Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
Sen. Kamala Harris Questions Trump's Supreme Court Nominee; Sen. Harris Presses Judge Barrett on Obamacare, Abortion.; Trump Holds Rally in Pennsylvania with Few Masks; Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) on Kidnapping Threat Points to Trump's Rhetoric. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired October 13, 2020 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENT NOMINEE: Insurance companies reinstating annual and lifetime caps and more than 20 million Americans losing insurance at the worst possible time, again in the midst of a pandemic, including nearly 2 million Texans, 607,000 North Carolinians, 288,000 South Carolinians, 227,000 Iowans and 4.2 million Californians.
And the pain of losing these protections would disproportionately be felt among the 9 million African-American, Latino, Asian and Native Americans who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act. But this isn't about statistics. This is about millions of real people living real lives, who deserve their government and its institutions to see them and to heed their call.
And I know a Republican member of this committee said earlier today that the people who will lose health care are somehow not relevant to this hearing. I disagree. Helping these people is supposed to be why we are all here. Why we all ran for office in the first place and I'm here fight for people like Felicia Perez (ph) and this is her.
Felicia (ph) is a writer, a public speaker and former high school teacher from Southern California who now teaches at the University of Nevada, Reno. She has multiple preexisting conditions, including arthritis, asthma and a rare autoimmune disorder that caused tumors that have wrapped around her optic nerve and part of her brain.
Her life depends on periodic cancer fighting infusions that cost $160,000 a year. Felicia (ph) is terrified. She knows that without the Affordable Care Act, she could not afford ongoing treatment. The treatment she needs to stay alive and here's exactly what she said and I will quote, "My life is in the hands of people I do not know, who do not know me, who are essentially telling me I don't matter, that my life doesn't matter, that my health doesn't matter. That the day-to- day quality of my life doesn't matter and that's really hard."
Tragically, Felicia's (ph) story is not unique. Her fears are shared by millions of Americans, the Affordable Care Act and its protections hinge on this Supreme Court and the outcome of this hearing. Before being elected, President Trump promised that every justice he put forward, "Will do the right thing like Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare."
Judge Barrett, 18 months later, you criticize the Chief Justice for upholding the Affordable Care Act when you concluded, "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute." My question is how many months after you published that article did President Trump nominate you to be a judge on the Court of Appeals?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Sen. Harris, I apologize, I don't remember the timing of that article. I was nominated, I believe, my nomination to the court of appeals was announced in May of 2017.
HARRIS: That's correct.
BARRETT: But I don't remember when the article came out.
HARRIS: The article was published in January of 2017, so that would have been five months later. Justice Ginsburg whose seat you're seeking to fill provided the critical fifth vote in a 5-4 decision that upheld the Affordable Care Act. So let's lay this out for everyone who's watching.
As I've discussed previously, one, Republicans have spent a decade trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act. Two, Donald Trump promised to name a Supreme Court justice and Supreme Court justices who would tear down the Affordable Care Act. Three, President Trump is before the Supreme Court right now arguing that it be struck in its entirety. Four, the Supreme Court could be just one vote away from overturning the Affordable Care Act and all of its protections, including for everyone who has a pre-existing condition or may ever get a pre- existing condition.
[19:05:01]
In other words, the Affordable Care Act and all its protections hinge on this seat and the outcome of this hearing. And I believe it's very important the American people understand the issues at stake and what's at play.
Judge Barrett, the day after President Trump announced your nomination to the Supreme Court, he tweeted, "Obamacare will be replaced with a much better and far cheaper alternative if it is terminated in the Supreme Court."
But in reality, there's no alternative that protects the millions of Americans who depend on the Affordable Care Act every day. The horrifying truth is that President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are fighting to take health care away from the American people in the middle of a pandemic, as I have said. President Trump has said that he wants to protect the American people's health care, but the reality is right now he is asking the Supreme Court to take it away, period.
Sen. Klobuchar, Judge Barrett asked you earlier today but did not receive an answer. Prior to your nomination, were you aware of President Trump's statements committing to nominate judges who will strike down the Affordable Care Act and I'd appreciate a yes or no answer, please. BARRETT: Well, Sen. Harris, I want to be very, very careful. I'm
under oath. As I'm sitting here, I don't recall seeing those statements. But if - let's see - I don't recall seeing or hearing those statements, but I don't really know what context they were in. So I guess I can't really definitively give you a yes or no answer. What I would like to say is I don't recall hearing about or seeing such statements.
HARRIS: Well, I imagine you were surrounded by a team of folks that helped prepare you for this nomination hearing. Did they ...
BARRETT: I have had - yes.
HARRIS: ... let me finish, if you don't mind.
BARRETT: Oh, I'm so sorry.
HARRIS: Did they inform you of the President's statements and that this might be a question that was presented to you during the course of this hearing?
BARRETT: When I had my calls with senators, it came up many of the Democratic senators wanted to know about the Affordable Care Act and to satisfy themselves that I had not made any pre commitments to the President about it.
HARRIS: And so you then became aware of the President's statement, is that correct?
BARRETT: Let's see, Sen. Harris, in the context of these conversations, I honestly can't remember whether senators framed the questions in the context of President Trump's comments, perhaps so. I think from my perspective, the most important thing is to say that I have never made a commitment. I've never been asked to make a commitment and I hope that the committee would trust in my integrity not to even entertain such an idea and that I wouldn't violate my oath if I were confirmed and heard that case.
HARRIS: So just so I'm clear and then we can move on, are you saying that you are now - before I said it - aware or not aware that President Trump made these comments about who he would nominate to the United States Supreme Court?
BARRETT: Sen. Harris, what I was saying, I thought you initially framed the question as whether I was aware before this nomination process began and answered to that question.
HARRIS: I'm now asking if you are aware - were you aware of before this hearing again like you said.
BARRETT: So you're changing - you're asking me now whether I was aware before the hearing began?
HARRIS: As a follow up question, I am. Yes.
BARRETT: And what I said was that when I had my calls with Democratic senators, this question came up and I don't recall, but it may well have been that they referenced those comments in the course of those calls, even if so that wasn't something that I heard or saw directly by reading it myself.
HARRIS: Sen. Leahy asked you earlier today, but I think it bears repeating. Do you think it is important for the American people to believe that Supreme Court justices are independent and fair and impartial? And that is a yes or no answer, please.
BARRETT: Yes, Sen. Harris.
HARRIS: A number of my colleagues have asked you today whether you would recuse yourself from cases on the Affordable Care Act. You did not directly answer their questions and instead, you described a process by which that would work or happen.
And so my question is - isn't it true that at the end of that process, regardless of that process, that it would be you who ultimately would make the decision about whether or not you would recuse yourself?
BARRETT: That is true and I can't have you elicit a commitment from me about how I would make that decision in advance, that would be wrong.
HARRIS: Right, and what I've asked you is that isn't not correct that that is the process but ultimately it would be you and you alone that would make the decision about whether you would be recused.
[19:10:00]
You've already opined on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and that position satisfied the President's promise to only nominate judges who would tear down the Affordable Care Act. And Senate Republicans rushed this process so that you could rule on this very case.
The reasonable question about your impartiality will undoubtedly paying over this Court's ultimate decision in the Affordable Care Act case if you refuse to recuse yourself. I strongly believe that.
Supreme Court justices routinely consider the consequences of their decisions on people's lives. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled against President Trump in his effort to repeal DACA protections for dreamers, children, of course, who have arrived in the United States many before they could talk or walk. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for a 5-4 majority that included the crucial vote of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The court rejected the Trump's administration's attempt to end protections for dreamers. Chief Justice Roberts said the administration had not taken into consideration the fact that many dreamers rely on those protections when they started their careers and businesses, when they served in the military of the United States, when they bought homes and when they started families.
Sen. Hirono asked you whether it is appropriate for Supreme Court justice to consider real world impacts. But you're sitting judge now, so my question is in deciding whether to uphold government action, do you currently consider the consequences of your rulings on people's lives?
BARRETT: Well, Sen. Harris, that's part of the decision of every case.
HARRIS: And so you do.
BARRETT: Every case has consequences on people's lives. So, of course, I do in every case. That's part of the judicial decision making process.
HARRIS: And would you do that as - if you are actually voted on the United States Supreme Court? Would you do that fair as well?
BARRETT: Senator, considering how the resolution of a dispute will affect parties, will affect people as part of the judicial decision making process and I will continue engaging in that process to the best of my ability.
HARRIS: So if the Affordable Care Act is struck down more than a hundred million Americans with pre existing conditions like heart disease, diabetes and cancer would pay more for insurance or be denied coverage entirely. More than 20 million Americans could lose their health coverage entirely, including nearly 3 million black Americans and over 5 million Latino Americans who received access to health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. Insurers will once again be able to discriminate against that more than 50 percent of African- Americans and nearly 40 percent of Latinos with pre existing conditions.
Insurers will be able to deny coverage to more than one quarter of Native Americans with conditions like diabetes, heart disease and cancer. All of this in the midst of a pandemic that is not going away anytime soon. A pandemic that when age is taken into account has been three times as deadly for black, Latino, Pacific Islander and Native Americans. A pandemic that has killed approximately one in 1,000 black Americans, one in 1,200 Native Americans and one in 1,500 Latino Americans.
Judge Barrett, would you consider the 135 million people who gave protections under the Affordable Care Act when deciding a case that challenges that law?
BARRETT: Sen. Harris, if I were to be confirmed and conclude that I was not - that I was able to sit on the case pursuant to the recusal statute and then if I heard the case and decided the case, I would consider all of the protections that Congress put in place. And as I said earlier during this hearing, the question would be figuring out whether Congress, assuming that the mandate is unconstitutional now, whether that consistent with your intent, this is Congress' law, would permit this act to stand or whether the flawed portion of it could just be excised out.
And that is a question not of what judges want, it's not a question of the Supreme Court. It's a question of what Congress wanted in the statute. And that is the statute that you enacted and extended this health care coverage to millions of Americans.
[19:15:00]
HARRIS: Well, would you give the fact that 135 million Americans with pre existing conditions are now depending on the protections of the Affordable Care Act? What weight would you get that?
BARRETT: Well, Sen. Harris, as I mentioned to Sen. Hirono, stare decisis takes reliance interests into account, because as I've said before, stare decisis is about keeping stability in the law. So the law often takes into account reliance interests. I can't really say sitting here, how they would play in a way in this case, because that's part of the legal calculus of the case.
So I can't really give you the kind of commitment or pre commitment that you're asking for me of how I would weigh factors or how I would structure my decision making process.
HARRIS: I would ask you to consider if you are confirmed on the court ...
BARRETT: Thank you.
HARRIS: ... incredible benefit of the Affordable Care Act and that a destruction of its protections will have a devastating impact on millions, hundreds of millions of Americans.
Judge Barrett, you testified yesterday that justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opened the door for many women in law and I certainly believe and know that to be true as a personal matter. She was a trailblazer for women's equality and gender equity.
As a law student, as a teacher, as a civil rights lawyer and as the second woman ever to sit on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg broke many barriers for women across the country. We, I believe, all fondly remember her as a person who had patients, she had the will and the vision to make our country a more equal place and a more just place.
And one of the things she fought for was a woman's right to control her own body and to make decisions about her own body and health care and reproductive choices. The Constitution of the United States protects a woman's right to choose whether or when to become a parent. And it protects a woman's right to choose abortion.
Women of Color, immigrant women, women with low incomes and women in rural areas face significant barriers when attempting to access birth control, cancer screenings and comprehensive reproductive healthcare. Moreover, anti choice activists and politicians have been working for decades to pass laws and file lawsuits designed to overturn Roe and the precedents that followed. The threat to choice is real.
Just last year, the court heard a case that gave him an opportunity to revisit and overturn its abortion precedent. In a case called June Medical Services. The Supreme Court struck down a medically unnecessary restriction that would have closed all but one abortion clinic in Louisiana.
Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the Court's for liberal members that the court was bound by its own precedent to strike down the Louisiana law, because it was virtually identical to a Texas law that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016. As a result, women in the state were able to receive the full range of reproductive care. But Chief Justice Roberts wrote his own separate opinion in the case to make clear that in the future, he could not be counted on to uphold a woman's right to choose.
Justice Ginsburg provided the critical fifth vote to strike down the unconstitutional abortion restriction in June Medical Services. So we must be honest about the impact of her passing and the impact it will have on the Court's decisions in cases regarding women's access to reproductive health care.
Now, my Republican colleagues have said that there is a minimal chance that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe. But back in January, 39 Republican senators, including 10 members of this very committee signed their names to a Supreme Court brief that asked the Court to 'take up the issue of rather whether Roe should be reconsidered and if appropriate, overruled'.
So let's not make any mistake about it, allowing President Trump to determine who fills the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion for women's rights and a critical vote in so many decisions that sustained the right to choose poses a threat to safe and legal abortion in our country.
[19:19:58]
After all, President Trump said that overturning Roe v. Wade will 'happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro life justices on the court'. Judge Barrett, several times today you have quoted Justice Ginsburg's testimony about not making predictions in future cases. However, she was far more forthcoming at her confirmation hearing about the essential rights of women.
In 1993, Justice Ginsburg's confirmation hearing shows that she testified that 'the decision whether or not to bury child is central to a woman's life to her well being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself when government controls that decision. For her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices'.
Then Judge Ginsburg went on to say, "It is essential to witness equality with man, that she'd be the decision maker that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex."
Now, Justice Ginsburg did not tell the committee how she would vote in any particular case, but she did freely discuss how she viewed a woman's right to choose. But Judge Barrett, your record clearly shows you hold a different view. In 2006, you signed your name to an advertisement published in the South Bend Tribune. It described Roe v. Wade as 'an exercise of raw judicial power' and call for putting 'an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade'.
You've signed a similar ad in 2013 that described Roe as 'infamous and expressed opposition to abortion'. Also in 2013, you wrote an article about Supreme Court precedent in which you excluded Roe from a list of well-settled cases that you said, "No justice would overrule even if she disagrees." Suggesting, of course, that you believe Roe is susceptible to being overturned.
On the 40th anniversary of Roe, you delivered a speech in which you said that the Court's recognition of the right to choose was 'created through judicial fiat rather than grounded in the Constitution'. And during your tenure on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, you have been willing to reconsider abortion restrictions that other Republican appointed judges found unconstitutional.
As the Senate considers filling the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was straightforward enough in her confirmation hearing to say that the right to choose is 'essential to woman's equality'. I would suggest that we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose or make her own healthcare decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the following three documents be entered into the record. A letter opposing Judge Barrett's nomination from the NAACP, a statement opposing Judge Barrett's nomination from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund and a report opposing Judge Barrett's nomination from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Without objection.
HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GRAHAM: Thank you.
HARRIS: Thank you.
GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Sen. Harris. Sen. Kennedy.
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Mr. Chairman, I have ...
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: And you just listened to Sen. Kamala Harris, vice presidential nominee, of course, questioning and giving her comments to Judge Amy Coney Barrett. I want to get straight to Jeffrey Toobin.
So, Jeff, when you look at this overall, obviously, very, very strong there on abortion at the end from Sen. Harris. She also, of course, went very strongly on the Affordable Care Act. How do you think she did? Obviously, this was a mix of mostly - she was speaking. She was sort of giving a speech, but others did as well, including Republicans. That's the way these things go. How do you think she did overall in her half an hour? JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think she
accomplished what you wanted to do, which was give a ringing defense of the Affordable Care Act. I think the Democrats in general have made the decision that they really have no chance of stopping Judge Barrett from being confirmed.
[19:25:06]
But they know as everyone knows there's an election coming up and one of the key issues is whether the Affordable Care Act survives. And they have used over and over again, each Democrat has used their opportunity for questioning to defend the substance of the Act and raise the threat that if Donald Trump is reelected and if his judges, including judge Barrett are confirmed, then the Affordable Care Act is in mortal danger.
So in that respect, I think Sen. Harris achieved what she wanted to achieve, but I don't think anyone should be under the impression it's going to jeopardize whether she's confirmed to the Supreme Court because it doesn't.
BURNETT: Right. I mean, that book is written as we say.
So Laura, then at the end, Sen. Harris again sort of making a case. At the end, she didn't even need or give Judge Barrett a chance to respond to her points on Roe vs. Wade. But she laid out a very clear case that Judge Ginsburg in her confirmation hearings never said how she would rule, but she was very clear on a woman's right to choose and she laid that out. And then she laid out Judge Barrett's record over the past decade plus, making it very clear that Judge Barrett's point of view on abortion rights is very clear, she opposes them. That was a very lawyer-like case she made.
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it was that moment when she said let's not pretend which frankly has been part and parcel of many Supreme Court nomination processes, where everyone adheres to that so called Ginsburg rule of no previews, no forecasts, no hints. But, of course, as you know and you noted as Sen. Kamala Harris noted, although she did say that and she is noted for that pithy phrase, she actually did demonstrate what she believed at the time of the confirmation hearing.
But these confirmation hearings are largely have been and morphed into being able to adhere to a script that demonstrates and says her impartiality that she refused to be a political Marionette for any reason and you will only abide by the law and you forget and ignore the aspect that one of the reasons you have been nominated by whatever president you've been nominated by, is for your personal beliefs and your ideologies.
BURNETT: Right.
COATES: And so she pointed that out just saying I'm not going to ask the question, because we already know what you stand for and what scripture will give, and then gave the script via letter of so many organizations who devote their lives to these issues and said, none of them buy it either.
BURNETT: Yes. Right. That part there at the end, ending it with I'm submitting this not with a question. Kirsten, what stood out to you?
KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think that this is really about the election what Sen. Harris was doing, it's not, as Jeffrey was saying, the Democrats know that she's going to get confirmed. And so everything that she was saying was with an eye towards voters. The two issues that she focused on, the Affordable Care Act which is something that most Democratic voters or moderate Democratic voters or modern independents, that would be leaning Democratic, it's a top issue for them.
And Roe v. Wade which has the support of the majority of Americans, these are two issues that are very important in terms of voting, even voters who may be personally pro life, most of them or many of them, I should say many of them don't support overturning Roe v. Wade.
So I think that she had a real eye towards people who are voting and that was really her target audience.
BURNETT: So Jeff, to that front, we have seen her doing our cross examinations. We saw it on the debate stage with Joe Biden. We've seen it with her questioning of Justice Kavanaugh. But what you saw tonight was very different and she was very aware that she's on - in the evening when Americans are watching.
TOOBIN: Right. And this was - I mean, Judge Barrett was really a spectator for the vast majority of the time Sen. Harris was speaking. And that it was a free half hour of wide coverage and she used it to make Democratic talking points in the election, BECAUSE that's what she's focused on. That's what the Democratic Party is focused on, because they know that this issue - that this Supreme Court nomination looks like a done deal.
But at the same time, I don't want to talk about the Supreme Court nomination as if it somehow doesn't matter and is just a sideshow to the presidential election. This is about whether Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned. This is about a nominee who is more outspoken on the abortion issue than any nominee in the history of the court.
So there's never been a Supreme Court nominee before who had signed petitions about ...
BURNETT: Ending the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.
[19:30:05]
TOOBIN: Right. So this crazy, you know, pretense that she somehow has an open mind about whether abortion should be legal or not, I mean, I don't think anyone should be fooled by that. So the stakes of this Supreme Court nomination are enormous, even though the Democrats are focusing much more on the presidential elections, because they at least have a chance in that one.
BURNETT: And, Laura, she did also refuse to answer the questions that Senator Harris was putting right about the Affordable Care Act. Senator Harris again, most of that, was making the case, as Jeff points out right, for the Affordable Care Act to Americans.
But that it was very clear she was not going to get any clear answer on the issue of justice -- you know, Barrett, did she even know that President Trump said I won't nominate anyone who said they're going to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, right? There was a little bit of verbal semantics going on. I don't know who mentioned what to me on phone call.
That was a moment that seemed a bit more trademark Kamala Harris.
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It seemed a bit more trademark in terms we heard from William Barr as well about when you say "suggest," what was the issue suggest, what does that word mean, or with Brett Kavanaugh, when she was confirmed about the notion of who he had spoken to at a prior law firm in any context whatsoever. And you see, what happens there is when you essentially refuse to admit the obvious, you undermine your even credibility.
She could have simply said, well, yes, I'm aware that the president has made these statements. But as she tried to articulate in the past, she's not seeking to be something beholden to the president, rather than the rule of law. She could have easily dismissed that statement had she been paying attention perhaps to exactly what it was that she was going to concede.
So I heard that and thought, that's a very easy question, as is earlier in the day when she was asked the question about why you won't showcase your hand, what would you do if the president of the United States tried to say you could move or delay the action. And se said, well, I'm not a legal pundit, and I was offended by that particular statement, being a legal pundit, I am. But the idea of saying instead I want more information and research.
Well, this is a very easy answer. Congress is the one who has to change it. When she says I don't want to answer or show my hand or previews or forecast when the Constitution and the law already does it for you, it's a little absurd and disingenuous.
BURNETT: And now, this is all about to go behind closed doors, so there's two questions. One, what we learned about Justice Barrett. And two, Kirsten, Senator Harris and how significant tonight was with her making the case to the Democratic base.
But you're pointing out, you think it was more broad than that, right? When she's talking about 130 million Americans, and, you know, she's clearly trying to make the case to people in the middle, right? Who may have looked at her specifically on the issue of health care, right, as being way more on the left, that this is a much more important issue for people who are in the middle type of voters.
KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah. The Biden campaign is laser focused on those voters. So I think that she -- I don't think she was coming here to thrill the Democratic base necessarily. I think she was coming here to say look, Roe v. Wade is almost definitely going to be overturned. Or this person sitting in front of us wants to overturn it.
And the majority of voters don't support that. And so, I think that's something that people don't need to be reminded of that this is what the Republicans want to do, and when it comes to health care, that, you know, there are very serious consequences to what's happening here and it's a really stark contrast between the Republicans and the Democrats.
And, you know, Amy Coney Barrett saying I haven't made any assurances to anybody is a meaningless statement. They don't have to ask for assurances. She's been vetted thoroughly by the Federalist Society. They would not have -- would not be supporting her, Republicans would not be supporting her if they didn't believe very strongly that she was going to overturn the ACA and that she was going to support overturning Roe v. Wade.
BURNETT: And as you point out, Jeff, right, to be on, you know, the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to say it was created by judicial fiat on that day, right? We know where she stands on that, that's very clear.
She was asked earlier today by Senator Graham, people say you are a female Scalia. What do you say? And what I thought was interesting, Jeff, is the bottom line is she said, you would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett. But that's not what she said.
Tell me why.
TOOBIN: Because what she said was, you know, that she suggested perhaps there was a sexist implication that she wasn't thinking for herself.
[19:35:03]
But including when she spoke at the super spreader event at the White House, and today when she talked about originalism -- I mean, she went the whole way with originalism.
She said, you know, I believe the Constitution means what people in the 18th century understood it to mean.
You know what people in the 18th century didn't understand it to mean? It didn't mean anything about women's rights. It didn't believe anything about gay people's rights, it didn't believe anything about abortion.
So if the people in the 18th century didn't believe in those, I'm not going to rule in favor of those rights. That's a big deal. That's a very different view of the Constitution than the majority of the -- even the more conservative members like John Roberts have held.
They have seen how the meaning of the Constitution has changed. But Justice Scalia didn't, and Justice Scalia did if the people in the 18th century didn't believe it, I'm not ruling that way, and neither is Judge Barrett. And that's a very consequential thing. BURNETT: Incredibly consequential and people think about the right of
privacy, such as anyone believes it exists. Obviously, it's not in there.
Thank you all very much. I appreciate your time.
And as Judge Amy Coney Barrett continues to take questions from senators, President Trump is here, rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Live pictures here, thousands of people. Another day, another thing of the same, right?
The camera has been there. Very few masks. There is no social distancing.
The president today announcing he's going to be holding a lot more rallies like this across the country, even as Dr. Anthony Fuci made it clear he thinks they're a danger and warned a resurgence of coronavirus is coming.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: We're seeing an uptick in test positivity, which is highly predictive of a resurgence of cases, which historically we know leads to an increase in hospitalizations, and then ultimately an increase in deaths.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Well, Pennsylvania, where the president is tonight, is a state seeing an increase in cases, and like every other Trump rally, when the cameras are turned on and they focus on the president, the supporters behind him, mostly, almost all wear masks.
That is not a coincidence, as our Jeremy Diamond reports, it's all for show, a dangerous reality show, one which includes launching a new attack on the nation's top infectious disease expert. Trump tonight tweeting about Fauci, quote, Tony's pitching arm is far more accurate than his prognostications. Fauci, though, not backing down.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FAUCI: I'm certainly not going to give up. This is too important a problem. I mean, I've devoted my entire professional life to fighting infectious diseases.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Jeremy Diamond is traveling with the president, OUTFRONT live in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where, of course, most of the people in that audience behind you are not wearing masks.
What are you learning about why we see people behind the president with the masks on, but when you're in the crowd and you walk through, and you see cameras, we don't see any? JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Erin. Listen, we
have -- we've heard President Trump even as recently as last night mocking Joe Biden for putting social distancing measures in place. He has not required nor has his campaign required the attendees attending his rallies to require masks.
But one thing that the president understands perhaps is optics. And that is why the campaign asks every person who is behind the president, who is in that VIP area, to actually wear a mask during the duration of the rally. They are actually given special masks that have the campaign's own branding on it.
So, clearly, the president understands the value of the optics. But it's an illusion, Erin, because the overwhelming majority of the thousands of people who are at this rally or any of the recent rallies I've been to in the last several weeks, they are not wearing masks and they're certainly not social distancing, either.
What is clear, Erin, is that this is how the president is going to forge ahead for these next three weeks. He has promised to gather thousands of thousands of people for the next three weeks between now and Election Day in person for these rallies where there's no social distancing or masks are not required.
And they're nowhere perhaps more than in the state of Pennsylvania, Erin, the president has visited Pennsylvania six times in the last month and a half. And a campaign source telling me today that the president will visit this state perhaps more than any other battleground state the most between today and Election Day -- Erin.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Jeremy.
So, you see what you see tonight, and you could be seeing more of this in Pennsylvania than any other battleground state from this president.
Joining me now, Pennsylvania's Democratic lieutenant governor, John Fetterman.
What's your reaction to that? You see the crowd and, you know, you hear the reporting, right? So behind them they get the MAGA masks and in front, we all see for ourselves very few masks.
And now, we're hearing that he's going to go to Pennsylvania a lot between now and Election Day and keep doing the same thing.
[19:40:07]
What do you say to the president?
LT. GOV. JOHN FETTERMAN (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, I just -- I saw that scene and I just thought back to less than two weeks ago, I was with Vice President Biden in Johnstown. And we had an event, too.
And all of us were wearing masks, all of us were practicing social distancing, and Vice President Biden has been successful in avoiding contracting coronavirus or turning any of his events into spreading events.
You know, the president understands what I've been saying for a long time now, is that Pennsylvania is going to pick the president, so it's not a surprise that he's going to be coming to our state many, many more times.
But it's also true that he is going to behave the way he behaves because there's three weeks left, and he's certainly not going to change course on a lot of what I would describe personally as reckless kind of public health measures at his rallies.
BURNETT: So, you know, what do you say, though, given your state, right? The trend lines are not good. New cases are on the rise, you hear the warnings from Dr. Fauci. And yet, it's very clear that you're going to see, you know, thousands and thousands of people shoulder to shoulder, maskless at these sort of rallies.
What risks do they pose?
FETTERMAN: It's -- it's an unfortunate risk. The tragedy in all of this, and the death and the economic destruction is that we have made each other the virus -- I mean, excuse me, we've made each other the enemy, not the virus. The virus is the true enemy.
And this is only going to get settled on November 3rd. And I'm optimistic Pennsylvania is going to return to the blue column, whether it's the polling or the energy you see on the ground. But I'm not going to underestimate the president's strength in Pennsylvania for a second.
But what I can say is that Pennsylvania respects science. You know, the governor and I do. We have made important steps to make sure that Pennsylvanians stay safe. And our results on the long-term demonstrate that.
But the president's rallies contradict that. But I think he's going to get checked on November 3rd. And we both agree that Pennsylvania is going to likely pick the next president.
BURNETT: So, let me ask you about one other thing, Lieutenant Governor, the pretty disturbing thing that happened to you, your family personally. But in the context of what we're seeing across this country, it's important to talk about.
Your wife Gisele at the grocery store, a woman recognizes her, begins to scream at her, telling her she doesn't belong, calling her the "N" word.
And here's the end of the incident which Gisele captured on video.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dude, you're a (AUDIO DELETED)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: So how did you feel when you heard about this, when you saw that video?
FETTERMAN: I obviously was sad and concerned for my wife, first and foremost. And she called me immediately afterward and was shaken up. But she's gotten over that.
And I just want to thank everybody for their love and support, both, you know, here and locally in western Pennsylvania, across Pennsylvania, across the country, the incident has really resonated.
But like her, I'm also calling for a measure of, you know, compassion or at least understanding for that woman. She's obviously dealing with a lot of issues. And she is certainly not reflective of the great people of Pennsylvania. It was an isolated incident.
But it is undeniable there is -- there is an energy out there, and I think that energy -- I think we can all agree isn't helpful. It's toxic and it's destructive. Once again, I think a lot of this is going to be settled on November 3rd here in Pennsylvania.
BURNETT: Lieutenant Governor, I appreciate your time. Thank you.
FETTERMAN: Thank you for having me.
BURNETT: All right. And now, Dr. Jonathan Reiner, director of the cardiac cath lab at George Washington University Hospital who also advised the White House medical team under President George W. Bush.
So, Dr. Reiner, another night, another Trump rally in a state where the trend lines are moving in the wrong direction. And obviously, we just pointed out he's going to be going to Pennsylvania a lot. He's going to do everything he can to get as many images like what we just saw on people's screens, right?
So they're not going to look at the polls. They're going to see those numbers, right? He's trying to use that to energize his base.
So what do you say to that, given the resurgence in cases across this country?
DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: I say that the president is doing a lot of the virus' work. He's like the caddie for the virus.
If you look at the battleground states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, the virus is surging in all of those states. And the president is going to go to all of those states.
If you think about unmasked people in mass gatherings, it's like dry brush in a forest fire.
[19:45:06]
The -- when the fire encounters that dry brush, it ignites and intensifies the fire. That's what happens in a pandemic when you put together unmasked people. The president is making it easier for the virus to spread those states. It's -- you know, maybe this helps him electorally. I don't understand
the politics here. But it's very damaging to the public health.
BURNETT: So, President Trump today again, attacks Dr. Fauci, even though he's also using Dr. Fauci in a campaign ad to say that Dr. Fauci endorses him.
So, putting that completely aside, the sort of hypocrisy of that, today, Trump tweeted that Fauci's pitching arm is, quote, far more accurate than his prognostications, which was a reference to Dr. Fauci's first pitch at an MLB game.
So, where does this go, this Fauci-Trump issue? And Fauci has made it clear, he's not going anywhere, certainly not by choice.
REINER: Right. Well, I'll remind everybody that the president never threw out that first pitch that he promised to throw in New York this year. So I await his pitching prowess.
This is so unnecessary. And so, what a distraction. Forty-seven thousand new cases today. Another almost 700 deaths in the United States. There are 38,000 people hospitalized with this virus.
I don't want to hear this nonsense about the president talking about Dr. Fauci's pitching arm. I want to hear policy. I want to hear the president talking about masks and testing.
BURNETT: Yeah.
REINER: I want to hear that. I don't want to hear this. It's too much of a distraction.
BURNETT: So, we have a couple of big trials halted, and this is something that matters to all Americans here. Johnson and Johnson's vaccine, right, due to an unexplained illness, that they're trying to figure that out, right, before they proceed.
Ely Lilly's antibody treatment, we're not sure why that was paused. Now, it's not uncommon for things to happen, right? It's par for the course. Dr. Fauci has pointed that out. That's why it takes time, right, they usually get resolved. You can move ahead.
REINER: Right.
BURNETT: But when it comes to Eli Lilly, this is a treatment the president has touted recently. Even though it is, and I want to be clear, not the actual treatment he received. Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Regeneron was -- I view it as a cure, not just a therapeutic. I view it as a cure because I took it. And Eli Lilly has a great drug.
So we have these drugs, Eli Lilly and the others that are so good.
Eli Lilly has something very comparable. It's phenomenal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Is he -- is he setting up false expectations for people?
REINER: He always has. He's the quick fix president. There are no quick fixes here. This is why we have to do science.
I'm not actually discouraged by these, you know, pauses. This is why we do clinical trials. We'll get it right and we'll have great therapeutics. I'm not really worried about these, you know, speed bumps.
BURNETT: All right. Well, Dr. Reiner, thank you.
REINER: My pleasure.
BURNETT: And an alarming development to a story that we've been following here. Another sitting Democratic governor, this time Virginia's governor, Ralph Northam, has been targeted by the same extremist group allegedly plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Sara Sidner is OUTFRONT.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): New disturbing details about the alleged plot in Michigan to take over state governments. In federal government, an FBI agent testified in June, the suspects discussed kidnapping not only the Michigan governor but the Virginia governor, as well.
They specifically had the issues with the governors of Michigan and Virginia, he said, because of various coronavirus-related lockdown orders. Those also happened to be two of the Democratic governors who President Trump attacked in April over their stay at home orders, tweeting: liberate Michigan and liberate Virginia.
GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER (D), MICHIGAN: We know every time that this White House identifies me or takes a shot at me, we see an increase in rhetoric online, violent rhetoric. And so there's always a connection.
SIDNER: The president responded denying any role in citing extremists. But yet again attacking Whitmer, saying she's doing a terrible job. Attorney General Bill Barr has failed to speak publicly about the case, even as more details emerge. In the federal preliminary hearing, another new detail came to light in the alleged plot against Whitmer that was not spelled out in federal or state charges against 13 men accused in the plot.
The FBI testified part of the plan to kidnap Governor Whitmer included snatching her from her north Michigan lakefront vacation home, taking her out to the middle of Lake Michigan and leaving her stranded in a boat. The agents said the plot wasn't all talk. There was plenty of action,
and even video of the men firing their rifles fashioned with silencers.
We traveled deep into the woods to an area residents say the FBI raided in Michigan.
CLIFF DEMOS, LUTHER RESIDENT: Guns, semiautomatics, small IED bombs, those kind of things is what they were using up here.
[19:50:07]
(on camera): And that isn't the norm?
DEMOS: No.
SIDNER (voice-over): A hundred seventy-five miles away, the FBI raided another area agents say training took place.
(on camera): That house there with the Confederate Flag here in Munith, Michigan, is one of the homes the FBI raided in this alleged plot to kidnap the governor.
Now, we were able to talk to several neighbors who said they noticed something unusual a day or so before the FBI showed up. They heard a massive explosion emanating from this property. They said it rattled their floors and knocked their pictures askew.
(voice-over): The FBI agent testified they have evidence one of the suspects attempted to make an improvised explosive device to blow up the bridge near the governor's home to keep police at bay. There was also video played from inside the basement where one of the alleged plot leaders, Adam Fox, lived.
Prosecutors say the men are caught on video speed loading their weapons in case there was a gun fight. The whole alleged plot has folks in these villages concerned about self-style militias they know are still operating around here.
DEMOS: Are there other militia groups here? You bet they are.
SIDNER (on camera): And are people beginning to be afraid of them?
DEMOS: They are beginning to be a little more concerned.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SIDNER: Now, we're learning that the Trump campaign ended up canceling a rally at a gun range here, after learning a former employee of that range was arrested in this alleged kidnapping plot. It turns out that really has now been moved to another venue, Erin.
BURNETT: Sarah, thank you.
I want to go straight now then to the former FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe. Deputy Director McCabe, so, you know, according to court documents, you know, the people planning this, discussed taking action again against multiple state governments that they believe are violating the U.S. Constitution, right? So, now, you are hearing Whitmer and you're hearing Northam in Virginia.
Do you think this plot could be even bigger?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It certainly could, Erin. I think it's really important to concentrate on the words that the FBI agent used. You know, he described in court today that on June 6th, that Adam Fox and Barry Croft, two of the individuals who are now facing federal charges for their involvement in the Michigan plot, met with about 12 or more other militia members, from 5 different states. They talked about grabbing governors and they specifically mentioned, of course, the Michigan and Virginia governors.
But that doesn't -- that language doesn't rule out any other activities that are being thought about or possibly considered or planned, in any one of those other three or four states. So I think it's, that's what we really need to look at first. And then you overlay on to that, Erin, the fact that these militia groups, these right ring anti-government groups, have been multiplying in the last few years.
There is not a state in this country that doesn't have some of this militia presence in the state. They are all very different. Some of them are obviously more extreme than others. So, I'm quite sure that my former colleagues in the FBI are spending a lot of time looking at those groups right now, in kind of on the lookout for planned acts of violence.
BURNETT: So the FBI agent, you know, when you say pay attention to the words, also testified that the motive of the plot was to target a sitting governor over shutdown orders during the pandemic. Now, we know Trump tweeted in April about the shutdown orders, all caps: Liberate Michigan, liberate Virginia, right? Specifically telling those two states to be open.
So, now, you have those two states governors obviously specifically named here. Correlation may not be causality but this is quite something.
MCCABE: Yeah, it really is. I mean, look, I can tell you, as a 21 year FBI agent, the FBI agents, we don't believe in coincidence, right? So, the fact that the president specifically called out the governors of -- specifically called out to liberate Michigan and Virginia, now you have plots in Michigan in Virginia, that would really be hard to explain that as a coincidence.
I'd also like to point out, Erin, that President Trump was very specific and has made a bunch of comments about the Virginia governor's impact on people's Second Amendment rights. And Second Amendment right is something that are very, very important to these militia members, the anti-government folks, like the Boogaloo Boys, things like that. So, that is a specific kind of triggering language that will get the
attention of these groups and could certainly cause some of them to take violent action.
BURNETT: Right. Deputy Director, I appreciate your time, thank you.
MCCABE: Thank you.
BURNETT: And as President Trump holds a rally tonight in the must-win state of Pennsylvania, Joe Biden is another swing state, Florida.
[19:55;06]
He's telling voters, quote: We win Florida and it's all over.
Biden with a similar message in Ohio yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: If we win Ohio, the game is over. I think we win just -- Ohio and Florida are two critically important states are very close, that Trump won significantly the last two times and we feel really good. The polling data, I don't count on that, but I'm going to try to earn all the votes them. Ohio I think is a -- is a toss-up right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, John Kasich, the former Republican governor of Ohio.
And, Governor, I've stood in your state in a very cold election night. We know there's been no Republican who has won the White House within Ohio. And in 96 years, no one Republican has won the White House without Florida. So, Biden's point about taking those states would hold. It's crucial.
But the latest poll shows Biden and Trump neck and neck in Ohio. Right? They are -- it seems completely tied. What do you see and feel?
JOHN KASICH, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Erin, it's independent men who are beginning to move towards Joe Biden. Our seniors who would normally be locked down with the incumbent are now moving away from him. And, of course, women in the suburbs have had it with him. So, you put those kind of things together and you have why this thing is so close.
But I must also tell you, Erin, in a way it's a little bit maybe bragging on my part, but I won 86 out of 88 counties a couple of elections ago.
BURNETT: Yeah.
KASICH: And it demoralized the Democratic machine. As a result of that they're having a hard time being able to carry out the basic things that they need to do. It is extremely close. I probably would still give this to Trump in
Ohio, but nothing would surprise me here.
BURNETT: So, but that's interesting. You're saying despite what you're seeing with seniors, despite what you're seeing with certain groups of white men, right now, today election, you still would give Ohio to Trump?
KASICH: And it's because the Republican machine has been -- people have been pretty happy with Republicans, and the Democrats, they just weren't winning anything. Obama won. But then this blow out that they suffered when I ran for reelection was literally 86 out of 88 counties. It's sort -- the debate (ph), the machinery is not there. And you need machinery.
I think these things come together is making this close. Again I wouldn't be surprised if Biden won Ohio.
The same thing is happening in Florida, you know, with seniors moving the other way, independent men and, of course, the suburbs. So, the women in the suburbs have had it and demonstrated it through to two midterm elections. So, you know, this is really -- this is really something.
Now, you know, you mentioned Pennsylvania. Again it's pretty close. I would give that one to Biden. Michigan -- Michigan is gone. Biden is going to win Michigan.
Then you look at Minnesota and Wisconsin, two critical states, and interestingly enough in the state of Wisconsin, we're beginning to see Biden open up the lead.
So, look, there are no landslides in American politics today, Erin. The country is too split right now.
BUIRNETT: Polarized.
KASICH: I would give the edge in this election to Joe Biden
BURNETT: So let me ask, you when you talk about seniors, is that related to coronavirus and the president's handling of coronavirus?
KASICH: Yes, yes, it is.
And the one thing that Joe Biden had a show in that last debate, is -- was he -- is he strong going to be able to carry out the job as president? The seniors were looking at that. And he passed that test.
And that's why seniors have not totally settled down yet. But they are moving away from Trump, undecided, trending towards Biden. And a lot of it has to do with that.
The other thing that the Trump people have missed out on, Erin, is they're not talking about the most important issue and that's jobs. And, you know, we have a COVID economy now. You hear Biden talking about it. You hear Harris talking about. BURNETT: Yeah.
KASICH: You don't hear Trump saying much about it. He's been an attack dog, you know, the Democrats are socialists and all that.
I don't think that's very effective. He's been off message and, you know, he's talking about the virus but he's not reassuring people on the virus, and secondly, he's not talking about jobs. It always gets down to jobs.
BURNETT: It does. And, of course, obviously, you have endorsed Biden.
Let me just ask you one thing, though, in terms of this whole thing with the voting, right?
KASICH: Yeah.
BURNETT: They said Biden voters vote early. And Trump voters vote on Election Day.
KASICH: They have.
BURNETT: So you're going to hear Trump winning on election night, but then the votes may change. Ohio can start counting up before Election Day on absentee ballots.
Could we know an election night or early the day after which way Ohio went?
KASICH: Yeah. We -- well, we could because they can process the ballots and then quickly count. Then we've been absentee balloting here for 15 years. So, there's -- we're really used to doing. So, it's very possible, we will know on election night.
But, you know, you get to count the ballots a couple of days after election day as long as they were postmarked before the election. So, it's something, Erin.
BURNETT: Depends who close it is.
KASICH: It's why you're doing well in the news. It never ends.
BURNETT: All right. Governor Kasich, I appreciate your time, as always sir, thank you.
KASICH: OK, Erin, thank you.
BURNETT: And thanks to all of you as well.
Let's hand it off now to Anderson.
