Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Virginia Mask-Optional Mandate for Schools Takes Effect Today; Boris Johnson Eases Covid Restrictions; Evelyn Farkas is Interviewed about Russia and Ukraine; Supreme Court Reconsiders Race-Based College Admissions. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired January 24, 2022 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Of the vaccine rollout was to prevent severe illness and to keep people out of the hospital.

Again, that dip in hospitalizations most pronounced in the Northeast, down about 13 percent in the last seven days. You can see the trend lines in states, such as New York and New Jersey, have all started to drop, but they are still higher than the delta peak, which helps explain why so many hospitals still report being overwhelmed. There is, though, we should note, a slight drop in the Midwest as well.

In southern and western states, as you can see here, though, hospitalizations still on the rise. They were later to see the omicron outbreak.

Dr. Anthony Fauci does predict that even those places will have hit their peak by mid-February and we can enter a -- sort of a new normal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, WHITE HOUSE MEDICAL ADVISOR: What we would hope that as we get into the next weeks to month or so, we'll see throughout the entire country the level of infection get to below what I call that area of control. And there's a big bracket of control. Control means you're not eliminating it, you're not eradicating it. But it gets down to such a low level that it's essentially integrated into the general respiratory infections that we have learned to live with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, there are a few areas that have been more important to watch as we try desperately to return to that sense of what a new normal may look like, right, Jim, and that is keeping kids in school.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: It's been a top priority as we try to find a way out of this latest omicron wave. And as we know, masks have been key to that effort. But today in Virginia, an executive order from Republican Governor

Glenn Youngkin goes into effect, allowing parents to decide if their children wear masks in school.

CNN's Elizabeth Cohen reports.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Jim, Bianna, Governor Youngkin has put in this order just at a time when transmission throughout the state of Virginia is so high. Take a look at the state of Virginia. It's broken down by counties. It is blanketed in red. And you know what, if you take a look at the United States, it is blanketed in red. And that's why even the FDA commissioner under President Trump says that it's not time to tell people to take off their masks.

Let's take a listen to Dr. Scott Gottlieb.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB, FORMER FDA COMMISSIONER: So to withdraw it right at the peak of the epidemic I think is imprudent. We should wait.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: And these high transmission rates, that's why the CDC makes this recommendation, that all students over the age of two, teachers, staff members, visitors should wear a mask indoors regardless of their vaccination status.

Now, to state the obvious, nobody wants their child to have to wear a mask, but really it's just a mask and it could save your child's life. Yes, children have a very mild response to Covid overall. Yes, omicron usually causes just mild illness. But there are children who are becoming very, very sick and even dying with omicron or a child could pass omicron on to a grandparent or to a relative or a friend who's immune compromised. And so that's the reason for the suggestion that children wear masks. And, again, it poses no threat whatsoever to the child.

Now, several counties in Virginia, for example, Fairfax County and Prince William County, they have said that they will not comply with the governor's order.

Bianna. Jim.

SCIUTTO: Elizabeth Cohen, thanks so much.

I mean, of course, Bianna, the issue there, right, is, if masking helps keeps school open, helps reduce the chance of outbreaks, and you want schools open, why take away masking, right? I mean you have two goals contradicting there. But as we've seen so often, the politics beat the science.

GOLODRYGA: Right. Scott Gottlieb said that he would advise to wait at least another two weeks and see where things are nationwide. I know your kids, my kids, so many kids really have no problem keeping those masks on. So, we'll --

SCIUTTO: Yes. Yes. Far fewer problems than the parents, often.

GOLODRYGA: Exactly. As always, right?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: Well, seeming to take an opposite turn in terms of Covid restrictions, let's go to England because British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as he's fighting to stay in power, he's doing quite the opposite. He's lifting restrictions, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Yes. You wonder the politics behind this.

Last week Johnson sought to pivot the country's Covid response saying it was time to move on and to treat coronavirus more like the flu.

CNN's Scott McLean, he's live in London this morning.

Scott, of course, this comes as Johnson is facing real political challenges at home, calls to resign even from within his own party due to lockdown parties at 10 Downing Street. I mean is the view there that these two things are connected?

SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Look, I think that it may well be that this easing of restrictions, Jim, helps to sort of briefly change the channel and distract away from Boris Johnson's larger leadership problems. But it certainly does not make them go away, especially considering that the report in -- on the investigation into those Downing Street parties during lockdown is due out any day now.

If there is any political benefit here, it is that this may help Boris Johnson win back some of his friends in the more libertarian wing of his party which is not in favor of really any restrictions, even the relatively minor ones that are in place right now and which are going away later this week.

[09:35:10]

So, beginning -- I mean the government has already said that masks are no longer required in classrooms. They have already said that people don't have to work from home. And on Thursday the mask mandate across England, the indoor mask mandate, that's going to go away, as will -- the indoor mask mandate will go in -- away, as will the need for Covid passports for large gatherings. The prime minister even teased today that the requirement to take a test when you enter the country will also be going away, we're just not entirely certain on timing.

Really, the only thing that people would notice from this Thursday compared to before the pandemic in this country is that, of course, if you test positive for Covid, you have to isolate. But even then, the isolation period has been reduced down to five days and the government says they're going to review that, too.

Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAJID JAVID, BRITISH HEALTH SECRETARY: It is reasonable to think, just as we're living with flu, for example, we don't require people to legally self-isolate, but to remain cautious, be sensible, if they're infected. We will, I think, eventually have to find a way to live with Covid in a similar fashion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCLEAN: So the government's new approach here is to treat Covid like the flu. At least that's the goal. And the reason that the government thinks that they can do that is because, well, the omicron wave seems to have passed. Cases are falling sharply. So are hospitalizations. Deaths have leveled off. And, by the way, it also doesn't hurt that almost two-thirds of the eligible population has gotten their booster shot.

Jim. Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, that's all good news.

But, Jim, I don't know about you, it's still striking to hear that government officials equate it with the flu.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: I don't know many other especially western countries that are there yet. The U.K. is a bit ahead of us in terms of omicron. I'm not expecting our health officials, though, to keep bringing up the flu word, at least not quite yet.

SCIUTTO: Yes, not quite yet. Yes.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

Scott McLean, thank you so much

Well, still ahead, as President Biden mulls whether to send more troops to Europe, we speak to one of former President Obama's advisers during the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine. What she says could change Putin's plan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:46]

SCIUTTO: Soon, Secretary of State Antony Blinken will speak with top EU foreign ministers. They are meeting in Brussels, headquarter of NATO, to discuss the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. This as the State Department has begun pulling staff from the U.S. embassy in Kiev while President Biden has been presented with new options for sending more troops to eastern Europe.

Joining me now to discuss, Evelyn Farkas, she's a former deputy assistant secretary of state for -- secretary of defense, rather, for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia in the Obama administration. She took part in the Obama administration's response to Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

Evelyn, it's good to have you on this morning.

EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR Russia, Ukraine AND EURASIA: Thanks so much, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, first I want to get at one essential decision point for the U.S. and the NATO response, and that is when to impose sanctions and when to send more forces to eastern Europe, for instance. Is it your view that that should happen today preemptively given the Russian buildup or wait for a further Russian invasion?

FARKAS: So, I think the approach on these items should be different. So, on sanctions, there are some sanctions that the administration, with its European allies, can roll out now. They already recently sanctioned four Ukrainians for essentially being agents of the Russian government. That was in response to -- you know, there was media coverage of this attempt to take over the Ukrainian government in conjunction with the military move. So that's one little sanction. But I think the big sanctions should wait because they should be used as a deterrent, to try to convince Putin not to make a military move.

On the military side, though, the military moves, if we put troops into place in response to Vladimir Putin, the deterrent is still there because it's the use of those forces that he doesn't want. So, right now, I think what the administration has to do is what "The New York Times" is reporting today they're considering doing, which is putting troops into the eastern part of the NATO in response to what the Russians just did recently, which is to put more troops into Belarus, because Belarus is on the border with Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. And those are NATO allies.

SCIUTTO: OK. I should note that's CNN reporting as well.

I wonder what lesson, though, was learned from Russia's invasion in 2014. I always remind people, Russia invaded in 2014. By the way, they're still there. They have annexed Crimea and they remain pro- Russian forces in eastern Ukraine. Sanctions were the primary response to that. Those sanctions are still in place. Those sanctions have hurt Russia to some degree, but Russia hasn't moved.

So why this reverence for economic sanctions as being successful as a deterrent. Do you buy the administration's argument that what they're considering is qualitatively different and therefore will make a difference this time?

FARKAS: Well, Jim, based on my conversations with administration officials, I do believe that what they are contemplating is a lot harsher, a lot tougher. You know, I was in -- as you said, I was in the White House Situation Room, I was in the Pentagon advising President Obama on our response back in 2014. And I think everyone has learned a lot from that experience.

Yes, we did deter Vladimir Putin from taking all of Ukraine at that time in 2014, 2015, but he's clearly not satisfied.

[09:45:06]

Why? Because what he thought he would achieve by just taking part of the Ukrainian territory was that he would destabilize the government. He really does not want a fully functioning democracy in Ukraine because that is viewed as a threat to his regime, to his control of Russia.

SCIUTTO: Yes. The U.S. and its allies are framing this as being important beyond Ukraine. That this is a precedent here about sovereignty, right, and breaking borders, Russia breaking borders in a way that hasn't been done really since World War II.

Can this escalate, in your view, not just between the west supporting Ukraine against Russia, but into a direct conflict between the U.S. and NATO and Russia?

FARKAS: Well, of course, there's always the danger of escalation. Let's hope that that doesn't happen.

But you're absolutely right, Jim, I mean there is a greater principle at stake here. We ended World War II by setting up the United Nations. The United Nations Charter Article II says that the borders of the countries must remain as they are. That they're sacrosanct. Why? Because that's what caused World War I and World War II. And when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea they said, this is part of Russia now, they changed borders using military force for the first time since World War II. The last time that had been tried was in the Middle East by Saddam Hussein, and we pushed him back.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

FARKAS: Now, Russia is a nuclear power, so we don't want a military campaign against Russia, but we need to do more diplomatically because the principle at stake here is so important that if Vladimir Putin gets his way, it's a challenge really to the global international order. And I think you guys were talking about that earlier in the hour. It's really dangerous right now.

SCIUTTO: You heard the president last Wednesday say that he believes Putin has to go into Ukraine now, that he's set himself up for this by mounting forces so aggressively. I've certainly heard a lot of pessimism from Democrat and Republican lawmakers, also military officials about Russia's plans. Do you share that pessimism? Do you believe that Russia can still be deterred from a further invasion?

FARKAS: Yes. I mean I've been pessimistic since I wrote a piece on January 11th in "Defense One" basically saying that there was a 50 percent or more chance that Vladimir Putin was going to do something. Why? Because we can't agree -- I mean the fundamental thing that he wants is control over Ukraine's sovereignty and actually a sphere of influence in the international system, one where the rules that we have in place right now to protect the sovereignty of states doesn't exist. We can't compromise on that. So I'm not really sure what we can give

Vladimir Putin. The other reason is, of course, every day, Jim, he's escalated. Every day he's moved more forces. His rhetoric has increased. He's doing nothing to show that he's considering anything other than a military move.

SCIUTTO: Yes. We'll be watching very closely.

Evelyn Farkas, thanks so much.

FARKAS: Thanks, Jim.

GOLODRYGA: And this just in to CNN, the Supreme Court will reconsider a landmark challenge to Harvard and University of North Carolina's affirmative action policies. What they're looking at. We'll tell you straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:44]

SCIUTTO: Just in to CNN, the Supreme Court says it will reconsider race based affirmative action in college admissions. Bianna, when you put these cases together, that on Roe v. Wade, possibility of gun related decisions, this court is going to make a big impact in the coming years.

GOLODRYGA: And these are some big name universities as well.

Let's bring in CNN's justice correspondent Jessica Schneider.

Jessica, what more are we learning about these cases?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna and Jim, this concerns two cases, one out of the University of North carolina, one out of Harvard. So the Supreme Court agreeing to really re-examine the precedents they set in place in 1978, in 2003, allowing universities to take into account race in their admissions.

So, one of the cases out of UNC, the other case out of Harvard, where the challengers there contended that the university actually held Asian-Americans to a higher standard and essentially capped their numbers. That particular dispute has been moving through the courts for many years, since 2014. Harvard won in the lower courts. UNC also won in the lower courts. And the Supreme Court actually upheld university affirmative action for the last time in 2016. But now we have a different court. This new composition could mean potentially a different fate for affirmative action with these two cases.

Two of the justices in the five-justice majority back in 2016, when the court last upheld affirmative action, were Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Of course, they are now off the court, succeeded by Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And in particular we know that Chief Justice John Roberts has long opposed racial policies, including in education. So, Jim and Bianna, these two cases, they will be heard by the Supreme

Court. However, because it is so late in the term for the court, they've decided that they will take this case up not until October. That means the decision would not come down on this until June 2023.

But, again, this could really upend the affirmative action policies that universities have been working with for many decades now and could potentially overturn that precedent, allowing these universities to consider race in their admissions.

Guys.

SCIUTTO: Yes. In terms of the political calendar, a decision after the crucial midterm elections.

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Jessica Schneider, thanks so much.

Still ahead, next hour, the three former Minneapolis officers who helped Derek Chauvin restrain George Floyd during his killing in May of 2020, they are in court.

[09:55:07]

The challenges ahead for them as they face charges, federal charges, of violating Floyd's civil rights.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Good morning, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga.

SCIUTTO: And I'm Jim Sciutto.

The west taking Russia's moves near Ukraine very seriously. Here's one sign of it. The Biden administration is now considering the deployment of several thousand U.S. troops, along with warships and aircraft, to NATO allies in the Baltic states and eastern Europe.

[10:00:06]