Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Arizona Audit Suspicion over Ballots; Biden Officials Say Lab Leak Theory is Credible; Democrats Urge Breyer to Retire. Aired 8:30- 9a ET

Aired July 19, 2021 - 08:30   ET

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

[08:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: The man heading up the audit it now claiming that more than 70,000 mail-in ballots were cast with no record of them being sent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOUG LOGAN, CEO, CYBER NINJAS: I highly recommend we do the canvas then because it's the one way to know for sure whether some of the data we're seeing, if there's -- if it's real problems or whether it's clerical errors.

For example, we have 74,243 mail-in ballots where there is no clear record of them being sent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: All right, let's talk now with Daniel Dale, he is our fact checker.

First off, anything that that guy says I treat with just a lot of skepticism, the Cyber Ninjas guy, but fact check this for us.

DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: Well, I think even if you're not an election conspiracy theorists, you might hear this and think, well, that is weird. You know, how did they end up with 74,000 mail-in ballots they don't have a record of being sent out. The answer, Brianna, is that that didn't happen. These ballots are in-person early votes.

Let me break this down as simply as possible. This county uses two early voting files that are not meant to be used for forensic audits. One of them is ballots requested by voters. One of them is ballots submitted by voters.

Now that ballots requested file stops getting updated on the last day voters can request a mail-in ballot, which was October 23rd of this year, but the ballots submitted file keeps getting updated with those in-person votes until ten days later. So you have thousands and thousands of in-person votes between October 24th and the day before the election where there won't be a correspondent corresponding entry on the ballots requested file. So this Mr. Logan made it sound, either intentionally or just because

he didn't understand, like this is some great tens of thousands ballots unsolved mystery. And former President Trump seized on this to claim that there were 74,000 magically appearing ballots. In fact, these ballots did not magically appear. They're legitimate, in-person votes and there's no unsolved mystery.

JOHN AVLON, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, and this is not -- I mean Logan's entire effort has been suspect. But you have the ex-president amplifying it with these highly specific statistics which are almost sort of surgically designed to create doubt.

How dangerous is that effort, just the amplification by the ex- president and the fact that they're offering a specific number based on nothing.

DALE: Well, look, it's -- we know it's extremely dangerous. You know, it's dangerous in a very literal, real sense. We saw such lies insight the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol and I think it's dangerous to democracy. You have this ongoing effort to get people to not believe that this country runs elections fairly, when, in fact, it does.

And I can tell you, I've quantified this. Former President Trump is lying much more about the 2020 election than any other single subject.

KEILAR: Than any other single subject.

Daniel Dale, thank you so much for bringing all of that to us. We appreciate it.

DALE: Yes.

AVLON: Great to have you here. Thank you.

KEILAR: Is coronavirus natural or is it man-made? What the Biden administration is now saying, next.

AVLON: And who's targeting dozens of journalists and activists all over the globe with spyware? We're going to tell you, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:36:55]

AVLON: The Biden administration says it now finds the theory that coronavirus leaked from a Wuhan lab to be just as credible as the theory that it developed naturally. This is a dramatic shift coming amid an intelligence review that President Biden demanded.

So, let's bring in CNN political analyst and "Washington Post" columnist Josh Rogin. He's the author of "Chaos Under Heaven" and has been extensively covering the investigations into the origins of the coronavirus, and Stephen Goldstein, he is the virologist at the University of Utah and one of the scientists who released a paper setting out their strongest case for COVID-19 emerging from an animal, pushing back hard against the lab leak theory.

So, Mr. Goldstein, let me start with you here.

This weekend, the nation's top doctor, Anthony Fauci, on CNN, here's what he said because it defends your point.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I, together with many highly qualified vaccinologists (ph), including -- and virologists, I mean, including a recent paper by 21 internationally renowned virologists and evolutionary biologists from all over the world indicate that although we keep an open mind, that it is possible that it could be, as they say, a lab leak, that the most likely explanation is a natural evolution from an animal reservoir to a human.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: So, Stephen, you were one of the virologists contending that there is more evidence to support natural spillover from animals to human rather than a lab leak, but the Biden administration really changing the equation of likelihood.

What do you make of Fauci's comments and the Biden administration's new positioning of this?

STEPHEN GOLDSTEIN, EVOLUTIONARY VIROLOGIST, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: Well, I agree with Dr. Fauci's comments, of course, particularly since he cited our paper as one of his lines of evidence.

With respect to the Biden administration, you know, what I've seen on that front was that there wasn't really any new, significant evidence, but that opinions were shifting about the existing evidence. So I'm not really sure exactly why. I hope that people in the administration will take a look at what we've set out, which is to really just take a critical, scientific look at the evidence that's available, strip away the suspicion and the innuendo and just look at the open source data that's in front of us. And our belief is that it's much more likely this came from an animal.

AVLON: All right.

Josh, you know, counterpoint, the Biden administration making this admission halfway through this 90-day intelligence review. What does that tell you? What are your sources telling you about this incredible statements that really does shift the equation?

JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. Well, you know, Anthony Fauci and dr. Goldstein are entitled to their opinion. I -- there are plenty of scientists who agree with them and there are plenty of scientists who disagree with them, including top virologists, including Robert Redfield, the former head of the CDC, and David Baltimore, the former president of Caltech, who take a look at this virus and say there's plenty of indication that it might have been linked to the lab in some way and that we need to check out the lab.

And so that's why I think a lot of people will say, OK, well, the scientists all disagree, there's no scientific consensus, let's just check out both theories and see where it leads.

And then, you know, as for the Biden administration, I think what CNN reported was not that they changed their opinion based on no evidence, because we don't know that.

[08:40:02]

We know that they're engaged in a review of the intelligence, both the open source and the non-open source. They've got access to a lot more information than me, than you, John, more information than Stephen Goldstein.

And so we don't know that there's no new evidence. That's not correct. We just don't know what they're finding, OK, and they've got a lot of resources. It's not just about the science either, right? They have intercepts and intelligence and human sources and a lot -- you know, what they -- what we already know from what the Biden administration already released is that they've confirmed the Trump administration's reporting that there were sick researchers who were hospitalized with COVID-like symptoms, that there was another side of the lab, a side that they didn't tell us about, where they were doing coronavirus research with the Chinese military.

So there's a lot of stuff we don't know. So I think we should just not jump to any conclusions and not say that either side is more likely and just say honestly that we don't know and that have to check out both theories. Both are plausible. And I think that's what the Biden administration is trying to do. And as they're doing it, if they're finding that the lab leak theory is coming out at least as likely as the natural origin theory, well then I think we should take that seriously because it's not just about the wonderful science that I'm sure Dr. Goldstein and his colleagues are put out, it's about all of the other things that go into what the forensic investigation of how we got into this mess and the actual science is actually only one small part of it.

AVLON: Stephen, to that point, I mean you say it's more likely -- vastly more likely that it begins in -- from nature rather than a lab. But you also cite, based on open source information, the data we have to date, given that you're more -- fairly certain that that's the case, why do you think that China refuses to share information that could -- critical data and information that could actually help us come to a conclusion? If they weren't covering something up, why are they hiding it?

GOLDSTEIN: So I think the Chinese probably are hiding things. I mean the argument that they're hiding things with respect to the lab is one side of this. But, actually, the best evidence we have of them hiding things relates to wildlife markets. If you look at the WHO investigation, reported that they were told by Chinese government officials that there were no live mammals sold at the Huanan market in Wuhan or presume -- particularly even other markets. And, in fact, we know that that was false, categorically. A paper was recently published by Chinese wildlife researchers who found that at four markets in Wuhan, tens of thousands of animals were sold up to November 2019, including animals we know were susceptible to SARS-CoV- 2.

So while it's certainly true that the Chinese government is hiding things, it's simply false to say that those -- the things they're hiding relates specifically to the lab. It's across the board and perhaps even skewed towards trying to conceal a link between this virus and wildlife markets.

AVLON: Josh, you know --

ROGIN: Yes, I would just have to say that --

AVLON: Please.

ROGIN: You know, the WHO investigation that already took place extensively investigated the wildlife market theory. Tens of thousands of animals were tested. Zero that were linked to the coronavirus outbreak were found. And the investigation, which was done jointly with the Chinese government, was not allowed to investigate the lab in any serious way.

They took down the virus database at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in December 2019. They've not allowed even the WHO investigators to look at the data. So I don't -- you know, I don't know what the preponderance of the evidence is, but there's a lot of cover-up going on at the lab. I think that's what everyone can agree.

And I think Dr. Tedros, the head of the WHO, is the one who said it most clearly. He said there was a premature push to dismiss the lab link there. That's what he said when he -- when -- you know, taking issue with his own WHO study team.

So, you know, we have to remember here that the Chinese government disavowed the Wuhan market theory. The Chinese CDC said it was not -- the market was not an origin event, that it was the (ph) amplifying event.

And we also have to look very skeptically at the information that the Chinese government puts out because they've shut down most of the science and the little science that they do let out has to be viewed with a skeptical eye because of the system that they are there.

And the point is that, you know, we -- again, it doesn't really matter which one you like. You know, it doesn't matter which one you really think in your heart of hearts is true. We just have to investigate both of them. And we haven't investigated the lab and I think that the Biden administration is trying to do that the best they can and they keep running up against these scientists who are like, oh, don't look at the lab, don't look at the lab. But I think what we have to just say is, we have to look at both the natural origin theory and the lab leak theory without any biases or pre-conclusions whatsoever. AVLON: And, Stephen, just to be clear --

GOLDSTEIN: John, if I could -- yes.

AVLON: Well, if I may, just, you know, you've got the Chinese CDC saying it wasn't in the wet market. But to your larger point, they haven't been exactly reliable narrators.

I guess my question is, given the history of lab leaks that we've seen in epidemiology, why do you feel that that is a door that should be largely closed?

GOLDSTEIN: Well, I don't -- I think in our paper we said it can't be entirely dismissed. And we certainly welcome the Biden administration's review.

The question is, where are we going to focus our efforts? And, you know, the truth is that this event looks a lot like the SARS coronavirus one emergence in 2002, which wasn't linked to animals until 2003 and the markets weren't closed.

[08:45:05]

And that's why that worked. You know, there's no evidence -- I think Josh, unfortunately, is misinformed on a few points. While there was some animal testing done, there's no indication any animals were tested that were in Wuhan markets in fall and early winter 2019 because the Chinese government claimed that those animals didn't exist. And it turns out they did.

You know, the cover-up of this virus database that Josh points to that was deleted in December 2019 was, in fact, deleted in September 2019, which means, if you think that's related to the pandemic, it would have to be some sort of preemptive cover-up since the virus likely didn't emerge until November. It just doesn't really make a lot of sense.

And so the idea --

AVLON: I want to give Josh a -- Josh a -- I want to give Josh a chance to respond to that.

ROGIN: Yes. I mean Robert Redfield said on CNN that he believes the first cases date back to the fall, September, October. So, again, well-meaning scientists like Stephen Goldstein and Robert Redfield totally disagree on the science of this and I'm just glad to hear that Stephen Goldstein is now endorsing an investigation into the lab leak theory. I think that's progress in the discussion because he said, don't close off either one. He said we can investigate both.

So I'd like to thank Stephen Goldstein for giving us permission to look at the lab leak theory and that way we can just look into both of them and then we can figure it out. We can talk again once we've actually done that. And, you know, I appreciate Stephen Goldstein's endorsement of that. AVLON: And -- well, Stephen, I want to -- I want to -- if we can get

to common ground, that's great. I want to make sure you consider that even a mildly fair characterization of your position because if you haven't closed the door entirely, you think there should be more investigation to determine the true origin, is that correct?

GOLDSTEIN: We certainly think there should be more investigation to determine the true origin. We think that those investigations should focus on animal sourcing because to not do that or to not focus on that would cost us the opportunity to find out how this very -- very likely started.

ROGIN: But if -- if a --

GOLDSTEIN: Dr. Redfield's comments, you know, Josh's claim that it started in September 2019, though --

ROGIN: Not my claim.

GOLDSTEIN: Colleagues of mine have studied this very closely and determined it most likely emerged in November 2019 based on scientific analysis that Josh hasn't done. And I don't think Dr. Redfield, frankly, has done himself either.

And I just take issue with Josh repeatedly referring to this as an opinion. You know, the paper we put out is a scientific analysis. People are certainly entitled to disagree with it for both scientific or other reasons.

ROGIN: And they do.

GOLDSTEIN: But it's not just our opinions. No, this is decades, hundreds of years of collective experience that we brought to bear on this, examining both arguments for how this may have emerged and finding pretty convincingly that it most likely emerged via an animal source. Doesn't mean we can't take a look at the lab, as Dr. Tedros suggested. But to weight that as heavily as an animal origin, we're going to miss finding out the truth if we do that.

AVLON: Well, I --

ROGIN: Yes.

AVLON: I think just -- we've got to move on, but we will continue this conversation because we --

ROGIN: Yes, no one's saying don't looking the animals.

AVLON: We need all the information to come out and to view it without fear or favor.

Josh Rogin, Stephen Goldstein, light and heat from you both this morning. Thank you very much.

GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, John. AVLON: All right, we've also got new pressure on the Supreme Court's senior liberal to retire. Fascinating conversation and insights coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:52:27]

KEILAR: Pressure is mounting on the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire while President Biden can appoint a younger liberal to take his seat.

Let's listen to Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): In your exclusive interview from CNN, it was very clear that he said two reasons, one is health that he look at and, two, the court. Well, when you look at the court, he has to be concerned about the makeup and you have to be concerned about how you get a justice on the court with all of the manipulation that Mitch McConnell has engage in. So that would lead me to say, sooner rather than later. He makes his own decision about if he's going to retire, but he's -- if he's going to retire, it should be sooner rather than later if you are concerned about the court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: And CNN's Joan Biskupic is with us now.

All right, this is a -- kind of a change, is it? What do you think?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well, senators have been going back, especially members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Senator Klobuchar is on, because, you know, law professors and liberal advocates have been writing columns, they've been taking out ads saying, would you please retire, please? And so members of the Senate and Congress have held back a little bit, or most of them certainly.

But what she did was she took these comments that Justice Breyer had said about what factors he was weighing. He told me he was weighing his health and the court. And, you know, when justices refer to "the court," they think of the institutional integrity, what it's like -- its image in the public eye. She turned the lens a bit to Mitch McConnell, saying, look at what Mitch McConnell has done to the court. And she didn't say it, but what she's referencing, of course, is 2016, when then Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked Merrick Garland as President Obama's appointee to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia and then 2020 when with only a few weeks to the election that Donald Trump lost, he sped through the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett.

So, you know, she used the word manipulation. And that's a word that plenty of Democratic senators would use. And what they fear is that if Justice Breyer waits too long the Senate could flip and have a Republican majority and, once again, we would have these maneuverings. Now, Justice Breyer has heard this. And he's heard it before. And

right now his head is in a different space. He's, you know, the senior liberal on the left now because of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He has more of a chance to influence the internal debate and I think he's feeling pretty good about where he's at.

[08:55:04]

AVLON: I certainly understand that. Your interview was fascinating. It is driving the conversation.

But people are people. He's thinking of this through a personal lens to some extent. But how does that not outweighed in his -- even his mind, with the responsibilities to the court and balance given the recent, you know, reversals and situational ethics we've seen? How does the personal consideration not look small compared to the institutional obligation?

BISKUPIC: OK. Theoretically, the Senate should stay in Democratic hands through next year, through next spring, through next June and July, a year from now, which would make that a better window for him perhaps because he -- he'd get another year as the senior justice on the left and it would still be several months before the midterm elections when the Senate could potentially flip to the Republicans. I think that's part of his calculation, although I don't know.

KEILAR: He likes his job, Avlon.

BISKUPIC: He does.

AVLON: All 27 (ph) years, you know, why not?

BISKUPIC: Yes.

AVLON: All right, thank you so much, Joan. Great to see you.

BISKUPIC: Thanks.

AVLON: All right, we've got growing COVID concerns at the Tokyo Olympics. An American gymnast now testing positive days before the games.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:00]