Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) Discusses Biden's Potential Supreme Court Nominee, Sotomayor's Concerns on Process Becoming Partisan, Missing Trump White House Documents; CNN: Russian Figure Skater Who Failed Drug Test Is a Minor; Family: Bob Saget Died from Hitting Head Before Going to Bed. Aired 1:30-2p ET
Aired February 10, 2022 - 13:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:31:48]
ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hours from now, the president and vice president will meet with Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss potential replacements for Supreme Court Justice Breyer, the nomination process.
That process has become more and more partisan in recent years. And that has at least one justice concerned.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Yes, I have concerns that we might be impressed.
As norms in the nomination process are broken, as more Senators, congressional representatives, governors, mayors, local politicians and the media question the legitimacy of the court, many of them keep score on the court.
And it's a claim for us to be non-partisan. The threat is greater and unprecedented than any time in our history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: California Senator Alex Padilla is on the Judiciary Committee and will be in that meeting with the president and vice president today.
Senator, thanks for taking the time with us.
You just heard Justice Sotomayor. How does the president need to tackle this threat, as she puts it, of Americans questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as he's working to confirm a new justice?
SEN. ALEX PADILLA (D-CA): Thank you, Ana, for having me.
Looking forward to the meeting this afternoon. And I think the president has already done a good job of trying to set the tone.
If you recall, just last week, he met with both the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Durbin, from Illinois, and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Grassley, from Iowa. So bipartisan from the get-go.
And I think a lot of us are going to be working to keep the tone and tenor of the eventual confirmation hearings, not partisan, focus on substance.
And again, the great news.
I am personally thrilled the president is living up to the pledge he made as a candidate to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. A lot of more than qualified women to choose from.
When we get to those confirmation hearings, we'll keep it on record, we'll keep it on substance, we'll keep it on the rule of law.
CABRERA: So let's talk about some of the names that have been discussed as potential candidates here.
We've heard about a dozen potential names. But three have really floated to the top.
D.C. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51 years old. Already through the vetting process to be confirmed in her current role. And she clerked for Justice Breyer, in fact.
Also California Supreme Court justice Leondra Kruger. Kruger is now 45. Was the youngest person to be appointed to California's Supreme Court. She clerked for Justice Stephens.
And South Carolina U.S. district court judge, Michelle Childs. We know she has the backing of House Majority Whip James Clyburn, a key Biden ally, as well as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
Do you already have a clear person in mind of who you want the president to pick?
PADILLA: Look, I want to be respectful of the process. I have no doubt that whoever President Biden ultimately selects is going to be somebody that is more than qualified.
And will help make history. And I want to underscore that point, Ana.
[13:35:00]
As you know, when I entered the Senate, I was the first Latino to represent California. And I can attest, after my first year in the Senate, representation matters.
What I'm able to contribute to deliberation to the Senate, given my professional and life experience, is important.
And I'm looking forward to the next Supreme Court justice doing exactly the same in the highest court of the land.
So the president will make a selection before the end of the month. That's the time frame he's set.
Eager that the committee is ready for a timely, expeditious and proper review of that nominee, and that we'll be taking action in short order.
CABRERA: In terms of who it ends up being, I want to play something Senator Graham said as he was doubling down on his desire for Judge Childs to be chosen.
Listen to what he said about President Biden here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): If he wants a consensus candidate that can bring the country together, that can get Republican votes, and Michelle Childs is the nominee, I think that could all happen.
But if he rejects her for a more liberal candidate, I think the chance of getting a lot of Republican votes is pretty limited.
And it would be proof positive that the Joe Biden that ran as a centrist, more moderate candidate, doesn't exist anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: Senator, how important is it that this pick have bipartisan support?
PADILLA: Look, I think it would be certainly a strong statement for the next Supreme Court justice to be confirmed on a bipartisan basis.
But, frankly, my sense is that's going to be a question that Republicans have to answer.
I repeat, no doubt President Biden will make a selection that is both historic in nature but also an individual, a woman, that is more than abundantly qualified.
All these litmus tests or criteria that some Republicans are beginning to insinuate, let's make sure we're consistent with how they've treated prior Supreme Court justices under prior administrations. Let's not have a double standard here.
Whoever the nominee is, she deserves better. She deserves respect. And she deserves a professional confirmation hearing.
CABRERA: They certainly weren't calling for a consensus pick to unite the country when Trump put forward his three Supreme Court picks.
I do want to ask you quickly about this new reporting of Trump's handling of White House records. Documents that, by law, are supposed to be preserved.
We know now Maggie Haberman is reporting that Trump literally flushed papers down the toilet.
CNN reporting that records of Trump's phone calls during the January 6th riot are missing from the White House documents that the committee has obtained, the January 6th committee, so far.
Is this something the DOJ needs to pursue?
PADILLA: Look, it's just the latest example of Donald Trump, now the former president, the defeated president, as President Biden refers to him, no one is above the law, not even him.
So we will leave it to law enforcement officials and investigators, the Department of Justice and everybody in between to pursue the facts and do what's proper.
CABRERA: Do you expect them to pursue it, to actually investigate it and potentially prosecute it?
PADILLA: If the facts are there, if the evidence are there, then accountability needs to be there. Nobody is above the law.
CABRERA: Senator Padilla, I appreciate your time today. Thank you very much.
PADILLA: Thanks, Ana.
CABRERA: And we hope to have you join us again soon.
PADILLA: I look forward to it.
CABRERA: Scandal rocking the Winter Olympics. CNN is learning a minor on the Russian figure skating team tested positive for a banned drug. All signs are pointing to this gold medal favorite. Details next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:42:15]
CABRERA: A controversy rocking the Winter Olympics. Russia, once again, faces a doping scandal.
CNN is learning that a Russian figure skater, who is a minor, tested positive for a banned substance. The team's gold medal standing is now under review.
Officials aren't identifying the figure skater by name. But there's only one minor on the team. This woman, or teenager, Kamila Valieva. And the 15-year-old is considered a prodigy. Already holds nine world records. With us now is Jim Walden. He's a former federal prosecutor and helped
craft an anti-doping law here in the U.S.
Jim, the drug in question here is Trimetazidine. It's a heart medication used to treat angina. It's banned because it can help an athlete perform at a higher heart rate for a longer period of time.
Is there wiggle room if she had a legitimate purpose for taking it?
JIM WALDEN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR & AUTHOR: Well, there's no legitimate reason for taking it without registering.
Obviously, every athlete can get an exemption. If they have a medical need for something that's banned, there's a way to get permission.
But we're not writing on a blank slate here. This is the same drug, TMZ, that a Russian bobsledder in 2018 tested positive for.
There was a Russian curling star who tested positive in 2018 for something very similar.
So it just seems that Russia can't get through an Olympics without someone testing positive.
CABRERA: As mentioned, we learned this athlete is a minor. Do you think that's a consideration?
WALDEN: It has to be. Obviously, she's very young and probably impressionable.
And there's been, I think, an appropriate outpouring of sympathy for her on social justice. And I think that she deserves the presumption of innocence.
The problem is that this isn't exactly a cold trail for investigators who are going to start an investigation.
The doctor that is assigned to the women's skating team is someone who has a disciplinary history for doping. He was removed from the Russian rowing team for a three-year period for anti-doping violations.
The coach is someone who is very close to all of the high-level government officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Mutko and others, who were central to the Russian doping scheme in 2014 during the Winter Olympics.
So it's very hard to give someone the presumption of innocence when there's so much history and evidence of Russia's systematic doping.
CABRERA: And you just gave us some great details about that history as it specifically pertains to figure skating in Russia and people involved with this particular team.
[13:45:01]
Russian athletes as a whole are already unable to compete in the Olympics under their country's name or flag because of the sanctions from the IOC and the World Anti-Doping Agency because of failing to previously cooperate with anti-doping rules.
So if this ends up all coming to pass and it turns out there's officially a violation, is there a bigger penalty for Russia as a whole possible?
WALDEN: Well, Russia should have been banned from the Olympics completely. As you know, the ban that Russia is going through right now is really a ban on paper.
They have one of the largest Olympic teams. They can't fly their flag or use their name.
But this is now the second Winter Olympics in a row the Russian athletes have competed with a very large team and yet still endured doping violations.
And this is where neither Russia nor the IOC does any favor to Russian athletes, let alone clean athletes from around the world, where you take this kind of corruption and treat it with a slap of a hand instead of a meaningful and significant punishment.
All you're going to do is encourage more bad behavior. And I hope that's not what happened here.
But certainly, given how much Russia has denied its state-sponsored doping system, given the clarity of the proof, the fact that Russia keeps its head buried in the sand, is not doing athletes, even within Russia, any favor.
CABRERA: Or the sport justice. It doesn't do the sport justice.
Jim Walden, thank you. Appreciate your insights.
WALDEN: Thank you, Ana.
CABRERA: Bob Saget's death stunned fans of "Full House," of him as a person, an actor, comedian. Now we know what caused it. He apparently hit his head. And a doctor will join us with what we can all learn from this tragedy, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:51:13]
CABRERA: It was not drugs or alcohol or foul play behind beloved comedian and actor Bob Saget's death last month.
According to his family and the medical examiner, it was a bump on the head before going to bed. In other words, a freak accident.
His family put out a statement that said authorities concluded, "He accidentally hit the back of his head on something, thought nothing of it, and went to sleep. No drugs or alcohol were involved."
Dr. Edjah Nduom is joining us now, a neurosurgery professor at Emory University School of Medicine.
Dr. Nduom, it's great to have you.
This is so scary because I think this is something that could happen to anyone, right? How hard would Saget have had to hit his head for this to have happened?
DR. EDJAH NDUOM, NEUROSURGERY PROFESSOR, EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: Well, you know, there's a lot we don't know about this exact scenario. So it's very difficult to say exactly what sort of impact would have been required for him.
There's several factors, including whether he was on any blood thinners that would come into play here.
Typically, it's going to require a fairly serious blow on the head.
I think that when we all think about head injuries and how scary they can be, we all know if we're in a car accident or something serious, we have to head to the hospital right away.
And we probably all think if, you know, we just bump our head on a cabinet pretty lightly and it hurts for a second and goes away, that we don't.
It's those things in the middle that can be tricky. And I know that people at home are certainly concerned about them.
CABRERA: So, when would he likely have hit his head for him to then die while sleeping?
Was it something minutes before? Could he have hit it hours earlier or even days? Would this be the result of a slow bleed perhaps?
NDUOM: The way that they've described it, with him going to sleep, probably feeling OK, it would seem, you know, is the suggestion.
And then for this to have happened, I would think that it was not one of the slow bleeds. There are certainly slow bleeds that can become serious.
In fact, you know, 15 percent of people that have severe brain injuries may have something where it's a delayed onset of severe symptoMs.
But most of the time, the things that we think of with these deterioration over time events, do happen fairly quickly. Within minutes to hours from the time of injury. Typically, in a few-hour window.
CABRERA: So most people, I think, are somewhat familiar with a concussion. What's the difference here? And would symptoms be different? What should people look out for?
NDUOM: The symptoms that people should look for are similar to the symptoms of a concussion, so things that make a head injury out of the ordinary.
You know, if you hit your head and it hurts for a little while, like that experience I mentioned, kind of hitting your head on a cabinet and it smarts for a second and then goes away, that's something that you probably don't need to worry about.
But you slip and hit your head in the bathtub or while you're taking a shower, something very hard, and it hurts a lot, and then that headache is getting worse, and you're having things like nausea, vomiting, or dizziness or blurriness of vision.
Or any symptoms that might remind someone of a stroke. You're having some slurred speech. You're having difficulty moving one side or the other.
If you lost consciousness during the accident itself, which is one of the hallmarks of concussion that you mentioned earlier, those are all signs that you should probably go ahead and get evaluated by a physician.
Whether that's at the neurosurgeon care center or an Emergency Department, just to make sure you're doing OK.
CABRERA: If Saget had sought medical care, could he have been saved?
NDUOM: I hesitate to speculate on his specific situation. But certainly someone who does have a head trauma and is one of these situations where they might decline over time.
There are some of the situations where neurosurgical intervention can be the most effective, where we are able to save a lot of lives in the acute scenario.
Which is why, you know, time is brain, just like they say in stroke.
If you have a concern, if you've hit your head and you're starting to develop significant symptoms, again, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, loss of consciousness of the event.
[13:55:06]
Anything that seems like a stroke or seizure activity, we would want you to seek help right away.
Particularly -- and again, it wasn't in this case -- but if there were -- you were, you know, drinking at the time or something that might be impairing your consciousness.
CABRERA: Yes.
NDUOM: One thing I recommend is calling a friend.
CABRERA: Yes. Such important information.
And I really, really appreciate you taking the time. I think this was really valuable conversation. Doctor, I appreciate it. Thanks for joining us.
NDUOM: Thanks for having me.
CABRERA: That does it for. I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place. Until then, join me on Twitter, @AnaCabrera.
Stay tuned for Victor and Alisyn after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
