Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Judge Block's Biden's Vaccine Mandate for Federal Contractors; UK's Boris Johnson Announces Diplomatic Boycott of Beijing Olympics. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired December 08, 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]

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: And Pfizer also says that a third dose may give more robust protection, may be able to actually protect you from infection in and of itself.

So this is -- this is overall really good news. It seems that just two doses will protect you against ending up in the hospital or in the morgue, and that a third dose is even better. But I will say this is all lab research at this point. We need to know more, and they're doing those studies, and we expect to know more even just in the coming days. Brianna?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Look, the fact that you could avoid it altogether with a booster shot or this third dose, or avoid passing it on to someone who can't get a vaccination as of yet, small children, for instance. Elizabeth, thank you so much.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So we have a CNN exclusive this morning. The January 6th House Committee issuing more than 100 subpoenas for phone records. Members are casting a wide net. Many of those are targeted at former Trump officials and associates, and the list does include former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows who just informed the committee he will no longer cooperate. But committee members say Meadows already turned over volumes of phone and email records including messages that were sent and received during the capitol riot.

Joining me now from the committee is California Democratic Congressman Pete Aguilar. He's the vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us this morning. The subpoenas for phone records from 100 people, what are you looking for?

REP. PETE AGUILAR, (D-CA) JANUARY 6TH SELECT COMMITTEE: Well, this started in August when we sent preservation letters and requests to telecom companies asking them to preserve the records of a lot of individuals. As the investigation has transpired, we have sharpened our focus and highlighted individuals who we do think that information would be helpful from. And like you mentioned in the previous segment, this is that to-from data. So there is no content associated with this. This is just finding out who individuals were talking to, especially during that January 5th and January 6th timeframe.

BERMAN: What do you mean who people were talking to? Which people and when exactly?

AGUILAR: Well, individuals that will be helpful to our investigation. And I won't get into specifics of the investigative pieces that we have, but clearly, and it has been reported that some of the individuals that are of interest, and you highlighted the former chief of staff, who we are still going to move forward with the deposition later this morning, but that is important. We have been able to gather critical information to our investigation, to our legislative efforts. This was systemic. This was --

BERMAN: What was?

AGUILAR: This was an opportunity for these individuals to disrupt the election. And to come up with an alternate slate of electors. That was what they were focused on.

BERMAN: Who is they?

AGUILAR: Individuals both in and out of government. But clearly, we have been focused on individuals who have been close to the former president. That's important. It's important to our efforts to highlight what exactly transpired. We want to get to the truth. This is an opportunity for us to continue to gather information that we will share with the public and the American people when it's appropriate. But we're gathering that information now.

BERMAN: The subpoenas, does it include people inside and outside government?

AGUILAR: Yes.

BERMAN: Is Mark Meadows among these people?

AGUILAR: Well, this is important information that we're getting to. And so clearly that's an individual who provided a lot of information already to the committee. And so we have over 6,000 pieces of information -- text messages, documents -- that he was a part of that will aid in our investigative efforts. We were continuing down that path until his attorney sent this letter.

BERMAN: What do you know about the content of that? What have you learned from what Meadows has turned over?

AGUILAR: We've learned information that will be helpful in our efforts. I won't get into the specifics, but we have learned information, communications that he was having with members of Congress, as well as individuals who were part of the planning for the January 6th rally.

BERMAN: With members of Congress. What do you mean?

AGUILAR: Well, this is someone who was having conversations with individuals both in and out of government, who were part of this effort to disrupt and overturn the election. And I don't think that that is unique to people outside of government. There were individuals within government, within Congress, who were also having those, and this is public reporting, that were also having those conversations.

BERMAN: So, by the way this has all been turned over. So there is no more claim of privilege to any of this, correct?

AGUILAR: It is pretty hard to say it is a claim of privilege when he turned over information as well as wrote a book about the contents of what we're discussing.

BERMAN: So you have this, this is a bird in hand here that you can't un -- you can't take it back from you if you have it.

[08:05:01]

AGUILAR: We have significant amounts of information that will be helpful in our investigation.

BERMAN: He's not going to show up to this deposition today, correct?

AGUILAR: That's our expectation. And it's unfortunate.

BERMAN: And you have already, the committee has already voted to hold him in contempt of Congress, correct?

AGUILAR: No. That was Mr. Clark.

BERMAN: I'm sorry. That was Clark. Thank you for correcting me there. So is Meadows going to be held in contempt?

AGUILAR: Well, we'll see. If he doesn't show up, we'll move forward with the next process. The chairman and the Vice Chair Cheney have been very clear that that is an option on the table. If he doesn't show, then that's something that we will have to move forward with.

BERMAN: So you before said that Mark Meadows turned over communications from people in and out of government, in and out of Congress, you mentioned Congress. Were there people in Congress involved in planning the riot?

AGUILAR: Well, public reporting indicates that there were a number of individuals, both in and out of government, who were aiding in this effort to disrupt and overturn the election. I don't think that that is unique to people out of government. We know that there were people within government, within Congress, who aided in that effort.

BERMAN: Again, it gets to the wording here you're using. What effort? Because if there is a congressional effort to overturn the election as part of the Electoral College act on the votes of January 6th, that's one thing. If there is an effort by members of Congress or their offices to get people inside the doors of the Capitol, there is another.

AGUILAR: What we will discuss is the role of the Department of Justice is -- and this was important why we wanted Mr. Clark to come before us, the role that they used within the Department of Justice, a pressure campaign, on states, on states, in contested states to highlight, to produce alternate slates of electors. All of those pieces were meant just to disrupt, just to create time so they could challenge these frivolous lawsuits that continued to come during that time. All of that was done to continue to raise resources, financially, for them, but also to just disrupt and delay.

BERMAN: Do you think that people who engaged in that activity, would there be any criminal liability there?

AGUILAR: Well, I'm not going to speak to that. There are a number of attorneys on our committee. Adam Schiff, Zoe Lofgren, Liz Cheney --

BERMAN: But it's important. It is an important question, right? Because breaking down the doors of the Capitol, I see how that's a criminal activity. Trying to overthrow the government, I can see how that's a criminal activity. Trying to stand in the way of a governmental process, I can see directly what the crime is there. Trying to get states and their legislatures to seat a sham group of electors is unseemly, it may be gross, but I'm not sure if there is a law there.

AGUILAR: No, I think that's fair. And we're going down the investigative road. And I think part of what we want to highlight here is, how do we protect that this doesn't happen again? And so that's why this piece becomes important. Producing alternate slates of electors, if they weren't successful this time, what would prevent them unless we highlight this, unless we talk about this, from doing this again?

BERMAN: You keep mentioning the public reporting here, and this is something else that I've heard from people who have been around the committee, that a lot -- a lot of what you're looking at has been publicly reported. It's in the newspaper. It's on CNN. Are there things in the document that go beyond the public reporting?

AGUILAR: Yes.

BERMAN: So you're learning more than what has already been put out there?

AGUILAR: We're learning more every day. We've had over 270 witness interviews that have come before us, fact witnesses, non-fact witnesses. These are individuals who are aiding in our effort, and they continue to help us connect the dots to tell that full and complete story. There has been reporting, the Senate produced a report, all of those were good bits of information. We need to carry that forward. We need to connect these dots a little bit more and talk about the campaign and the role and the goal that these individuals had those days.

BERMAN: I understand you're not going to come out here and open your book for us completely and tell us everything you learned before it's all complete, but can you tell me or explain the areas in which you were finding information that hasn't already been reported?

AGUILAR: We have indicated that we're going to focus on the rallies of January 5th and January 6th. We're going to talk about the resources that it took for them to put those events together, as well as everything after the election of -- the election in November. Those are the -- that's the timeline that we have been focused on. And so communications, those discussions that individuals were having about the DOJ, the pressure campaign to states, the funding that was involved in this, all of those pieces we feel are important to tell the story about what happened on January 5th and January 6th.

BERMAN: What have you learned about the money trail?

AGUILAR: Well, it continues to be a work in progress. But there are a lot of fascinating bits of information about the rally itself that we continue to learn.

[08:10:04]

BERMAN: You mentioned communications, again, with members of Congress. What are the plans to call members of Congress to testify?

Well, we're taking it one step at a time. What I've said is there are critical bits of information from both individuals in and out of government that are important. And those efforts, that pressure campaign put on to disrupt and delay and overturn ultimately the election, that was their goal. And so we want to continue to get to that goal, that's going to mean talking to more individuals, but hopefully willingly. We hope individuals would come forward willingly if they receive subpoenas. We don't know that. And for every one individual that hasn't cooperated, there are dozens that have.

BERMAN: Congressman Pete Aguilar, I appreciate you coming in. We covered a lot of ground here. Thank you very much for your time.

AGUILAR: Thank you.

KEILAR: Instagram CEO is about to appear before a Senate panel that is investigating the photo sharing app for possibly harming young people. This hearing comes one day after Instagram rolled out a handful of new features designed to keep teens from falling down rabbit holes online. Donie O'Sullivan joining us now. Donie, before we get to the hearing here, there is actually a new report that came out, and it claims that Instagram offers a drug pipeline for kids. What can you tell us about this?

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN REPORTER: That's right, Brianna. There is this tech advocacy group called the Tech Transparency Project, and they ran a pretty simple experiment on Instagram. They set up some accounts and registered them as belonging to 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17-year-olds. So teenagers, young people. And after a little bit of searching for drug names, Xanax, Ecstasy, they were led down to a pipeline, actually being contact by purported drug dealers on the platform.

What they also found was a ton of accounts that are openly advertising drugs, Ecstasy, Oxycontin, Xanax, to sell to young people. Instagram responding to this, saying that sort of stuff is not allowed on their platform. But clearly this is happening on the platform. And oftentimes Instagram and Facebook will say, well, this is really hard. It's hard to find this stuff. It's hard to stamp out this stuff. But clearly it is not that hard if somebody can run a simple experiment as a child and find this stuff so easily. Brianna?

KEILAR: It may not be allowed, but clearly it is allowed. That's what we're seeing here. What are you expecting to learn in this hearing today, Donie?

O'SULLIVAN: What is interesting about today is that it is Adam Mosseri, who is one of Zuckerberg's top lieutenants, but it is very different to Zuckerberg. He is seen as quite personable. It is his first time testifying before Congress. And unlike Zuckerberg, he hasn't really got that public scrutiny that we have seen of other executives like Sandberg or Mark himself. Even this year Mosseri was honored as a co-chair of the Met Gala. So this is going to be his first time testifying. I expect us to hear the regular kind of excuses, to be honest, saying this is hard stuff, we can't find it all, we're never going to be able to solve all our problems, while also turning a multibillion dollar profit.

And just one more thing I want to add, Brianna. Last week we reported on this show how there were ads, paid ads, running on Facebook, comparing the vaccine to the holocaust and comparing COVID restrictions in the U.S. to Nazi Germany. Now, when we brought those ads to Facebook's attention, they said that they were against their COVID misinformation policies and took them down. Last night we found the same ads. The exact same ads are still running on the platform. So they're not even able to catch the stuff that has been brought to their attention that they have found is against their policies. So there is little hope, I think. I think that is quite reflective, I guess, of how lack -- how much lack of a handle they have on their platform.

KEILAR: Well, look, where there is a will, there is a way. Donie, thank you so much for that report. Really appreciate it.

Legal setbacks for the Biden White House, why some of the president's vaccine policies are now frozen by the courts.

Plus, the man who says he is America's patient zero for the Omicron variant, the first one identified as having Omicron. He's going to share his story live.

BERMAN: Overnight, flames erupting in midtown Manhattan, the Christmas tree at FOX headquarters set on fire. We've got new details on the suspect ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:18:05]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: So there has been another legal setback for President Biden. A federal judge issuing a nationwide injunction Tuesday blocking his vaccine mandate for federal contractors. This Georgia judge ruled that enforcing the requirement could, quote, significantly alter their ability to perform federal contract work.

This is like one of many fronts where we're seeing these mandates by the Biden administration being challenged. It doesn't mean that's how it is going to end up being, but in the interim, here you have this.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: There are several different legal tiers here, right. There is the vaccine mandate that deals with private companies with more than 100 workers which is enforced through OSHA, occupation safety health standards. That's been challenged and suspended in a lot of places in courts.

There are the direct federal employees, which my understanding is that's still in place. And then there is this middle tier, federal contractors. The companies that do work for the federal government and now that mandate has been suspended for now.

I think we have a legal analyst to talk to us about this.

KEILAR: A very smart one indeed, very smart.

BERMAN: Senior legal analyst Laura Coates just happened to appear --

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Like a genie. I love it. Your wish is my command.

BERMAN: Talk to us about this. Is -- are court cases going to stop, how much of the vaccine mandate ultimately do you think that these cases will impede?

COATES: This really depends. You outlined it well in terms of the different categories. The question not whether vaccine mandates are constitutional. The Supreme Court already decided this, out of Massachusetts, many years ago. They are.

The question is, how do you implement them? Which departments are able to do so under which regulations? And so, what President Biden is having to do with the Department of Justice is essentially defend the decision that says there are departments and agency regulations that say now is the time, we have the authority to do so, but the question is whether this is the methodology to actually use it.

[08:20:05]

And there's been a lot of pushback from these different organizations saying, look, you're not entitled to just simply have a blanket requirement for people to do so. Even if it is constitutional, unless Congress made a law that gives you the authority to do so, and in this context, you can't do it.

But I think ultimately speaking at the timing of when a court will do this. And injunction means that it stops right now. But many companies have already sought to comply with this organizational requirement. But it will have a depressing effect on the number of mandates that are given, a number that are given out at the time when the Omicron variant is climbing.

KEILAR: So, what happens next? What is the timeline for all of this?

COATES: You know, the timeline now is, remember, this was a couple of weeks ago, last week, there was a conversation with another court that had just three or four states invoked in this. Now it is a nationwide injection injunction. You have the courts saying you have to prove wrong the arguments that say you're likely to lose in court ultimately.

So, now, the DOJ has got to not scramble, but create an opportunity for the courts to understand why this is a pressing matter and urge them to act swiftly. That will lead to the timeline of what the courts ultimately do. If DOJ is convincing this is an emergency, there will be an impact on overall society, they can really compel the courts to act swifter.

Otherwise, the courts are on their own timelines, and it is up for the briefing to actually say what they need to be doing and you got to prove your case.

BERMAN: We have some observations from renowned political scientist Ben Affleck that --

COATES: Wait, renowned political scientist.

KEILAR: Also asteroid expert.

BERMAN: Star of "Armageddon."

He was appearing at a virtual fund-raiser with Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder and Tracy Ellis Ross. And he said of gerrymandering, he said gerrymandering leads to hyperpartisan politics where special interests rule and party extremists are incentivized. He added the Republicans want to dodge the consequences for their actions.

COATES: And he's right. I used to be in the voting rights section of the department of justice. And gerrymandering is one of those areas that is really the bread and butter of civil rights work, because we know that the right to vote, and the access of the ballot box is going to determine much of democracy.

And what he's alluding to is the notion if you're trying to dilute the voting power of a group of people, a language minority, a racial minority, to be able to elect a candidate of their choosing, you don't really have a good democracy. You have essentially a select few choosing for the rest of the people. And so the DOJ just sued Texas as you know for the same reason, the voter delusion aspects of it.

We talk about the consequences of one's action, this is a political statement being made that goes to what is happening in places like Georgia and other states that have tried to roll back voter protection and voter access because they do not believe they have the winning policies to get people to get elected. And so, this really, if this is the vehicle by which you're trying to secure your success at the polls, it is antithetical to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, our feelings about democracy, it never should be the case that you cut off access because you cannot win.

Democracy does not require you get the person you wanted in office, it requires equal access to have the opportunity. And so, Ben Affleck, star of "Armageddon" and many others, absolutely right hands down when it comes to this area. I just hope it translates to Congress doing more to fortify the Voting Rights Act.

BERMAN: He hates asteroids and gerrymandering.

KEILAR: Loves J. Lo, though.

COATES: Let's do that segment next.

KEILAR: Okay. Laura, great to see you. Thank you so much.

So, from controversial conservative lawmaker to suing cows to Donald Trump's social media errand boy, the truth about Devin Nunes' long, slow descent.

BERMAN: And just in, a new country announces a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics after President Biden made the move.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:28:14]

KEILAR: Just in, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announcing a diplomatic boycott of next year's Beijing Winter Olympics, coming up here quickly, of course. This is something that the Biden administration has announced it is already planning to do.

We have CNN's Ivan Watson live for us with the details.

You know, seems like it is a trend here, Ivan.

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it does seem to be picking up steam. You had the Biden administration announce on Tuesday this diplomatic boycott, not sending government officials on the grounds of China's alleged human rights abuses and as Jen Psaki, the White House spokesperson put it, the genocide China is committing in the Xinxiang region, that China vociferously denies.

Now, Australia and its Prime Minister Scott Morrison, they announced today that they would be joining in this diplomatic boycott. They would not send government officials also because of disagreements over China's human rights record. And just now, the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying he was going to be conducting a diplomatic boycott.

They say it is mostly because of COVID protocols, Beijing not much of a surprise doesn't like to hear this, and they responded basically saying, well, these government officials weren't invited anyway. That the games will be a success in Beijing, and accusing the U.S. and its allies of politicizing sport.

The IOC, the International Olympic Committee, their response has been to say this is purely a political decision on the part of governments and that the IOC is politically neutral.

One final point, in 2008, then President George W. Bush attended the games in Beijing, along with the first lady and even his dad who was the honorary captain of the U.S. Olympic team. What a difference 14 years --