Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Dr. Anthony Fauci Speaks about Possible Side Effects of Some COVID-19 Vaccines; Rate of Vaccination in U.S. May Be Falling; Police Chief in Minnesota Interviewed on His Experience with Police and Thoughts on Police Reform; Russian Dissident Alexei Navalny Ends Hunger Strike after Seeing Physicians; Woman Admits Hitting Teen with Car Because She "Was a Mexican"; Arizona Bill Targeting Mail-In Voting Stalls Amid GOP Infighting. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired April 23, 2021 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, BIDEN CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER: So they're letting the vaccine go out with a warning to people about what to look for, about what the risk is. I wouldn't be surprised, though -- again, I don't want to get ahead of their decision. That's up to them. But I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with something similar to that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Sanjay, what are you expecting?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, so he was referencing what happened in Europe initially there. Europe made this decision to basically say continue on but with warnings. The United States, the FDA doesn't necessarily need to follow that particular path, but it does look likely, and I think that's what Dr. Fauci is telegraphing. Two other potential outcomes. One is that they say, this is so rare, we're not going to put any additional warnings on this necessarily. That seems unlikely given all that we've heard about this. Or, you remember with AstraZeneca, they basically said continue on, but not for everyone, not for certain age groups.

So we'll see. In addition to the six women that you talked about, you mentioned there's a woman in Oregon who they are investigating. Is this related? Also now we heard overnight a woman in Texas as well. So a couple more patients that the advisory committee may be looking at, but still very rare. So likely it's going to come out again, just with maybe some caveats.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We'll know for certain by tonight. By dinnertime tonight, we'll have a definitive answer to that.

Sanjay, CDC data shows that the seven-day average of vaccine doses administered has dropped below 3 million shots per day for the first time in more than two weeks. It means that fewer people are getting vaccinated every day than were a few days ago. What does this mean? GUPTA: I'd like to see a little bit more of a trend here to see

what's going on, but we've anticipated that there would be this point where we'd start to see the numbers start to drop. We've vaccinated the first 100 million doses were given in two months. The second 100 million were given in a month. So it was this rapid pace.

But in addition to that graph, I want to show you this other graph that came out of Kaiser Family Foundation that may explain a little bit about what's going on here. I think there's two things. There's still hard to reach areas around the country where people do want the vaccine. They are still having a harder time accessing them. It's gotten a lot better across the country. But overall, if we have that graph, it shows that 61 percent of the country roughly says they've either gotten it or they have no problem getting it. But about 17 percent now are sort of in this middle -- the movable middle, as they're called. They are taking this wait and see approach. So I think that that's probably what's driving this downward trend a little bit now.

That's not the graph. We'll get to that in a second. But basically 17 percent or so of people are sort of on the fence. There it is. The blue line in the middle. It's come down a fair amount. There's two green lines. Those are people who say only if needed or definitely not. They're going to be harder to move. But the blue line, if that starts to flip, I think we'll see the numbers at least not continue to go down in terms of vaccine acceptance.

KEILAR: All right, the persuadables there, we'll keep an eye on that line. Sanjay, it was one year ago today when then-President Trump actually said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: And then I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number. So it would be interesting to check that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Happy anniversary.

KEILAR: I know. I can't believe it's a year. But absolutely not would be the answer. He asked Deborah Birx. She was not as forceful as she should have been, for sure, saying absolutely not. How much did that kind of mis info set back the U.S. in the long run, Sanjay?

GUPTA: If you look at the United States, compared to other countries, and leave aside the vaccination, leave aside even some sort of magical therapeutics, there were countries that, obviously, with the same resources or fewer resources than we have who obviously did a lot better. I think the problem was that that stutter-stepping into our response cost us a lot. It was a delayed response to begin with. I remember the study coming out of Columbia early on that said if we had just acted even two weeks earlier, even a week earlier, 84 percent of deaths could have been prevented. It just stops your heart to hear that.

I remember I interviewed Ambassador Birx about that, and she says she believes that the vast majority of deaths could have been mitigated and prevented. So that was one example, but there were many. I think the basic idea that we didn't take it seriously enough and we thought there were crazy solutions, absolutely crazy solutions like just injecting disinfectant, did really put us behind. And we have a clearer look at that now a year later.

[08:05:04]

BERMAN: It's amazing to think of how much we've been through over the last year-plus. It feels like longer ago, Sanjay. Great to have you on. Thanks so much.

GUPTA: You got it.

BERMAN: So an eye-opening new perspective on policing this morning from a 26-year law enforcement veteran who says he's one of only four black police chiefs in the entire state of Minnesota, the state where George Floyd, Daunte Wright, Philando Castile were all killed by police. This is what he tells "The Daily Beast," quote, "I'm the chief of police, and when I see a squad car behind him, my heart skips a beat." St. Cloud, Minnesota, Police Chief Blair Anderson joins me now. Chief, thanks so much for being with us. I also want to say it was your birthday this week. Happy birthday, 26 years in policing. After all that time, for you to say your heart skips a beat when you see a squad car behind you, why?

BLAIR ANDERSON, POLICE CHIEF, ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA: I think that's true of most people, but more importantly, it's the reason why I've chosen to do this job from a standpoint of compassion and humanity and being ever mindful not to ever strip another human being of their dignity. But I think if you ask most people, when they see a squad car behind them, the tension goes up a little bit.

BERMAN: And it's not abstract for you. You had your own case of really alarming treatment at the hands of different police. Explain.

ANDERSON: I did. It was a traffic stop. I was actually going to my niece's sweet 16 birthday party, and a squad car pulled in behind me. And having been on the other end of that transaction, as it were, and for how long he followed me, I knew I was going to get pulled over. What I didn't know was there were going to be 10 or 15 other squads, and that turned into a felony stop where I was taken out at gunpoint and prone out on the street. And the saddest part about it when the officer was approaching me, I mentioned that I was a police officer and that my duty weapon was in my bag. And his response was, yes, yes, just shut up. And so I complied, and, obviously, was handcuffed. And it was almost worth it when he pulled my I.D. out of my pocket and saw that I was a captain with another department. But I had a very serious conversation with that officer's chief.

BERMAN: Yes, I bet. I bet you did. Chief, you did this remarkable interview with "The Daily Beast" which caught our eye and which is why we asked you to join us this morning. And one of the things you discuss is the range of emotions that you feel as an officer this week with the verdict in the Derek Chauvin case, and how this has been a difficult week for you. I wonder if you can discuss that with us.

ANDERSON: Yes, like anybody who watched that, it was gut-wrenching. I'm outraged. I'm angry. And it's such a tragic thing that did not have to happen. I don't know anybody with any humanity that doesn't feel the same way. I was asked a couple of days ago if I ever regretted becoming a police officer. And the answer is unequivocally no. I was also asked if there is some conflict within me being black and being part of the system that historically has treated folks of color very harshly. And again, it made me reflect on why I became a police officer in the first place, right? And I'm that corny guy who became a police officer to make things better, to make people feel safe.

BERMAN: I also just very quickly, you're talking about the need for reform in this country. And one of the things you stress is people need to ask people like you what you think needs to happen, get police involved in the discussion. Why?

ANDERSON: Because there are a lot of people talking about what needs to be done that don't know what they are talking about. And I don't mind having an independent viewpoint here or there, but the things that are being proposed right now, quite frankly, are very dangerous. And they are going to drive good people out of law enforcement because they're not meaningful and they're not sustainable. And we need to be sensible and not impetuous before we start crafting police reform. Of course, there's always a time to be introspective and figure out the things you aren't doing well and change those, but the things that are being proposed are not going to help us accomplish that. And they are going to get people killed.

BERMAN: Chief Anderson, thank you for joining us this morning. Appreciate your perspective.

ANDERSON: Thank you for having me.

KEILAR: Just in to CNN, jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny now says that he is going to end his hunger strike.

[08:10:00]

This is big news, so let's get to Sam Kiley in Moscow with the latest developments. There were questions, Sam, about whether his life was in danger. What are you learning?

SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, that is what Alexei Navalny, the leading opposition figure in Russia currently languishing in jail, has said is exactly the reason he is abandoning his hunger strike. Following the visit of independent doctors and then the analysis of their reports by his own physicians, a team of five, who exhorted him to end his hunger strike. And I'm quoting from his post here on Instagram. He said that one of the things that triggered this for him is a quote from the doctors' letter to him. It said in a minimum of time, there will be no one to treat. And he said it seems to me that that was worthy of attention. Really in large part, he has achieved what he set out to achieve,

which was to get independent medical attention inside the Russian penal system. He got that on Tuesday, we understand. He was seen by independent physicians and he was moved to a civilian hospital. Where he is now, we don't know, but he is able, through his lawyers, to issue this Instagram statement. Three weeks in to a hunger strike, a man who had already survived poisoning with a nerve agent back in August that both his people and the United States, European Union and others have blamed on the Russian state, already in a frail condition, he returned to this country to continue to confront authorities. And it would appear that certainly from his perspective, perhaps he's won this round, not least because there was a very large series of demonstrations in support of him right across the nation of Russia last Wednesday in which about nearly 2,000 people were detained by Russian authorities as well.

And he was also acknowledging the outpouring of public support as being a part of his decision to give up on his hunger strike, and also noting that the mothers of the Beslan Massacre -- you'll recall this was the massacre of a school conducted some years ago by Islamic fundamentalists, they had joined his hunger strike in support. And he said he was so moved by that that he felt a moral obligation to give up on this latest stage of his battle with the Russian authorities. John?

BERMAN: Sam Kiley, thank you so much for that report. Please keep us posted. Obviously, this is developing as we speak.

Just ahead, the Iowa woman who admits she ran over a teen with a car because she was, quote, a Mexican. And that's not all.

KEILAR: Also, the war on voting rights in Arizona takes an unexpected return with Republicans fighting each other.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You guys can say it's a temper tantrum. You want to see a temper tantrum, I can show you one if you really want to see it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Excuse me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:16:34]

BERMAN: Wait until you hear this story. An Iowa woman pleading guilty to federal hate crime charges after telling police she ran over a girl because, quote, she was Mexican. Police say the woman had been involved in three separate racist incidents in December of 2019.

CNN's Laura Jarrett joins us now with this.

Wow, Laura. LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah, really disturbing case here, John. It all started a little after 3:30 in the afternoon on December 9th, 2019.

Now, Nicole Poole Franklin was driving her Jeep down a road in Des Moines, Iowa. She sees a 12-year-old boy who happens to be black walking along a curb. That's when Franklin decides to jump the curb, ultimately running over the boy's leg and then she takes off. But the violence doesn't end there.

Less than an hour later, Franklin sees a teenage girl, 14 at the time, she's walking to a baseball game. Once again, Franklin jumps the curb hitting the girl, leaves the scene.

Now, when questioned, authorities say Franklin told police she hit the young girl because, quote, she was a Mexican. Thankfully, both kids survived with only cuts and bruises.

And as you mentioned, John, Franklin pled guilty Thursday to federal hate crime charges for attempting to kill the two children. She's now facing a possible sentence of life in prison.

One of the victims, Natalia Miranda and her father were in court for the plea. Her father telling CNN, quote, this just gave me a little hope to say, I can live here. My kids can live here -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Laura, thank you so much for that.

Joe Biden narrowly won Arizona in the 2020 election. Now it's the latest state to craft a bill that critics say is voter suppression. The bill is known as SB-1485 and it would remove voters from the state's permanent early voting list who have not voted in the last two election cycles and who do not respond to a final mailed notice within 90 days.

It seems certain to be headed to the governor's desk but then one Republican state senator unexpectedly blocked the bill setting off this testy exchange with the bill's sponsor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY TOWNSEND, ARIZONA STATE SENATOR: I am committed to fixing the problems in this election system in Arizona, even if it means my name is in red on this board and you guys can say it's a temper tantrum. You want to see a temper tantrum, I can show you one if you really want to see it, but I will not.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Excuse me. Excuse me.

TOWNSEND: Who here has addressed the chain of custody? Who here has addressed the SD cards that have zero chain of custody, that have the results that come out of the Dominion machines?

Does this bill --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, to your point of order. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Point of order. Senator --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you have the senator from district 16 stick to the actual language of the bill?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: So to be clear, that state senator in the foreground says that she supports the bill that would purge some voters from the early voting list but raised concerns that it does not protect against an alleged vulnerability of voting by machine which is just another unfounded conspiracy theory that was propagated by former President Trump. She also says she will block the bill until an audit is completed of the votes from 2020 in Maricopa County, which is Arizona's most populous county.

I want to bring in Arizona State Rep John Kavanagh to talk about this.

Sir, thank you for being with us.

JOHN KAVANAGH (R), ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Look, thank you for letting me give your -- my perspective to your viewers.

KEILAR: So let's start with this audit that is set to begin today. Critics and not just Democrats, say this is a fishing expedition to uncover voting fraud where it didn't happen.

[08:20:05]

These votes in Maricopa County have already been audited twice by the state. There were no irregularities. What do you say to that?

KAVANAGH: Well, the House is not involved in the audit. I would certainly be interested in seeing what the outcome is. I don't think it's going to be reversing any election results.

But, personally, myself and pretty much every other Republican in the House and many in the Senate are really focused on moving forward with some bills to correct some actual or perceived problems that arise as a result of that election. Although some of them predated the election. Election reform isn't new to Arizona.

KEILAR: You want to see what happens, this is something the Senate is spearheading in your state, why -- why go through something that's been audited twice? I mean, you have the outcome.

KAVANAGH: Yeah, look, there are people who are concerned who claim that there are big irregularities and the Senate apparently wants to do an audit to either substantiate that or put it to bed and allay fears. Again, I think it's a distraction from the need to go forward with many election bills which we are, in fact, advancing in both chambers.

KEILAR: So the folks behind this audit, it's worth pointing out, are like a who's who of election fraud conspiracy theorists. As I said, this is being spearheaded by the Senate. It's being led by the head of a Florida-based firm that wrote up a large list of conspiracy theories as talking points for Republican senators voting to overturn the Electoral College results of the election.

Your state senators are doing this over the objections of the Republican-led Maricopa County board of supervisors. These are county elected officials from your own party. This really doesn't even have a veneer of legitimacy.

So, I hear you saying you're interested in the outcome of this, but why should people believe that this is anything other than discouraging legal, legitimate voting?

KAVANAGH: Well, I don't think that the intent is to discourage legal, legitimate voting. But, frankly, we're moving forward to do bills to correct problems that came up during the election that need to be solved regardless of whether there was actual fraud or nonexistent fraud.

We discovered other problems with the system. And it's unfortunate that a lot of people have branded the Republican election reform bills as being extreme and voter suppression, when in reality, almost all of the extreme bills like ending the early ballot completely or having legislature throw out the presidential electors and replace them, but --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: How do you say that when this is a bill -- how do you say that when this is a bill that could purge thousands and thousands of voters from this early voting list? This was, as amended, is something that would bump off voters from that list if they have not voted in the last two election cycles, including partisan primaries. The House actually amended that down from four, and if they don't respond to this final mailed notice. Why should --

KAVANAGH: It was my amendment that made those changes. Look, the way it works now --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Yeah, so why -- that said, it's still two cycles. Why should receiving a ballot be dependent on whether someone has participated in a recent election if they have opted to receive a mail ballot and have the chance to participate in voting.

KAVANAGH: Sure. And we want them to continue to get the ballot but we want to make sure that they're actually there. I have moved several times in my life. And I would ask this of every one of your viewers. Of all the times you moved in your adult life, how many times did you think to call the county elections officials where you're moving from and tell them, hey, I'm moving. Take my name off the list? Nobody does that.

(CROSSTALK) KEILAR: But you don't have any -- what evidence do you have that that has led to voter fraud? What evidence do you have -- you're solving a problem that doesn't exist in the --

KAVANAGH: That's not true.

KEILAR: Thus purging people from a list.

KAVANAGH: That's not true.

First of all, in order to be purged you have to not vote in any elections. We've added municipal elections, which are on different dates, over this four-year period. You then have to not respond to a letter within three months, and we added to the bill that the county recorders, if they have your phone number or email have to reach out to you that way.

We're actually preventing erroneous removals more than we prevent ballots that have mismatched signatures on Election Day from being counted. It's a very robust check. But this is what I discovered.

KEILAR: Against what? Against what?

KAVANAGH: But there's a mismatch -- huh?

KEILAR: There is no evidence of --

KAVANAGH: Yeah, and I'll tell you why.

KEILAR: There is no evidence of voter fraud. Let me say this --

KAVANAGH: Nobody checks. Let me tell you what happened. I spoke to the --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that would have affected the outcome of the election that needs to be dealt with, with what you have in this bill.

KAVANAGH: Yes, there is. Listen.

I asked the recorders as we're investigating these bills. I said, if the signature on file doesn't match a signature on an early ballot, because that's how they verify their legitimacy, I said, what do you do? They said they have a second group of people who check it. If it still doesn't match, they reach out to the voter to see if that's their signature.

And I said what happens if they can't locate the voter or what happens if the voter says that's a fraudulent signature? I said what do you do?

[08:25:00] And we discovered they do nothing. They don't contact the prosecutor. They don't contact the attorney general's election fraud unit. And the last three years, not one questioned signature has gone to the

fraud unit. So now we know that even when somebody fraudulently votes, if they are not caught, nothing happens.

So we have no idea how many of these signatures are fraudulent. I don't think there's a mountain of them, but it's good policy to stop sending ballots to addresses where the recipients are dead or moved because those ballots could potentially be used by other people as fraud.

KEILAR: No evidence -- just to be clear, no evidence they -- there's no evidence they have been.

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAGH: Saying somebody, knock, knock, are you still there, do you still want a ballot?

KEILAR: There's no evidence and you'll miss people in that. We'll get to that in just a moment.

But you said something last month that appears to have answered that question that I was asking a little more clearly. You said, quote, not everybody wants to vote. And if somebody is uninterested in voting, that probably means that they're totally uninformed on the issues, quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes as well.

What is a quality vote, as you put it?

KAVANAGH: Quality vote is a legal voter who says, I want a ballot. That's the quality vote.

KEILAR: You said it's someone who is informed.

KAVANAGH: I was referring to -- there two quotes that were commingled. I made a statement not everyone should vote. That statement was made in reference to fraudulent ballots.

KEILAR: That's not the quote I pulled. This was not a commingled quote. This is what you said.

KAVANAGH: I understand, but that was also part of the narrative.

KEILAR: That is not what we're talking about here. So, let's not change the subject. I'm talking about --

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAGH: No, it's the same interview and the same article and my enemies have attempted to link the two of them together.

KEILAR: I'm not linking them. So answer that for me. What is a quality vote as you put it because you said --

(CROSSTALK) KAVANAGH: A quality vote is a non-fraudulent vote made by somebody who said, I want to vote, I registered. Give me a ballot. That's a quality vote.

Now --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: You said that they were -- you talked about people being uninformed on the issue.

KAVANAGH: I don't think we should send ballots if they're not interested. But if they are interested in voting, I have -- I would never stop somebody from voting.

KEILAR: You're going to miss people. You're going to miss people who have a right to vote. And as an example --

KAVANAGH: How?

KEILAR: I want to point this out and I know this to be true. You have a number of military installations in your state. Are you --

KAVANAGH: They have different military ballots. They have separate military ballots.

KEILAR: Are you aware that this bill will have the effect of purging military voters from your rolls?

KAVANAGH: It will not. There's a separate military ballot. That came up on the floor. There's another myth about the bill. There are separate military ballots.

KEILAR: This is a very real possibility --

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAGH: You understand that there are separate military ballots? Because now you refuse to accept the fact that I'm -- you're dodging the question.

KEILAR: I'm a military family so I'll tell you what I know which is that --

KAVANAGH: I'm talking Arizona and I will tell you what I know. There are separate military ballots that are not affected by this.

KEILAR: There are people who are registered, and I'm talking not just about in the military because you know that people around someone in the military, it's not just a military member.

There is a family around that military member. They can be legally registered to vote in Arizona. They may be somewhere else. They may have moved. And this will purge --

(CROSSTALK) KAVANAGH: We're stopping that.

KEILAR: Excuse me, sir. I'm not finished.

KAVANAGH: OK.

KEILAR: This will purge some of them from the rolls. This is how --

KAVANAGH: Can I answer?

KEILAR: This has happened in my family while my husband was deployed. And only because I saw a final --

KAVANAGH: Can I answer?

KEILAR: In a moment. Only because I saw a final notice was I able to stop that. This will happen.

KAVANAGH: Can I answer now?

KEILAR: Of course.

KAVANAGH: Okay. First of all, if the family is overseas, that does not count these ballots we're talking about.

KEILAR: It doesn't have to be -- sir, sir, they're not just overseas. They moved domestically.

KAVANAGH: But they're deployed outside of the state --

KEILAR: They moved domestically. You know this, they can be registered to vote in Arizona and they can be in another state --

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAGH: These are not the ballots we're talking about. Those are different ballots.

KEILAR: Those are normal ballots.

KAVANAGH: These are ballots that are sent to addresses in Arizona, military families get different ballots. And by the way, you can't forward an early ballot mailed to an Arizona --

KEILAR: I don't -- I don't get a different ballot.

KAVANAGH: So how can the ballots we're mailing to Arizona residences not get to the people when by law now they can't get there? They are different ballots you're talking about.

We're talking about ballots that are mailed to nonmilitary people who live in the state who probably moved and are dead and aren't there to get them.

KEILAR: And there's no evidence that they -- there's no evidence that there is widespread voter fraud -- KAVANAGH: Even if there wasn't, why would you send ballots to

addresses where there's nobody there?

[08:30:00]