Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Study: 29 Percent Lower Chance of Hospitalization with Omicron Than Original; Texts Reveal Trump-Fox Feedback Loop Around Insurrection. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired December 14, 2021 - 08:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADAM SCHIFF, (D-CA) HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Here's the last message I want to highlight, again, from the lawmakers, in the aftermath of January 6th. If we could queue graphic number three. "Yesterday was a terrible day. We tried everything we could in our objection to the six states. I'm sorry nothing worked." The day after a failed attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power through violence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Of course, many of those who were pleading with Mark Meadows that day now often downplay what happened. Mark Meadows was on television last night and didn't address the messages, but said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK MEADOWS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: What they have done is had a contempt vote. We've tried very hard in a very transparent and accommodating way to share nonprivileged information. And what we found out tonight is that not only did that just get disregarded, but then they tried to weaponize text message, selectively leaked them to put out a narrative that quite frankly that the president didn't act.

And I can tell you, this is -- the president did act. This is all about -- it is not about holding me in contempt. It's about coming after President Donald Trump, and sadly, that's what tonight's vote was all about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: The panel voted unanimously to advance the contempt of Congress charges against Mark Meadows, and today the body that he used to serve in will vote on pursuing those contempt charges against him.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Joining us now, Democratic Congresswoman Elaine Luria of Virginia, a member of the select committee to investigate the January 6th attack. The committee voted last night to recommend to refer Mark Meadows for criminal contempt. It was a unanimous vote. Congressman, thank you so much for being with us.

Those text messages that were read out loud during that hearing last night, what did they reveal to you? Why are they important?

REP. ELAINE LURIA, (D-VA): Well, thanks for having me this morning. I think it reveals to me as we talk about the 187 minutes, and there were cries, there were pleas to the White House chief of staff's phone via text message. I can just imagine it blowing up, make this stop. And from everything we can tell, what did the former president do during that timeframe? He could have very easily made a statement, made a statement to the nation, to these people who were overrunning this very building to say, stop, go home, this is not right. But for 187 minutes, over three hours, nothing was said, nothing was done.

And furthermore, in Mr. Meadows' texts, he says back to the president's son, I'm trying, I'm trying. And I'm with you. I understand. But nothing happened. So I think that's really why we need to hear from Mr. Meadows. And he was there. He understood what the president was doing, what the president was thinking during this timeframe, and that's really key to painting the picture of everything that was happening, both leading up to and during the day of January 6th.

BERMAN: Nothing happened, you say, during those 187 minutes. Mark Meadows in one interview we just played from last night after your decision, he said, you guys are trying to say the president didn't respond to what was happening on the Capitol, but he claims the president did. Have you seen any evidence that during that 187 minutes that the president tried to stop it?

LURIA: I have not seen any evidence. The committee has not seen any evidence. And Mr. Meadows has been invited to come share that evidence with us. So I think that's truly what this is about. He shared thousands of text messages, emails, communication that he had with people both before and during January 6th. And we had that. We have it in writing. We shared some of it last night. But we need to hear the context of what was going on, where was he, where was the president, and what was the thought process of the president during this timeframe.

BERMAN: And then I guess the question is, what is the significance of inaction during those 187 minutes? And the reason I ask that is because the vice chair of the committee, Congresswoman Liz Cheney, said something yesterday that caught a lot of people's attention, including mine. She asked this question, "Did Donald Trump through action or inaction corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress's proceedings?" The reason that jumped out to me is there is a law that reads exactly like what she said. You can't corruptly obstruct or impede the due or proper administration of the law by Congress. So is it possible that the inaction or action of the president during those 187 minutes broke the law?

LURIA: That's exactly why we need these facts and why we need to hear from Mr. Meadows. Another phrase that Liz Cheney used was "dereliction of duty." And being someone who served for 20 years on the military, that is truly, as the commander in chief, it seems to me that if the president is proven to have not acted, not taken action, not spoken to have people stopped, to leave the Capitol, to tell all of the appropriate people who could have done something during that timeframe to take action, it's just as much of a problem to not act, to sit by, to watch something happen as it is to be part of it.

[08:05:15]

And we need to know because the facts are showing us and leading us in the direction that he did both at varying times through the course leading up to and during this day.

BERMAN: So if he crossed that line on that law, what is the possibility that either for Donald Trump or others that there will be criminal referrals that come from your investigation?

LURIA: Well, I think the evidence will speak for itself, and if we determine that criminal actions were taken, or criminal acts were taken because of inaction when someone had a responsibility to act, that will be forwarded from the committee in the appropriate manner to the Department of Justice. But that's exactly why we're conducting this investigation, to find out all the facts to determine what we can do in the future to prevent something like this from happening, and as you're saying now, to hold people accountable who are responsible.

BERMAN: But it is possible. Criminal referrals are possible. You're not ruling that out?

LURIA: If there are facts and those facts are available to the Department of Justice, of course they have the ability to act on those. So that is a possible outcome of the work of this committee.

BERMAN: I want to read another text that came out yesterday and see if you can provide context. And I know it's hard without Meadows testifying to provide context here. But this was a text from a lawmaker to Mark Meadows. "Yesterday was a terrible day. We tried everything we could in our objection to the six states. I'm sorry nothing worked." And as Congressman Schiff noted, this was an apology that nothing worked the day after there was a violent attack at the U.S. Capitol. Who wrote that text?

LURIA: As was mentioned yesterday, we are not going to at this point say the originator of each of these texts. But what that text says to me is, you don't apologize for something that the other person is not aware of. So that is really filling in the blanks for me is, to say I'm apologizing, I tried everything, obviously looking at previous conversations, previous plans that could have been in place. But you don't apologize for something that the other person is not even aware of.

BERMAN: Is there more than one member who is corresponding with Mark Meadows? Are there several members who are talking about this after the fact?

LURIA: You know, as I've said, we've released a few of the texts. There's thousands that were provided to the committee. And we will work to put those into context as we paint the picture of the events that happened both that day and prior to January 6th.

BERMAN: There were a number of texts released that came from people at FOX, telling Mark Meadows to try to do something, to stop the violence. How much interest do you have in speaking to the people who wrote those texts?

LURIA: That's of interest. But you know what I would say it shows, and the same thing is shown by many Republican members of the house, many senators, that everyone was watching what was happening that day, everyone wanted it to stop, everyone wanted the one person I think who could have come on the air and immediately called for this to end or sent a tweet to tell people to go home, wanted that one person to act. They knew it was wrong. It reflects, no matter where someone is on the political spectrum, that everyone knew that this was wrong and this violence was inappropriate.

BERMAN: And any plans to call anyone from FOX to testify at this point?

LURIA: We are calling many people. We can certainly invite them. They're free to contact the committee and speak with us. And we will be contacting other witnesses as time goes on.

BERMAN: And finally, just to distinguish here between the various things that happened, clearly Mark Meadows was involved with members of Congress and others to try to get people to vote against the state electors that were there and submit other slates. Do you have any reason to believe that in and of itself that that's against the law? It may be unseemly, it may be gross constitutionally, but is it against the law?

LURIA: I know that there's a plan that was in place. Obviously, many members of the Republican caucus felt a lot of pressure to vote in that way, to overthrow the election results. In private conversations I think that I've had with many of them, they're frustrated by this pressure, though behind closed doors, will say this is ridiculous, of course the election wasn't stolen. But the pressure they feel to continue to go along with this is really disturbing.

BERMAN: Congresswoman Elaine Luria of Virginia, I appreciate you being with us. I know you have several busy days. A lot of work being done by this committee as we approach the holiday. So thank you for being with us.

LURIA: Thank you.

COLLINS: And joining us now is CNN political commentator and former Pennsylvania Congressman Charlie Dent. Charlie, what do you make of what we heard from the congresswoman on this dramatic new evidence that they revealed last night, because we knew Mark Meadows had a role in this, but they really seemed to reveal the extent of that role.

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think it is all very stunning. The fact that there are conversations between Mark Meadows, FOX News hosts, even a protester/rioter, members of Congress. So I think this is a very revealing.

[08:10:00]

I think that this is -- I think we lose sight of the fact this was a massive crime scene, what happened on January 6th. People forcibly entered a restricted area of the Capitol. Numerous aggravated assault charges against law enforcement officers, of course trying to desecration and destruction of property in the Capitol, and trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

So I think this is devastating for Meadows. It seems to me, though, he's kind of one foot in, one foot out. He's already complied. He's provided massive amounts of documents. But now he won't talk about those documents. He's talking about all this stuff in his book, a lot of the stuff in his book, but won't talk to Congress about it. So I think he's in a no-man's-land. I suspect the former president is putting pressure on him not to testify, so he can't -- he doesn't want to tell the truth, but he can't lie either. He's in a bad spot.

BERMAN: The focus on this 187 minutes, as Congressman Luria there said to me, is very interesting, because for all the reporting that has been done and all the discussions we've had since January 6th, we know very little about that time period from inside the White House. We know -- you cover it every day. We really don't know.

COLLINS: It is like a black hole.

BERMAN: It is a black hole. And it is legally, perhaps, perilous for a lot of people involved, Charlie.

DENT: It seemed to me that I thought we kind of understood what was happening, that the president of the United States sicced a violent mob on the Capitol. It was Article Two attacking Article One. Now we're getting some of the details filled in by some of the people around them. It seems that most everybody who cared for the president was trying to encourage him to call off the dogs, which it took him such a long time to do. And then when he did it, he said he loved them.

And so I think this is, again, it's just devastating that the president's state of mind was pretty obvious on that day he seemed to be OK with what was happening that day, and I thought he helped incite it.

COLLINS: And you say Mark Meadows is one foot in, one foot out when it comes to this. He turned over the text messages. That's the reason Liz Cheney was able to read them aloud last night. And you saw him on television last night not addressing the messages exactly, but saying that he believed they were being selectively leaked. Of course, he's the one who actually turned these over. And one of the messages from Donald Trump Jr. asking him to get his father to do something, Mark Meadows said I agree.

DENT: Yes, and by the way, why wouldn't Don Jr. just call his dad, as opposed to calling the chief of staff? But, yes, he's one foot in, he's one foot out. And frankly if I were the select committee, I would just rip this stuff out. Every week, I would rip out more. I'm sure that they're just teasing everybody now with all this information. I bet there's more, and they're going to keep doing this.

BERMAN: So how do you think the committee is doing as we sit here? I actually think we have a different view, or the committee looks different today than it may have three weeks ago to a lot of people. A lot has happened in the last few weeks.

DENT: Actually, I think the committee has been pretty responsible. And I think -- I think if you're Kevin McCarthy right now, you're probably regretting that you didn't appoint any members to that committee to give an alternative narrative. But they don't have one. But --

BERMAN: He did, but the ones that he tried to get on were not approved by --

DENT: Two of the five. My own view is Pelosi should not have done that and Kevin should have appointed the other three. That said, I think the committee is trying to behave in a somewhat nonpartisan manner and trying to stay to the facts. We're not seeing the usual shoe banging, the usual partisan diatribes from the dais. They're just kind of reading the facts, and I think that's pretty effective.

COLLINS: And there could be more to come, because Bennie Thompson said last night, before too long our findings will be out in the open and we'll have public hearings and we will tell this story to the American people.

Charlie Dent, thank you so much for joining us this morning.

Up next, the largest study to date on the coronavirus Omicron variant has just been released. We'll tell you we know about its severity and how likely it is to potential evade the vaccines.

Plus, data on a new COVID pill showing a nearly 90 percent success rate against hospitalization and death. We have all the details you need ahead.

BERMAN: And more than 100 people still unaccounted for in Kentucky after a series of tornadoes ripped through the state. We have the latest on the efforts to rescue and rebuild.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:18:04]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Breaking overnight, an extensive new study out of South Africa finds that people infected with the omicron variant are 29 percent less likely to be hospitalized than those infected with the original virus. Children we should note were 20 percent more likely to be hospitalized. The study also found that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine was 33 percent protective against infection overall, but 70 percent effective at preventing hospitalization.

Joining us now is Dr. Paul Offit, director of vaccine education center and pediatrics professor at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Dr. Offit, thank you for being with us to understand this data. We have other data I want to get to on a bit too.

But, look, we have been trying to figure out if Omicron causes more severe illness. We have this big study now out of South Africa that finds 29 percent fewer hospitalizations. What does that tell you?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, MEMBER, FDA VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Well, it is encouraging. Viruses as they continue to evolve to the human population, this is a bat coronavirus that is now trying to adapt to the human population. It does that usually in two ways. One, the virus becomes more contagious, and we're seeing that, right? We're seeing as we go from the original strain, the so-called D614G strain, to the alpha strain, to the delta strain, now the omicron strain. Each one is more contagious than the last.

Also, it's really never to the advantage of the virus to kill you. I mean, it needs you to reproduce itself, it needs you to transmit it from one person to the next. So viruses can become less virulent over time, that might be what is happening here. We'll see.

BERMAN: So, am I right, though, Pfizer is not doing as good of a job. The two-dose Pfizer regiment not doing as good of a job preventing infection, serious illness might be another story, but the overall story is the people who are getting infected not as sick.

OFFIT: Right. I do think there are two separate things here. One is protection against serious illness. I mean, the kind of illness that caused you to go to the doctor, go to the hospital, go to the ICU.

[08:20:01]

That's really the goal of every vaccine and that's been true for this vaccine as well that for all three variants that have come into this country, two doses of an mRNA containing vaccine continues to protect well against serious illness and I think that's likely to also be true for this variant. That's different than protection against mildly symptomatic infection.

And I think that's likely to also be true for this variant. That's different than protection against mildly symptomatic infection. We were fooled when the phase three trials were given to the committee, when you saw protection against mild illness was 95 percent.

There is no way that was going to last. Those were three month trials. Those participants had all just recently received the dose of the -- of vaccine, so that had to phase over time. You're asked too much of a vaccine, you're asking to protect against mild illness. We give that booster dose, it's going to increase neutralizing antibodies, to protect you against mild illness for a certain period of time, but also fade over time.

BERMAN: All right. I'm going to put you in the encouraged column right now on the idea that there are fewer hospitalizations from omicron that seems to be where it is trending right now. Other encouraging news today, Pfizer has released more extensive data on the research and do its anti-COVID, the antiviral after-the-fact pill, finding that it reduces hospitalizations and serious illness among people who take it, almost 90 percent.

How important is this? OFFIT: It's very important. I think the way that viruses work, this

one being a particular example, initially the virus attaches, enters your nose, reproduces itself and it reproduces itself hundreds of times, thousands of times. Then your immune response kicks in.

And as your immune response kicks in, that's when you develop symptoms and then the virus reproduces itself less and less. So, if something like an antiviral medicine is going to work, it has to be given early in illness because later in illness, while you're already pretty sick, virus replication is not really an important part of the disease process anymore.

So, I think antivirals are great. They have to be given early, but, remember, you can prevent all this by getting a vaccine. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

BERMAN: Step one, get vaccinated because that can keep you from getting it. If you do get it, is this the type of thing that could really help suppress this pandemic going forward? Is this the type of thing that makes a pandemic endemic?

OFFIT: Yes, so I think it definitely helps. I mean, I was on service about a week and a half go, and during that week, when I was on series at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, we admitted a lot of children with COVID. More than I had seen actually consistent with the national average.

Virtually, all those children were over 5, many were over 12, I can tell you several were admitted to the intensive care unit. What all of those children had in common was none of them were vaccinated, even though all of them could have been, none of the parents were vaccinated, none of their siblings were vaccinated. That's the issue. I mean, we talk about booster dose, we talk about antivirals, we need to vaccinate the unvaccinated if we ever get on top of the pandemic.

BERMAN: Testing also, right? One thing for the antivirals I will say, you only know to take them if you get tested.

OFFIT: Right. And that's exactly right. Also, if you're tested and found to be positive, you know, don't go to work. I mean, it is -- we used to call it absenteeism, this is presenteeism. Stay away from other people if you know you're infected.

BERMAN: All right. Dr. Paul Offit, I appreciate you being with us and helping us understand this I think pretty big developments today in this long extended battle that we're all in. I appreciate your time as always.

OFFIT: Thank you.

All right, several Fox entertainers choosing to whitewash the insurrection on air, even though text messages reveal how they really felt as the U.S. Capitol was under attack. A "Reality Check" next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: The January 6th Committee released frantic new text messages that three Fox News hosts sent to the chief of the staff, Mark Meadows, on the day of the Capitol attack. But the urgent tone in their messages wasn't reflected in their coverage that day.

John Avlon has more in today's "Reality Check".

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: When the Capitol was attacked, they knew it had all gone too far. Fox News hosts were texting with White House chief of staff begging him to have Trump call the rioters off. Rarely does history allow you to see what people were thinking in real time. But these texts do. And one is especially revealing.

This is hurting all of us. That's what Laura Ingraham said. And the all of us there doesn't seem to mean all Americans. It means the right wing water carriers for Trump.

These text messages ripped the curtain back on the Trump-Fox feedback loop. It shows that they thought of themselves as partisan political enablers first, not anything resembling journalists, and they knew it wasn't a mostly peaceful protest. But that shock of recognition only lasted a few minutes because hours later, they were back in hyperpartisan distortion land, spreading desperate deflections and Fox News viewers were once again being played for fools.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: I have never seen Trump rally attendees wearing helmets, black helmets, brown helmets, black backpacks, the uniforms that you saw in some of these crowd shots, have you ever seen them wearing as Chris said those knee pads and the -- all the pads on their elbows? I just -- I've been to a lot of the rallies, I know you both have covered them, I've never seen that before. Ever.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Everyone knew going in today this crowd was going to be massive. They knew there were hundreds of thousands of people that came to town. We also knew there is always bad actors that will infiltrate large crowds. I don't care if the radical left, radical right, I don't care who they are, they're not people I would support. So, how were officials not prepared? We got to answer that question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: They knew this wasn't some false flag operation. They knew it wasn't Antifa or Black Lives Matter because they knew in real time that the Capitol was being attacked by Trump supporters. But their inability to tell the truth when the microphones were on allowed the big lie to metastasize. And so, it's not surprising that last night as Liz Cheney was reading

the new evidence out loud, Fox was ignoring the whole thing, offering up this ironic instant classic of a banner at the bottom of the screen, talking about lawlessness.