Return to Transcripts main page
New Day
Joe Biden Is Still Working To Pass Bipartisan Infrastructure Reform; The Ohio Department of Health Is Reporting The Highest Number Of New Cases Since May; Dr. Fauci And Sen. Paul In A Tense Exchange About Fauci Lying To Congress About COVID; Breathrough COVID Infections As The Delta Variant Spreads; A Paralympian Is Quitting The Tokyo Games After Request For Accommodations Were Denied. Aired 7:30- 8a ET
Aired July 21, 2021 - 07:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[07:30:00]
JOHN CRANLEY (D), MAYOR OF CINCINNATI: We have kids doing homework at McDonald's to get the WiFi.
JOHN AVLON, CNN ANCHOR: That is a stunning image. You mentioned that famous bridge connecting your city and Kentucky, which is so central and in really dilapidated stated for a long time.
Biden's still working to pass bipartisan infrastructure reform. What message do you have for those Republican lawmakers who seem to be playing a delay game? Why is this something that shouldn't be seen through a partisan prism?
CRANLEY: Well for one thing both of our senators, the Democrat Chair Brown and a Republican Rob Portman support investing in infrastructure and doing this bridge. I mean it has bipartisan support already, including Ohio, which as you point out is a bellwether state.
And the fact that both of our senators want to see this country invest in infrastructure I think is a -- is a sign that that's where Middle America is, that's where the country is. Let's invest in infrastructure, in families, roads, bridges, clean water and broadband internet.
AVLON: Well, you're right about the Ohio delegation but it's far from a consensus unfortunately, although it should be something beyond partisan politics.
I want to switch to saying that also should be beyond partisan politics which is public health, COVID. The Ohio Department of Health is reporting the highest number of new cases since May. What role do you think misinformation is playing among the vaccine hesitant in your city and state?
CRANLEY: Oh, I think -- I think it's huge. I think big tech have got to take responsibility for their platforms and what is being put out there. And I also believe that we all have to take personal responsibility for our health and make sure we talk to our loved ones. We may not always convince them, but we got to try and lead by example.
It's one of the reasons I'm so proud of my wife who, with Barbara Lynch, a -- the pastor of a very prominent church here in Cincinnati have worked to do outreach, door knocking, we've door knocked neighborhoods that have been vaccine resistant and hesitant and really tried to spread the message personally.
AVLON: So important to do that kind of door-to-door outreach. The life you save may be your own. Mayor John Cranley thank you so much for joining us. It's good to see you. We'll all be watching Biden in Cincinnati tonight.
CRANLEY: It's (ph) good --
AVLON: All right, the White House joins us live in a few minutes right here on New Day. And the president joins Don Lemon for that exclusive CNN Presidential Town Hall live tonight at 8:00 pm Eastern.
And Dr. Anthony Fauci not holding back on Senator Rand Paul.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR OF NIH: And if anybody is lying here --
(CROSSTALK)
REP. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: But (ph) it could have been.
FAUCI: -- Senator, it is you.
Senator Paul, I have never lied.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AVLON: Oaf. More from their confrontation on Capitol Hill. That is next.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: And a U.S. Paralympian who has made the tough decision to quit the Tokyo Games. And you won't believe why.
[07:32:55]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:37:15]
KEILAR: A tense exchange between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Senator Rand Paul on Capitol Hill yesterday after Paul suggested that Fauci was lying to Congress about COVID-19.
Dr. Fauci responded, certainly did not hold back. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress do you wish to retract your statement of May 11, where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan?
FAUCI: Senator Paul I have never lied before the Congress.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Microphone --
SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D), WASHINGTON: Your microphone.
FAUCI: Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress and I do not retract that statement. This paper that you are referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain-of- function.
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: So you're saying if you take --
FAUCI: What was -- let me finish.
PAUL: -- take an animal virus and you increase transmissibility to humans --
FAUCI: Right.
PAUL: -- you're saying that's not gain-of-function?
FAUCI: Yes, that is correct. And Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about.
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: Let's (inaudible) NIA --
FAUCI: OK, you get one person --
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: (inaudible) NIH (inaudible) gain-of-function --
FAUCI: Can I answer the question?
PAUL: This is your definition that you guys wrote. It says that scientific research that increases the transmillity among -- the transmissibility among animals is gain-of-function. They took animal viruses that only occur in animals and they increased their transmissibility to humans. How you can say that is not gain-of- function --
FAUCI: It is not.
PAUL: -- it's a dance and you're dancing around this because you're trying to obscure responsibility for 4 million dying around the world --
FAUCI: OK --
PAUL: -- from a pandemic.
MURRAY: And let's let Sen -- Dr. Fauci --
FAUCI: I have to -- well, now you're getting into something. If the point that you are making is that the grant that was funded as a subaward from EcoHealth to Wuhan created SARS-CoV-2, that's where are you getting, let me finish.
PAUL: We don't know.
FAUCI: Well, wait a minute. I can --
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: We don't know if it did come from the lab, but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab.
FAUCI: You --
PAUL: And there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself.
FAUCI: I totally resent --
MURRAY: This committee will allow the witness to respond.
FAUCI: -- I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating, Senator, because if you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments that were given in the annual reports that were published in the literature it is molecularly impossible.
PAUL: No one's saying those viruses caused it.
FAUCI: It -- it is -- it is molecularly --
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: No one is alleging that those viruses caused the pandemic. What we're alleging is that gain-of-function research was going on in that lab and NIH funded it.
FAUCI: That is not --
[07:40:00]
PAUL: You can't get away from it. It meets your definition and you are obfuscating the truth.
FAUCI: I'm not obfuscating the truth. You are the one --
MURRAY: (Inaudible) Senator Paul's time has expired but I will allow the witness to --
FAUCI: Let me just finish. I want everyone to understand that if you look at those viruses and that's judged by qualified virologists and evolutionary biologists, those viruses are molecularly impossible to result --
PAUL: No one's saying they are.
FAUCI: -- in SARS-CoV-2.
PAUL: No one's saying those viruses caused the pandemic.
MURRAY: Senator Paul --
PAUL: We're saying they are gain-of-function viruses --
FAUCI: They're not.
PAUL: -- because they were animal viruses that became more transmissible in human and you funded it.
FAUCI: And you --
PAUL: You can't (ph) admit the truth.
FAUCI: And you implying --
MURRAY: Senator Paul, your time has expired and I will allow witnesses --
FAUCI: But (ph) --
MURRAY: -- who come before this committee to respond. Dr. Fauci.
FAUCI: And you are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individual, I totally resent that.
PAUL: And it could have been. And it could have been.
FAUCI: And if anybody is lying here Senator, it is you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: All right, let's talk about this now with David Gregory CNN Political Analyst and Mary Katharine Ham CNN Political Commentator and Conservative Blogger.
OK guys, this is a sequel and sometimes the sequels are better than the original. This just keeps getting more and more fiery with the beef between these two. David Gregory what did you think about what we saw there?
DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, it's just unfortunate. I mean if Rand Paul wants to become an internet conspiracy theorist then maybe he should -- he should go there. But he's a senator.
If he wants to make serious points about questions about the origin of the virus that fine and appropriate. The Biden administration is investigating that and I think the world is learning more about what kinds of work, research work is funded around the globe by the United States Government. I think that's fair game. But even in that clip we see the contradiction, that Paul is
suggesting that somehow Fauci's obscuring deaths from COVID because of funding this research and then saying, no, nobody's saying that this research actually was responsible for COVID. It doesn't make sense.
I think this is part of a larger political game that Paul has been playing for a long time that other conservatives are buying into that somehow Fauci is a bad actor in the government's COVID response, which I just don't think has a basis.
AVLON: Yes. And Mary Katharine, that's what I want to -- and (ph) I want to get to is this conservative decision to demonize Anthony Fauci. And I want to separate from the question of the Wuhan lab leak because this conflation is causing the confusion, but we can actually measure the impact of this month's long effort.
According to a new poll from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, 68 percent of folks overall are confident that Fauci is providing trustworthy advice on COVID, but that number goes down dramatically when all of a sudden you look at people who are ingesting their information primarily from conservative hyperpartisan sites.
So what's the game here? What -- what is the purpose of this fixation on attacking Anthony Fauci?
MARY KATHARINE HAM, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I don't -- I don't think it's entirely a game. I think it's that Fauci is a very powerful public official who deserves and rarely gets tough questioning in almost any realm. He gets, frankly, a lot of fan- girling and a lot of just sort of forum for his ideas and he doesn't get a lot of pushback.
Senator Paul understood the assignment here. He's asking about a tough subject that admittedly none of us are experts on, but I would like to know a lot more about. And despite his protestations, tough questions for Dr. Anthony Fauci are not attacks on science itself. This is something we should talk about.
Further, Fauci has something to do with the numbers on his own level of trustworthiness. He has at least twice, and I will be gentle in saying, at least shaded the truth about his COVID pronouncements based on his own judgment on what the public can handle.
Now, you may think those --
AVLON: Yes.
HAM: -- shading us of the truth were noble that for instance saying that masks were not particularly efficient for helping protect you back in the beginning of the pandemic so that they could be in greater supply for health workers, that that was -- the end result was OK, but it did seed distrust of him with good reason.
He also has admitted saying that when it came to herd immunity he looked at polling to base his statements on how much herd immunity would be the threshold that we needed. These two -- AVLON: Well it --
HAM: -- instances are just facts.
AVLON: -- Mary Katharine, I want to -- I want to --
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: (Inaudible).
HAM: Hold on. Those are just facts and it is an issue that a very powerful public figure was found to be shading the truth about these things. And it is a reason that people have come to distrust him.
On the issue of the lab leak theory --
AVLON: Well, hold on -- hold on -- let me -- let me -- let me just stop you there, because I want David to jump in. But I want to take --
HAM: Go ahead.
AVLON: -- I want to make (inaudible) tough questions and their total legitimacy and what Rand Paul is doing within the context of the conservative ecosystem. But David, why don't you weigh in on that?
[07:45:00]
GREGORY: Well, I mean I don't think Mary Katharine is wrong in the respect that of course he deserves tough questions.
AVLON: Of course.
GREGORY: And, you know, there's this kind of this narrative. Yes, there's no question that liberals have jumped to Fauci's defense all the time and whether it's thank you Dr. Fauci science, which I don't think are inappropriate for the top public health official of the United States who has helped guide the country through the virus during two administrations that -- somebody who is of some renown for decades now would get that kind of positive attention. That never meant that somehow Fauci was responsible for making every decision with regard to what people ought to do, number one.
I don't agree with the characterization that it's a shading of the truth, but we're not here to debate each other about the original decision on masks. But the truth is, a proper scrutiny of Fauci, proper scrutiny which is appropriate too of the CDC and some of the political nature of what they're doing I think is totally appropriate.
That's separate from what I think in this case is Rand Paul contradicting himself in the space of a three minute clip, which it's plain for anyone to see. And trying to make a larger case against Fauci who may not be infallible, but the point is he is trying to direct the government and direct the public through a response to a pandemic against countervailing claims, against misinformation.
You know, it's tough business. And to sort of hold out and say, well there were public statements made the -- that should be reviewed and that's somehow the case against him. I mean, is this -- is somebody trying to lead a cross-examination of Fauci?
HAM: It doesn't -- it doesn't (ph) --
GREGORY: I think -- I've been listening --
HAM: But it doesn't have to be --
GREGORY: -- to Fauci for months on this --
HAM: -- it -- well --
GREGORY: -- and I think he's been remarkably consistent.
HAM: But both Fauci and much of the media and much of his fan base, frankly, conflate confronting him about these things in a serious way with an attack on him personally. It's not an attack on him personally to note that he has done these things.
He is the face of the messaging for this. At times he has been not a great face for the messaging of these things and I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to point out.
On the issue of this particular line of questioning, which has to do with the lab leak theory, we also have to, look in practice you may say it's legitimate to ask him difficult questions but we don't ever seem to get around to it, OK?
And on this issue in particular, that's connected to the lab leak theory, the lab leak theory was credible last year. Reported on valiantly by Josh Rogin even when people said that it was verboten we shouldn't talk about it.
Rand Paul asked about it last year as well. This is the kind of thing that makes people distrust folks when we're told we can't talk about something that we have good reason to ask questions --
GREGORY: But we're talking about -- this is this red herring -- I'm sorry, this is the strong man that people --
HAM: -- (inaudible) about it and he did not sound like he's being particularly forthcoming. He sounds like he's walking (ph) a bunch of lines and being very indignant and saying that asking questions of him is an attack on science itself.
A lot of --
GREGORY: I'm sorry, this is -- this is getting into --
(CROSSTALK)
HAM: -- like (ph) (inaudible) --
GREGORY: -- cable news silliness. This is cable news silliness. Nobody said -- we are talking about this. There are all kinds of scrutiny -- there's all kinds of scrutiny of Fauci that's gone on for months. Where do we find out about this? People are talking about it. Is there -- is there a political nature (inaudible)? Of course there is.
HAM: Yes. But a year ago they were telling (ph) it was a conspiracy (ph) --
GREGORY: But you're not -- there's not --
HAM: -- a conspiracy theory.
GREGORY: You're not actually making -- well, because that's what in the space which --
(CROSSTALK)
HAM: But you decided it wasn't, and in fact there was reason to question it.
GREGORY: All right, I'm not going -- I'm not -- I'm not here to get into some (ph) --
KEILAR: Can I -- can -- I do want to ask -- I do want to ask you something about this Mary Katharine, because look I mean I agree with you none of these officials are above tough questions.
We should ask them tough questions and I think sometimes it's incredibly frustrating when you're trying to get very clear answers and you're in a gray area and a lot of Americans feel like it's not totally clear for them in a way that they can operationalize things.
But in this particular case, I hear you guys talking about the lab leak theory, this is -- this is something a little bit different. This is Rand Paul accusing the NIH of funding, I think, a group that did some research at the Wuhan lab, which does a lot of different kinds of research and I guess what he's actually alleging is that it was fungible so that any money going to the Wuhan --
HAM: Yes.
KEILAR: -- lab is then going to gain-of-function, make a virus worse, kill people research with -- you know, there's all these different steps of things, none of which --
HAM: Yes.
KEILAR: -- are proven. I wonder, does that distract from the questions of leadership of getting clear answers? And look, admittedly this virus changes and what we know about it changes.
HAM: Right (ph).
KEILAR: But does that distract from some of the conversations that could be really productive?
HAM: I think we can do both. I would like to know in great detail exactly what the funding did, exactly where it went. Money is fungible.
I hate to go all John Stewart on this and be very sarcastic about it, but the idea that we like -- there was funding that did go to a lab in Wuhan and sure it might have in this study been related to bats and SARS-COVID but it didn't actually have anything to do with the pandemic.
[07:50:09]
Like let's actually get to the bottom of that. Seems like something we should discuss.
KEILAR: But that requires in (ph) China, right?
AVLON: Yes.
HAM: It doesn't mean that you have to make --
(CROSSTALK)
KEILAR: But (ph) the issue is that requires China and they're not being forthcoming. I mean, they could --
HAM: Right.
KEILAR: -- tell us so much of what we need to know that could get to the bottom of any of these questions about the lab leak theory.
HAM: But also so can the person who oversees funding. And then the other -- the other issue is, yes, I think we can do that while we're asking Fauci, for instance, about -- you know -- the idea that we seemingly can't distinguish risk analyst between an unmasked 3-year- old and a 90-year-old unvaccinated grandmother who exist in two different worlds when it comes to COVID-19 issues. But we don't treat them that way when it comes to public policy and he rarely gets questions about that.
AVLON: I appreciate it -- I think you're making a far more nuanced argument than Rand Paul did by trying to insinuate that --
HAM: I will take that.
AVLON: -- Anthony Fauci is somehow responsible for COVID. David, I want to give you the last word.
GREGORY: Again, I think if there's a larger debate here, beyond the specifics of this research that I don't think we're going to get to the bottom of this morning --
HAM: No.
GREGORY: -- it has to do with the tension here. Public health officials do have a role to play in trying to move the public in response to a pandemic, especially when they're being buffeted (ph) by the political winds. There's not a lot of reason for somebody like Fauci to become a
political figure in the way that his work was initially politicized for no good reason in my judgment. It doesn't mean that he's infallible that there shouldn't be scrutiny of CDC guidance and how that has moved over time or even his guidance.
I would just say that I think a fair reading of his advice to the public over now more than a year has been remarkably consistent and that's what I think his detractors are missing. And we're also operating in the sea of misinformation which just (ph) isn't helpful.
We know the basic facts of COVID today and government officials have been doing their very best over two administrations to try to help the public fight the pandemic and here's where are.
And some of these other questions will continue to be investigated by the government around research and questioned about it and we are talking about it. But the way that I think that Rand Paul is trying to get us to talk about is more along the lines of, you know, fighting on Twitter than serious analysis.
AVLON: All right, David Gregory and Mary Katharine Ham --
KEILAR: Some agreement. I see her smirking. Maybe they agree on that on that. I don't know (ph).
AVLON: Some glimmer of common ground. I want to thank you both very much for joining us on New Day as always.
KEILAR: Thanks guys.
HAM: Thanks guys.
AVLON: OK. Breakthrough COVID infections as the Delta variant spreads. So how well are vaccinated people actually protected? We've got Dr. Sanjay Gupta ahead.
KEILAR: And a Paralympian who is quitting the Tokyo Games after her request for accommodations was denied. We're going to talk with her next.
[07:53:05]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:56:18]
KEILAR: When the Tokyo Paralympics start less than five weeks from now Team USA will be missing one of its top athletes. Six-time Paralympics medalist Becca Meyers has withdrawn from the games.
She says the U.S. Olympic and Paralympics Committee denied her request to bring her mother to serve as her personal care assistant. Nine of the 30 swimmers on the team are visually impaired or blind, but Myers is the only one who is also hearing impaired. The committee says in part, "Due to the pandemic, we have faced many
new challenges during this Paralympics cycle. In the case of the U.S. Paralympics Swimming, there is a designated Personal Care Assistant assigned to the team.
This PCA has more than 27 years of coaching experience. This PCA joins a staff of 10 additional accomplished swim professionals, all who have experience with blind swimmers, totaling 11 staff for 34 athletes.
Becca Meyers and her mom Maria Meyers are with us now.
Becca, thank you so much. Thank you so much, Mom, for being with us as well. You heard that statement there. What is your reaction to that?
BECCA MEYERS, U.S. PARALYMPICS SWIMMER: They can throw out any number they want but the bottom line is that no one on that team is trained or certified to deal with blind or visually impaired swimmers, especially in my case as a deaf, blind athlete.
KEILAR: I have to tell you and, you know, just watching you come on set I saw you helping your daughter navigate how to do that Maria.
MARIA MEYERS, MOTHER OF U.S. PARALYMPICS SWIMMER: Yes.
KEILAR: And so when I see these staff -- 11 staff for 34 swimmers, you can see how that is actually perhaps spread thin here. Tell us about the service that you provide your daughter and why it's so necessary that you're there to help her.
M. MEYERS: Right. Because she has Usher syndrome and so she has a very narrow field of vision and as a result in the airport or, you know, just the airplane, the dining hall, where she would be in this venue she can't see, she can't hear, she can't navigate and you need a one-on-one.
And she -- you know -- when she went to Rio she found that being alone she really couldn't do it. And so I'm there to just whisper in her ear, you know, it's on your left, it's on your right, just to guide her and take care of her. I don't have anything to do with the pool, that's all her and the coaches. But they really have to have staff that knows how to orient and take care of these kids.
KEILAR: Look, that's clear to me just watching you walk in here. OK? That's pretty obvious. I wonder, Becca, just how does this make you feel? You are a champion. This is supposed to be the big show for you and you're not getting to do it.
B. MEYERS: I'm heartbroken. I can't even put it into words. I haven't been sleeping well. I haven't been eating. It's just tore me apart. Swimming is a part of who I am. It's given me identity as a person.
I'm -- I've always been known as Becca the swimmer. Now, not Becca the deaf, blind person. And now I feel very worthless as a person. And for someone who's trained for five years for this moment, especially an extra year with the pandemic, it just makes it all seems like it was for nothing. KEILAR: You made the decision though that this wasn't going to work
out without your mom being there to assist you. It's -- if she could not be there I assume that you would be going to the Paralympics and you had to come to this decision. How did you do that?
B. MEYERS: It was a lot of thinking, a lot of soul searching and I've experienced this before. In Rio 2016 I did not have my mom or a designated PCA to work with me and I fell apart. So, I know what would have happened if I had gone to Tokyo without my mom.
KEILAR: How does that feel?
