Green Bay Sweep? Yes.

Is it likely that they had 100 members of Congress dancing to their tune and had it all choreographed? Not so sure. And it serves many different purposes for them to muddy the waters like this. So I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

The very core of it is really not that complicated, try to delay things for 24 hours. Of course, you need the cooperation of one Mike Pence. And he was the -- it's the same thing that Trump was trying to do. And he wasn't going to go along. So, their quarterback in the Green Bay Sweep -- this partakes of the Vince Lombardi idea -- was never on board.

And all of it when you push doesn't come necessarily all that much. And, again, these are not the most trustworthy of narrators.

DEAN: Is there anything criminal about what he's talking about, if they did, in fact, do this?

LITMAN: Yes, there's -- so there is potential for anything up to. There is certainly a conspiracy to impede an official proceeding, that's Congress 1512, all the way up to possible insurrection charges.

But, again, I -- look, the first thing that says is, this is one reason we really need congressional investigations and sworn testimony, rather than just gossip on the street. And I'm sure if he shows up and is asked to testify, he will have enough of a vague story that he won't really open himself to criminal culpability.

And there's an important risk here, by the way, it seems to me. Normally, you say, OK, get him up there, let's hear the sworn testimony, et cetera. If that happens here, he gets up, 50 members of Congress angrily deny it. And now what do we have? Sort of a mucky mess, and many U.S. -- many Americans will say, oh, let's just move on. It's all so murky.

And that, of course, serves their kind of dastardly purposes as well. So I'm not putting that much stock in this. And even if they make him show up, I think it will turn out to be a little more vague than the sensational kind of, as you say, stunning interview that Navarro provided.

DEAN: That he gave.

Do you anticipate the committee will call on him? Are you surprised they haven't yet?

LITMAN: We don't know they haven't...

DEAN: That's true.

LITMAN: ... although he doesn't confirm it.

But I think they're really smart, Jessica, and they're playing it well. I would not see them as wanting to put him out front in the klieg lights, for the very reason I said. It's all confusing. I think what they want to do and they will do is call him, try to get sworn testimony behind the scenes with their researchers, and then see what they got.

[13:25:01]

They have enough on their hands to try to present a clean, coherent narrative, rather than having now to go into two, three and four alternative narratives.

DEAN: Right.

All right, Harry Litman breaking it all down for us, we appreciate it.

LITMAN: Thanks. Happy new year.

DEAN: You too.

Still to come: Jurors in the sex trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell have just sent the judge another note. This is their 14th now. And this one could give us a big clue as to how close they are to a verdict.

More on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)