Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Interview with U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy; Interview with Stormy Daniels; American Athletes Marching in Opening Ceremonies of Olympic Games in China; Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA) Interviewed on January 6th Committee's Progress in Obtaining Information from Witnesses to What Happened During Capitol Insurrection. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired February 04, 2022 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And they're saying that Putin and Xi have vowed to deepen their strategic coordination, adding that this is going to have a far-reaching impact on both China and Russia and the world at large.

This meeting coming as we mentioned here the Ukraine crisis and concerns over a possible Russian invasion, that remains tense. And yet Putin here, as I'm looking at some of the images coming out of the opening ceremonies, he's at ease. He's enjoying his time here, so it seems, taking in the ceremony. As for that diplomatic boycott that we mentioned, as you know, it essentially means U.S. officials are not here, but Team USA is here. And interestingly enough, a record number athletes, 177, that's about 80 percent, are walking in the opening ceremony.

But they're competing here amidst incredibly strict COVID restrictions. John and Brianna, we talked about this as something we have been living through, and now it's a bubble within a bubble, if you will, that these athletes and personnel and incoming media are experiencing part of China's zero COVID policy. It is no joke.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: David, I was just going to ask you about the U.S. delegation marching in the opening ceremonies, because there had been some reporting, Josh Rogin suggesting that a number of athletes around the world were going to boycott the opening ceremonies in one way or another. But the idea that more Americans are marching in it than ever before, to what extent does this give Xi Jinping -- Putin is getting just what he wants, the picture in the stands there. Is Xi Jinping getting what he wants with all these athletes, more Americans than ever, marching in the opening ceremonies?

CULVER: Yes, this is a really interesting point, John. And Team USA seems to be echoing a bit of what China has been saying and even Russia, and that is that they don't want this event to be politicized. China and Russia have different motives for saying that. Team USA saying let's focus on what the athletes do best. That's not talking politics, that's competing. And so they're trying to re-shift the focus. We should point out, though, at least 20 percent that are not walking

in the opening ceremony, and I'm looking to see when they may be doing that, pretty soon now, you can't say for certain they're all boycotting because of the human rights issues. It could be that they simply have to compete early tomorrow morning and so they don't want to partake, or they don't want to be that close to all those other people and risk potentially getting COVID because this zero COVID policy means they're going to be put into isolation, multiple rounds of testing. We know some of them will just have to sit out the competition if that's what they happen to go through while they're here.

BERMAN: What a time to be there, David. You're going to see a lot over the next several weeks. We really appreciate you being there for us.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: In a brand-new interview with "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution," Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis, who is investigating former president Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, says she has endured more racist attacks since her work on the case began than in her entire life.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I get called an "n" very regularly. It is really silly to me that they believe that by hurling those kinds of insults, that it is going to impact the way that we do our investigation. It's not going to impact me to do something faster. It's not going to impact me in treating the former president or anyone else unfairly. And it is not going to make me stop what I have a lawful duty to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: That's what it is about, though, we're seeing, Berman, whether it's election officials or it's this case, it's people who are saying things trying to intimidate these folks that are -- they're holding things to account, they're holding the system to account, and they're trying to intimidate them out of doing it.

BERMAN: Trump is specifically injecting race into this discussion when he's criticizing the investigations into him, and so clearly trying to create racial tension there where none exists, trying to stoke racist reaction, it seems, from what he's saying there. And she's saying not going to work.

KEILAR: It is such an interesting point. You just reminded me of that, how when he was speaking over the weekend, he did interject race into his comments, and perhaps he did that on purpose. Clearly, it was received.

BERMAN: I will say Elie Honig on another matter is suggesting the investigation going on in Georgia isn't moving nearly as quickly as it could or should. But that is another matter entirely --

KEILAR: Yes.

BERMAN: -- and one for discussion coming up.

So in an unprecedented move, the chair of the January 6th Committee, Congressman Bennie Thompson, tells CNN there is significant discussion about whether to subpoena lawmakers who refuse to voluntarily cooperate. Over the last couple of months, the House probe has requested voluntary cooperation from three of its colleagues, including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. All have refused. This as Trump allies who are not lawmakers, some stonewall. Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark pleading the Fifth more than 100 times during his deposition this week. That's not exactly stonewalling, per se, because the right to self-incrimination is a venerable part of the Constitution, although there are critics who view it differently.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[08:05:09]

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: So they have five people taking the Fifth Amendment, like you see on the mob, right? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you are innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: That was Trump complaining about aides to Hillary Clinton.

Joining me now is Congresswoman Elaine Luria. She is a member of the January 6th Committee. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us right now. The Jeffrey Clark case is interesting, took the Fifth 100 times during his discussion with you. Zoe Lofgren, who is part of your committee, has suggested the possibility of giving Clark immunity to try to force him to answer questions. What's that consideration?

REP. ELAINE LURIA, (D-VA) JANUARY 6TH SELECT COMMITTEE: Well, what I would say is that those internal deliberations and all of the tools that we have at a committee and Congress to seek testimony, they're still on the table. And the committee is going to make choices for the things that we think are most effective to get the information we need in order to fill out and paint this picture that we're trying to establish of exactly what happened before and on January 6th so that we can prevent something like this from happening in the future.

BERMAN: How would that work exactly, theoretically, the immunity proposal?

LURIA: Well, there is a means by which someone can be granted immunity, specifically for testimony to a congressional committee. That information then can't be used later on if there were some attempt to do criminal proceedings. But again, if that information is obtainable from other places, that person could still be liable for any actions that could be deemed criminal in the future.

However, in this case, what the committee is trying to do is to get the information that we need. We had over 475 people approach the committee at this point, 60,000 documents. So we're making significant progress. And these specific cases that require sort of additional consideration, if additional measures need to be made, will be deliberated very carefully by the committee and we'll make decisions moving forward.

BERMAN: So you've heard in recent days from a couple aides to the former vice president Mike Pence, Marc Short and Greg Jacob, attorney for Mike Pence. These men have, as I understand it, been unwilling to discuss their conversations with Donald Trump when he was president of the United States. They say they're doing that because there may be some privilege asserted by the former president that hasn't been litigated yet. I guess what I want to ask you is, if they're not talking about that, how expansive has their testimony been otherwise?

LURIA: Well, not sharing specific details of testimony that has happened with witnesses, and, of course, anyone can make a claim of privilege, and they have the right to do that, but we're certainly receiving a lot of information from the individuals that we're talking about. So although there might be specific things that certain individuals claim privilege for, which they have the right to do, there is a plethora of information that -- the interviews we had recently have been very, very insightful for the committee.

BERMAN: How so?

LURIA: I would say that interviews that we have with people who worked in the former administration, who were close to the president or vice president, who could have been present on the day that these events happened on January 6th, they shed light into what was happening, what communications were going on, what the thought process was, what the actions of the president were. He did nothing for 187 minutes, over three hours, when he could have spoken, and spoken to these people who were overrunning the Capitol and said stop, go home, this is not right. And we're really trying to understand his thought process and that action on that day.

BERMAN: So there does seem to be focusing on those 187 minutes, what the president did or did not do, the former president that day. One person who obviously you know who has key insight to that is Ivanka Trump, whom you have requested come in and speak to you. What is the status of your negotiations with her?

LURIA: The committee has sent her a request and outlined the type of information that we would like to receive from her. And we are hopeful in trying to coordinate that particular interview in the future.

BERMAN: Trying to coordinate -- does that mean there has been a response from them, a further response?

LURIA: I am, like other times, not going to specify the direct communications with any potential witness. But the committee is attempting to have her come in, because I think she can provide very valuable insight into what happened that day.

BERMAN: One of the things the former president has done in the last week is suggested that if he becomes president again, he would pardon people associated with the insurrection who may be convicted, or maybe even who are still in the trial process or the justice process right now. I spoke to a lawyer for some of the accused insurrectionists who told me that it would absolutely make them less likely to cooperate now. The idea of a possibility of a pardon later on would make them less likely to cooperate now. And he said absolutely it's the former president putting his finger on the scales. Does that to you constitute witness tampering?

[08:10:04]

LURIA: It certainly appears to. If someone who is sort of waving out there that if I'm president in the future, I'm going to pardon you, someone who could be, right now, thinking I need to do the right thing, I need to state the facts and potentially plead guilty to the criminal actions that I have, if they think that there is a way in the future to get off from any consequences from their actions, it could certainly color what they do right now.

And I served 20 years in the military. This is sort of like that undue command influence. So when something is happening, some sort of proceedings against an individual, the commander can't say, like, if you do x, y, and z, I'm going to throw the book at you, because then that prejudices the decision-making process and the person being able to have the opportunity to present their evidence and present their case.

BERMAN: Would this end up being what he's doing now, a new focus or an additional focus of your investigation?

LURIA: He said this publicly. He clearly said it publicly. And it just really reasserts what we know. The president is out there saying I tried to have the former vice president change the election results, now I'm going to pardon people. He just literally keeps restating these things very publicly and openly to reaffirm what was his thought process, what he wanted the outcome to be. So the more that he does this, I think the more he's making a case against himself.

BERMAN: And I know you love these process questions. You've had so many discussions now with people. When can the public expect to see transcripts?

LURIA: You mean transcripts from the specific interviews?

BERMAN: Yes.

LURIA: Well, we're working towards hearings later in the spring and a report. And I think part of the report there will a narrative that includes details of what the committee has determined, the recommendations we make. And then the transcripts are -- portions of the transcripts should be included in the reports from the committee.

BERMAN: Weeks or months?

LURIA: I would say more like months is realistic.

BERMAN: OK, Congresswoman Elaine Luria, we appreciate you being with us this morning. Thank you so much.

LURIA: Thank you.

BERMAN: Here's what else to watch today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: A groundbreaking and slightly unorthodox new strategy to detect the next COVID wave just revealed. It is the toilet.

And just how hard did the omicron surge hit the economy? We're about to find out. The highly anticipated jobs report out just moments from now.

KEILAR: And she took on Donald Trump, now she's taking on her former lawyer, Michael Avenatti. The one and only Stormy Daniels will be with us live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:16:50]

BERMAN: New details on when children under the age of 5 will be able to get vaccinated against COVID. About 18 million young children could soon be eligible for the vaccine, but, first, the shot must go through a rigorous authorization process that is taking a different path than the vaccines that came before.

Here to explain, U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy.

Doctor, what's curious about this is that I know there are millions of parents, including yourself, because you've got kids in the age range, who desperately are waiting for this vaccine to be authorized, but the data hasn't shown it to be effective.

So you're waiting for something that hasn't been proven to work?

DR. VIVEK MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL: John, I'm glad you asked about this.

And you're right. I'm one of those millions of parents who has a child under 5 and I am eager for her to have a vaccine that is both safe and effective for her.

Let me tell you what we know and what we don't know right now. We do not know yet if this vaccine is going to be safe and effective for children under 5. That's exactly why the FDA is beginning a process of rigorous review and that's going to be a transparent process where the data will be available to the public as well.

But what the FDA did proactively is they asked the company to look at the data and here's why they did that. Here's what changed between December and now, John. We had the omicron wave and that meant we had millions more children who were infected and many who ended up in the hospital, it turns out that also generated new clinical data in the trial, the FDA wants to look at that data and to understand does that mean this vaccine, two doses, is safe and effective for kids? If it is not, then they're not going to recommend it for children yet. If it is, they'll try to get that vaccine to children as soon as possible.

BERMAN: Okay. So it is not that you have data now which shows that it is a effective or isn't. But you want to see it. You want to lay the cards on the table so the decision can be made?

MURTHY: That's exactly right. And this is an example, John, of the FDA being proactive, and acting with urgency. It is what you see -- want to see during a pandemic. What the FDA will not do is cut corners when it comes to the quality of the assessment, because they know the country depends on them as a gold standard of safety.

BERMAN: And I will note before, even though some of the data suggested it may not be as effective, nothing I saw there suggested it was unsafe in a way that would concern people. So, there aren't any alarm bells going off there.

I want to ask you something else that caught a lot of people's attention, which is this new effort -- I'm from Boston, and up there, they've been doing the wastewater stuff for a long time in terms of trying to monitor COVID in the country. And it's really effective. I mean, you can see the waves rise very quickly and recede very quickly based on analysis of the wastewater and now, there is a notion of doing it more, in a more widespread way.

What do you hope to get from this?

MURTHY: So wastewater surveillance is an interesting area. It's another way of assessing what is happening in terms of increases or decreases in infection burden in a community.

And the truth is we move forward, John, in this pandemic, and through this pandemic, what we need is effectively tools to help us understand what's going to happen before it happens.

[08:20:08]

We need early indicators. We also need to look at later indicators.

So right now, wastewater may be one of the tools. We know looking at proactive surveillance testing can help us as well, understanding what's happening in emergency rooms in terms of surveillance, how many cases of COVID-like illness are coming in, that could be useful and, of course, hospitalizations and deaths are useful, but they tend to be later indicators.

So, the bottom line is, John, that we are building more and more tools to help us figure out what the future may look like, and when to dial up or dial down precautions. That's going to be an important part of how we get through this pandemic and learn to live with this virus.

BERMAN: Saved by the wastewater. Who knew?

Doctor, Tests to Stay in schools is the change the administration advocated for, correct? One things to keep kids in school if there are outbreaks, test, test negatively, you stay in school. There are some school districts, some of the earliest adopters, though, are now having issues, A, because they don't have enough tests to make it happen and, B, it is proving to be according to some unwieldy, right? Where you have all these asymptomatic people who are being tested and then occasionally discovered there, and now some are saying, look, let's just test the people who are showing symptoms.

What's your view of that?

MURTHY: Well, listen, I sympathize with schools in the sense that this has been a tough pandemic for schools in particular. School administrators in many ways have had to not only be educators, but they've also had to be public health experts figuring out a lot on their own.

And now, the CDC and the administration and local and state departments of health have worked hard not only to get support to them, but to provide billions of dollars in funding, to support things like testing.

But here's one thing that is important to know, John, about Test to Stay -- Test to Stay is a way of getting kids to stay in school as opposed to being out of school during the quarantine period. But if your child is vaccinated, particularly if they're fully vaccinated, that actually -- you treat the quarantine differently, you don't necessarily have to separate from other people, you do have to take precautions, may need to get tested at day five during that quarantine period, but you can keep your kids in school more effectively without having to do the serial testing, with Test to Stay if your children are fully vaccinated.

I mention this, John, because right now, in the United States, we have less than 30 percent of kids in the 5 through 11 range who are fully vaccinated. We have to get those numbers up to protect our kids, but it also will help keep them in school.

BERMAN: There are some governors of some states looking to the federal government for some guidance about how to act going forward. Denver, for instance, lifting all the vaccine mandates, or most of them.

Do you have a metric where you think it is safe to lift indoor mask mandates?

MURTHY: Well, it is an important question, John. And one thing I do want people to know is that as we get to a better place in this pandemic, specifically as our hospitalizations and our deaths come down in particular, it will be easier for us to pull back on restrictions.

There is not a single metric to look at. What we have to do is look at a composite of metrics, not only the hospitalizations and deaths, but also try to understand what is happening in terms of early indicators that may give us a clue as to whether cases may rise in the next few weeks. And we want to be able to dial up and dial down precautions based on that. I absolutely understand the sense of urgency and frustration that people feel around wanting to get back to normal. And I think that we will get back to a closer semblance of normal because we not only have tools like the vaccine and more therapeutics which reduces severity of illness, but when you have high quality masks, you know, 400 million of which the government is now distributing around the country, it gives you the ability to protect yourself in ways that weren't as easily available to people before.

BERMAN: U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, always a pleasure to speak to you, thank you.

MURTHY: Good to see you, John, as always. Take care.

KEILAR: Minutes from now, a jury is set to resume deliberations in the trial of Michael Avenatti. Prosecutors allege that Avenatti, who helped negotiate an $800,000 book advance for former client Stormy Daniels defrauded her by telling her literary agent to send nearly $300,000 of that advance to an account he controlled and then he used it to buy things for himself. That book was "Full Disclosure". It was a 2018 tell-all that discusses in part Daniels' account of an affair with former President Donald Trump.

Now, yesterday, after about four hours of deliberation, the jury said they were unable to come to an agreement on a wire fraud charge. The judge sent the jury back to try again.

Joining us now is Stormy Daniels.

I want to thank you so much for being with us this morning, and I know you are anxiously awaiting the outcome here. So, I wonder if you have any idea why you think the jury is, you know, struggling to come to an answer?

[08:25:01]

STORMY DANIELS, ADULT ENTERTAINER: I honestly have no idea. I figured this was such a cut and dry, straightforward case. My testimony shouldn't even really matter. The evidence is rock solid.

And they are -- you know, I have dozens and dozens of text messages, I found out that he had also text and had correspondence with people from the literary agency and from the publisher, telling them lies. There was a bank account I didn't know about. And he spent that money on other things.

Now his whole argument is good faith, and that he was entitled to it. Well, if you were entitled to it, then why did you lie about it, why didn't you say, hey, I got this money, or why didn't you send a bill to me? I mean, it just -- I'm absolutely flabbergasted that this is happening right now.

I figured the jury would be out for 20 minutes and come back, you know, guilty. The evidence, like I said, speaks for itself. Avenatti is a sideshow master and he painted all these crazy things about my work on a paranormal TV show and the fact I worked at -- I mean, just a bunch of stuff that didn't matter.

And it is really truly upsetting and heartbreaking that somebody I trusted to take care of me and to work for me lied to me every single day for five or six months. And he was so brazen about it that he put it all in writing.

KEILAR: You mentioned -- I mean, so he went this unusual route representing himself and that meant he was in the position of asking you hours of questions, which is pretty unusual. And I imagine difficult on your part to endure.

But you mentioned his strategy, it was really to character assassinate you. He tried to say you accused everyone of stealing from you. He tried to portray you as kind of a crazy person who talks to dead people.

What did you think of that and what was it like to be in that situation being asked questions by him?

DANIELS: I thought it was very telling that he didn't have a single witness to call to back up his story, to validate his claims or to speak for his character. And I really thought the jury would see through all these other tactics, because to be honest with you, who cares if I'm crazy? I'm not, obviously, but he subpoenaed mental health records that don't exist, then he pretended there was a seal on them to create doubt.

But that raises the question for me as well, like, if I had sought mental health treatment, does that make it okay to forge my signature and steal from me? It kind of makes him look like more of a monster and I'm really surprised that the jury didn't pick up on that, because to be honest with you, who cares what I believe in, who cares what my spirituality is, where I work, what I've done?

Theft is theft, forgery is forgery. It really shouldn't matter. It seems pretty cut and dry.

So, I just -- I'm trying not to let my mind go to the fact that I don't know if this would happen to someone else or if someone on the jury is being prejudiced against who I am or my past or what I do for a living.

BLITZER: You thought about that. You're worried about that.

DANIELS: I'm extremely worried about it. It is very unfortunate that kind of discrimination could happen.

And Michael knows it, because he was with -- he was with me for so long, and sought firsthand that he's taking that information that he gained when he was working with me, or I believed he was working with me, and little did I know he was lying and stealing from me the entire time, along with a lot of other people. And now he's gathered that information and he's flipped it and used it against me.

And some of the things he said in the case were just flat out lies. Like, just, bizarre. Yes, I work on a paranormal TV show. I mean, yes, I believe in ghosts. I live in New Orleans. How can you not?

Yes, I worked in the adult film business, all of these things. Yes, Michael Cohen pressured me into signing, you know, a false statement when I was still under NDA and he used all that against me.

But he also just completely made up some stuff that I -- that he gave me $20,000 from the Crowd Justice Fund, which he did, but that was to cancel appearances because "60 Minutes" wanted me on a shuttle, like total shutdown.

And to put a security system in my house, but he completely made up that I went up and bought a truck. I didn't own a truck then. I still don't now. I didn't purchase or pay off any vehicles in that timeframe.

But because he was representing himself, he was able to say whatever he wanted. And even if it was overruled or supposedly struck from the record, the jury was still sitting there --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: The jury heard it.

DANIELS: Really he had free -- he had free reign to say whatever ludicrous things about me he wanted to --

KEILAR: OK, so --

DANIELS: -- and that's completely not fair.

KEILAR: Stormy, can I ask you this. I find it interesting about what you said about you're worried that the jury is prejudiced against you. If you were not -- if you had not been an actress in the adult film industry, a director in the adult film industry, do you think that the jury would have already come to a decision here?

DANIELS: You know what, I wish I could say that wasn't the case, but that is my life for 20 years and I have been turned down for things strictly because of working in the adult film industry.