Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Trump Holds COVID-19 Press Conference After Accusing Members Of FDA Of Being Part Of Deep State; Trump's Sister Says, Donald Is Out For Donald, Period; Twenty-Six Republicans Voted With Democrats To Pass USPS Funding Bill; Gulf Coast Braces For Double Hurricane Threat; Trump's Sister's Comments Loom Over Republican National Convention; Steve Bannon Charged With Fraud In Border Wall Fundraising Campaign. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired August 23, 2020 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: There you have the announcement from the president of the United States that the Food and Drug Administration has issued what's called an Emergency Use Authorization for convalescent plasma insisting it's potentially promising as a COVID treatment for those patients who are already in the hospital.
[17:49:58]
The president insisting this is a historic day, a very significant development he says. He's very pleased, very, very happy news. We heard that echoed from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, and the FDA commissioner, the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, Stephen Hahn.
We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM. This is a special edition. Dr. Sanjay Gupta is with us. Sanjay, you were listening very carefully to the precise words what the president said and what the two experts, Alex Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA commissioner had to say. What's your reaction? Is this a huge breakthrough?
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was a little confusing, Wolf, to be honest. First, I don't think this is a huge breakthrough in the sense that as Dr. Hahn mentioned, this convalescent plasma has been available. It's been used in over 70,000 people already under these expanded access programs.
So, it is a therapy that is out there and correctly, as mentioned, has been used to treat other infectious diseases. The confusing part a little bit, Wolf, is that as you know, just a couple of days ago, the FDA sort of put the brakes on Emergency Use Authorization.
They were looking at the same data, I think, that a lot of people had been looking at, data that came out of the Mayo Clinic. And the concerning thing was that there wasn't a lot of what's called randomized trials, right?
You put some people in one group and they get the medication and another group of people, similar people, don't get the medication. And you compare them to make sure, in fact, it's the convalescent plasma that is helping. If you don't randomize control like that, then you don't know. Could it be something else? Could it be another medication that's helping?
We still don't have that data. I think what confused me, Wolf, a couple of days ago they said put the brakes on it. Today, they're saying full steam ahead with this Emergency Use Authorization. I don't know what changed. I talked to sources on the task force who said they haven't seen any new data.
So, what inspired this significant change within a couple of days in terms of going from no Emergency Use Authorization to absolutely going forward on a Sunday night? That was the confusing part. They did explain what it is, how it might work, but we need that data, Wolf.
BLITZER: And it's interesting because earlier in the week, I think last Wednesday or so, "The New York Times" was reporting, Sanjay, and I'm sure you read the article. I did and I've got it right here, that experts from the coronavirus task force including Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Clifford Lane of NIH also, they stepped in to argue because there was this debate going on at the FDA.
They stepped in to argue that the emerging data on the treatment was simply too weak -- too weak to go forward with this announcement and now all of a sudden the president and Alex Azar and Dr. Stephen Hahn, they are going forward with it. So that's raising questions. And further raising questions is the tweet the president just posted yesterday.
And let me read it to our viewers once again because it's very disturbing what the president said about the Food and Drug Administration. He said this, the deep state, or whoever over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. That's the presidential election. Must focus on speed and saving lives.
And then the president tagged Dr. Stephen Hahn, @SteveFDA. So, it's raising all sorts of questions about the political -- the potential political impact of this decision just announced by the president.
GUPTA: Yes. I mean, that's exactly right, Wolf. I mean, that's the thing I think as a medical reporters were trying to grapple with. We're trying to look at this evidence and say, okay, well, here is the evidence that you were looking at as you point out just a few days ago, now it's Sunday night, was there new evidence that was submitted?
See, the thing is that, Wolf, there is what are called observational studies, tens of thousands of people have used this and they sort of observed this to say, hey, look, yes, these people over here, if they get it within three days, if they are not on a ventilator, they're under the age of 80, they seem to be doing better. That's observational data.
But that's not the sort of date that is typically the standard by which you make these authorizations. You want to have some evidence that it's actually working because you randomize patients. It wasn't they also got steroids, it wasn't that they also got another treatment.
You want to make sure it's the convalescent plasma itself that's working. I don't know if there was new data that was submitted. I can tell you again, Wolf, talking to sources close to the task force, they didn't see any new data. You mentioned Dr. Collins, Dr. Fauci, I don't know that anybody else on the task force saw any of those new data just over the last few days.
I should also point out this, Wolf. I know this is a bit of a nuanced point, but once you issued the Emergency Use Authorization, it's going to make it more challenging to actually do these randomized trial. Why? Because everybody then obviously wants this plasma.
[17:55:00]
So how do you then stratify people into groups saying you're going to get it, you're not going to get it. That makes it challenging to actually collect the data to go forward with actual approval. So, you know, it's going to be in this sort of gray area now, Wolf. But still, no clear evidence that it actually works.
BLITZER: So basically the bottom line is this is not a huge breakthrough. It's sort of promising in the sense that they've been testing this. They don't have a lot of data to confirm that it's a huge breakthrough. So, we shouldn't necessarily accept the words of the president that it's going to cure a lot of people hospitalized for COVID-19 right now.
GUPTA: Yes. I mean, I think the point is that there's tens of thousands of people who have already gotten it, right. So first, you say, we now we got an authorization. Now people can go out and get it. Well, truth is they could have already gone out and get it -- receive this. There's been tens of thousands of people. I think over 70,000 people, Dr. Hahn mentioned, that have already received it.
So in that sense, this EUA, this Emergency Use Authorization doesn't suddenly make something available to people that wasn't available. That's the first part of it. The second part of it is, okay, do we have evidence that it works?
And you heard, based on observational data, that, you know, people who are under the age of 80 that received this quickly within three days, you know, seem to have decrease in mortality, 35 percent decrease in mortality. That sounds very promising, certainly, but that's not the sort of data upon which the FDA typically relies.
They want to know, yes, it's good that 35 percent of the people, they had a reduction in mortality, but was it the plasma that did that or was it something else? I mean, this is a basic question in medical science. Wolf, I mean, everybody wants to be hopeful about these things, I mean, no one more than me.
But, you know, the idea that you have to prove that it works so that people aren't, you know, making their bets on something that ultimately doesn't turn out to work, or they are taking their eyes off the ball on something that could be potentially much more beneficial. That's the issue here.
So this is a confusing story that's emerging, wolf. We don't have the data. A week ago, you know, a few days ago there wasn't the data. The FDA said not ready, put the brakes on it. A few days later, all of a sudden presumably looking at the same data, they are saying move forward with an EUA, which is going to make it harder to collect data.
And it's not going to do anything to actually make this available to more people because it already was available to tens of thousands of people.
BLITZER: The EUA, the Emergency Use Authorization. So just to be precise, Sanjay, this has not been approved. This is just -- basically, we're going ahead with more testing of this convalescent plasma to see if it works. They've got to do a lot more testing.
Dr. Hahn said, Dr. Hahn of the FDA himself said, I'm looking at my notes, this is not the same as approval. We are still collecting data. So when the president says this has nothing to do with politics, this is life or death. What's your reaction to that?
GUPTA: Well, You know, it is one of those things where, you know, Dr. Hahn is well within his right. The FDA is well within their right to issue an Emergency Use Authorization. As you know and as Dr. Hahn mentioned, they have done it for other things. They did it for hydroxychloroquine, as you know, they subsequently rescinded that Emergency Use Authorization.
They have done it for therapeutics. They have done it for various types of test, coronavirus tests. I think that the idea that you could say -- I guess the question is this, Wolf. Can you say for sure right now that this stuff works?
I mean, there's a lot of promise around it. It's encouraging because of how it's behaved with other diseases so that's why you study it. You've got a lot of reasons to study it. I mean, that much is true. But then you want to get results of the studies to be able to make definitive statements like some of the ones you just heard.
I don't think you can see things definitively. People are going to take away this stuff, you know, cuts down mortality by 35 percent. I wish I could say that definitively but I don't think you can right new because that data, at least I haven't seen it.
People in the Coronavirus Task Force haven't seen it. So maybe the FDA is looking at new data that just came in over the last, you know, 24, 48 hours perhaps, and that would be great. But keep in mind as well, Wolf, once you issue the EUA, it becomes harder to collect data. It becomes harder to randomize people.
Who's going to say, hey, look, I want to go into a trial if I can just go ahead and get this stuff and I heard that it saves 35 percent of people who take it? Who's going to say I'd rather just be, you know, potentially in the placebo group? Nobody would say that, right, Wolf. That makes it harder to actually collect the data that is needed to get to that approval.
I know that this is nuanced. There's a lot baked into that, but this is hugely important, Wolf. What is happening is hugely important because this is going to come up again and again over the next few weeks and months especially with regards to a vaccine.
What is going to be the bar at which, you know, these Emergency Use Authorization are granted and are they going to be adequate?
BLITZER: Because they did say, Secretary Azar, that this convalescent plasma treatment now joins remdesivir and steroids. They are considered much more effective in dealing with this, at least for now.
[18:00:05]
Hydroxychloroquine was approved for emergency use, but then it was rescinded by the FDA, much of the president's dislike.
GUPTA: Right. So the way to, I think, sort of characterize this is that the quality of evidence around dexamethasone and remdesivir is a much higher quality of evidence. Those are randomized, prospective control trials, meaning that they said we're going to start this study and we're going to look going forward as opposed to looking at data backwards.
We are going to truly randomize people, either you're going to get the placebo or you're going to get the therapy. People don't know which they got oftentimes, and we are going to be controlled, meaning that, yes, you didn't get the plasma and steroids because that would make that group look better. We already know steroids can have a beneficial impact. We want to make sure the two groups are controlled, that they are exactly the same. The only distinguishing quality between the two groups is the convalescent plasma.
It is not clear to me at this point. We are thinking about this real- time, Wolf. And it's not clear to me that those types of studies, we haven't had clear evidence from those types of studies to say that this definitively works.
BLITZER: Yes, that's an important point. Sanjay, stand by. Once again, we want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. This is a special edition of THE SITUATION ROOM.
Jim Acosta is with us, our Chief White House Correspondent.
Jim, the president insisting this is a historic agreement, not necessarily hopefully it will turn out to be a historic agreement but the timing of this announcement, a day after the president was railing against what he called the deep state in the FDA and all of a sudden today, they announced this decision on convalescent plasma as very promising. It's going to raise a lot of questions, I assume.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, Wolf. And I think you heard the president say during this very brief news conference and I took three questions primarily from conservative friendly news outlets.
And at one point, he said during the press conference that he thinks that there might have been a hold-up at the FDA when it came to this decision on convalescent plasma and that they have broke the logjam, in his words.
And he essentially said in response to one question that he did think that political considerations were going on inside the FDA, holding up this emergency use authorization that was just announced a few moments ago.
Wolf, I think what we are seeing this evening in the White House briefing room is essentially the kickoff to the president's Republican Convention here at the White House. He obviously is aware that the public has deep misgivings about the way he's handled this coronavirus pandemic.
He has been desperate for an effective treatment for the coronavirus since the get-go. As you were just saying a few moments ago with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, there has been pressure put on the scientific and public health community to get on board with hydroxychloroquine, even though studies have shown that it's not an effective treatment for the coronavirus.
And the data, the reports were still coming in on convalescent plasma. It was not a case closed that this is some sort of breakthrough and I think what we are hearing from much of the public health and scientific community, infectious diseases community is that while there may be some promise in convalescent plasma, it is by no means a breakthrough.
And so you saw the president hyping once again what he hopes to be another remedy or treatment for the coronavirus. And I just think, Wolf, that what we're seeing here, and I tried to ask the question, as Dr. Hahn was leaving, Dr. Steve Hahn at the FDA, as he was leaving this briefing room, I tried to ask him, Dr. Hahn, was there political pressure put on you or others at the FDA to issue this emergency use authorization. I asked that question repeatedly as they were leaving the briefing room, he did not answer that question.
And so, yes, I think, Wolf, this raises all sorts of questions as to whether or not the president, once again, is trying to put out some sort of emergency miracle medical breakthrough when the data and the studies just don't indicate that as of yet. He is desperate obviously for some kind of solution to this coronavirus problem that he has when you can see in poll after poll after poll, there was polling just out today that two-thirds of the American people don't trust what the president has to say about the coronavirus.
And when you have the president of the United States in the White House briefing room standing with public health officials and insinuating that people at the FDA, for political reasons, are holding up the authorization of treatments for something as deadly as the coronavirus, something that killed 175,000 people in this country, obviously, it begs the question as to what the president is up to behind the scenes and is he leaning on the public health community?
I think he made it very clear a few moments ago that's exactly what he and other officials here at the White House have been doing. He said, I think there might have been a hold-up and we broke the logjam. When you say you broke the logjam. That obviously implies that you're applying pressure inside the FDA, as you were just mentioning a few moments ago.
He put out this tweet yesterday, a highly disturbing tweet, insinuating that people at the FDA are somehow part of the deep state.
[18:05:02]
There is no evidence for that. It is yet another conspiracy theory from a president whose back is against the wall on this COVID-19 issue, Wolf.
BLITZER: Yes. Yesterday, once again, the president's tweet, at the end of the tweet, he said, obviously, they, referring to experts at the Food and Drug Administration, are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. Must focus on speed and saving lives. And he's using the phrase, deep state. It's very worrisome.
I want to bring in Dr. Paul Offit, the Director of Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
Dr. Offit, you are an expert in this area. You heard what the president said, you heard what Dr. Hahn had to say, what Secretary Alex Azar had to say earlier in the week. The New York Times reported that Dr. Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins, the Head of NIH, Dr. Clifford Lane, another top official at NIH, were worried about a speedy approval because enough data had not yet been collected. What do you think?
DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR OF VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: Well, it certainly makes sense that if you administer some serum that has high levels of neutralizing antibodies against the virus and you do it early enough in the process, early, meaning when someone is still just mildly ill and the virus is still replicating or reproducing itself a lot, that it would make a difference, that make sense.
The trick is proving that it makes a difference, as Dr. Gupta said earlier, proving it. You have to prove that the plasma made a difference and all the data so far really haven't done that. And that's why it is that the FDA was loathe to approve the drug through EUA.
Now, we get an approval and the question is, are there more data that we haven't seen? If there were more data, you would think that they would have presented those data because it only makes their case better. By not presenting those new data, you wonder whether there really are any new data. And if there aren't, then what just happened, is that the administration just bullied the FDA into approving something that they were uncomfortable about approving, much as what happened with hydroxychloroquine, where they were bullied, frankly, to approve a drug that had never been shown to work and that we know not only didn't work but was harmful.
And what worries me the most in this is we have vaccines that are right around the corner. President Trump just mentioned vaccines and you get the sense that if the same thing happens there that we're willing to release a vaccine before there are clear evidence of safety, clear evidence of efficacy, that the American public, which is already skittish about vaccines, will only be further lose confidence. It's worrisome to me.
BLITZER: It's very worrisome. And, Dr. Offit, you have been an expert in this area, vaccines, therapeutics, for a long time. Have you ever seen this kind of political pressure put on the FDA, for example, to go ahead and approve, even on an emergency basis, a drug that may or may not work right now, it may be promising but by no means is certain?
OFFIT: Well, I'm in an FDA vaccine advisory committee, and I have spent a lot of time with people at the FDA and those people are exactly who you want them to be, which is to say, their job is protect the American people, to make sure that any drug or vaccine or biological that's released has been proven to be safe and proven to be effective.
And I think what's happening here is you're seeing bullying at least at the highest level of the FDA. And I'm sure that there are people at the FDA right now who are -- the workers there that are as upset about this as I am.
I don't -- I mean, it's fine to move things along quickly but you still have to hold these products to a level of -- a standard of safety and efficacy. That's the FDA's job. And I just worry that the FDA, like other science-based agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency or the National Weather Service, sort of get bullied to do what Donald Trump wants them to do and I think it's a dangerous game he plays.
BLITZER: And there is an example of hydroxychloroquine did have FDA emergency use authorization, but then they pulled it because of potentially very serious side effects, heart disease, lung disease, negative side effects, and the FDA pulled it, much to the dismay, as I said, of the president of the United States.
We don't know right now potential negative side effects, dangerous side effects to patients who are in hospitals suffering from COVID-19 who might get a convalescent plasma treatment. We don't know potentially what the side effects could be, do we?
OFFIT: No. I think it is likely that this is generally a safe product. But, you know, until something has been shown clearly to work, we shouldn't put it out there, because anything that has a positive effect can have a negative effect. It's true on all things in medicine, until I -- I do think that Donald Trump has this notion that when you are sick, that you can't hurt somebody. This whole sort of right to try notion (ph) is that if you're sick, you can't (INAUDIBLE), but that's not true. Hydroxychloroquine proved that. If something doesn't work and it kind of do nothing or hurt. Those are the only two options. And right now, the data are not clear that convalescent plasma at least as it's currently administered in this country, in these trials has worked.
BLITZER: Stand by. I want to bring in Chris Cillizza, who is looking very closely at the politics of all of this.
[18:10:00]
It comes on the eve of the start of the Republican National Convention. It's going to begin tomorrow night. The president, we're now told, is going to be speaking every single night, all four nights, of the Republican Convention.
He was looking for some really important news, some big news to set the scene and he made this announcement of what he's calling a historic agreement, a historic breakthrough.
CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Yes, Wolf, even before I heard Sanjay and the other experts talking about this, it struck me as a major coincidence that we had a major breakthrough Sunday night and the convention begins Monday night. There are no coincidences like that in politics, Wolf. It doesn't happen.
And so I think what Donald Trump needs, and Jim Acosta mentioned this, Donald Trump needs in this next four days to change the narrative. This election is about one thing, the coronavirus and his handling of it. A strong majority of the American public believes he is not handling it well.
How do you solve that problem if you're Donald Trump? You get a treatment or a vaccine to people sooner that they expect that is effective.
Now, again, the problem is that doctors you had on just talked about is we are not totally sure that this is that. I think we're going to go through the same thing with the vaccine, particularly if it comes up anywhere near November 3rd, Election Day, or close to it.
Donald Trump making promises about what it can do and doubts about it and whether it works, this is not coincidental. This is on purpose. This is Donald Trump trying to seed a narrative that he is solving a problem with the majority of the American public simply does not believe he has his arms around or really has an idea of how to solve it.
BLITZER: And it comes, and this is really awkward, a day after the president suggested there was a deep state, a deep state working against him for political reasons inside the Food and Drug Administration, trying to delay any kind of cures, therapeutics, vaccines until after November 3rd because they want the Democrats to win.
CILLIZZA: Let me just make a note for people who have questions about this. Remember the deep state that Donald Trump alleged in the Justice Department? That was run by his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Steve Hahn is the appointee of Donald Trump. Barack Obama didn't make these appointments to the FDA or Justice Department and the Interior Department, all these other places that Donald Trump has alleged deep state conspiracy. These are people he put in there.
So unless that it's really deep, Wolf, in a sense that they fooled him into believing they were for him, he picked them, this is all -- I mean, it breaks down, like a lot of Donald Trump's conspiracy theories, it breaks down with even a scintilla of digging, right?
What he is doing here is looking to play politics. Again, go back to the single most important thing. This is an election about the coronavirus and Donald Trump's handling of it. A majority of the American public does not believe he has handled it well and a majority of the American public believes Joe Biden would be better equipped to handle it than Donald Trump. The only way that you change that narrative is to either shift the blame, that this is all about politics, or you find a way to a vaccine or a treatment that is effective.
Now, Donald Trump's not a scientist, so he is not going to be able to come up with a vaccine. He is not going to be able to prove in a scientifically sound way that convalescent plasma is the right way to go in the same way that him talking about hydroxychloroquine 1,000 times doesn't make it true because he is not a scientist.
So he has a limited number of tools in his arsenal here, Wolf. This is one of them. But, again, I urge people, don't listen to me. Listen to the doctors you just had on, including Dr. Gupta, who say, maybe this works. It makes sense that it might work but we don't know yet. And why are we announcing something before we're certain of it? Because of politics, because the Republican National Convention happens tomorrow and Donald Trump needs some good news. There is just a direct correlation between those two announcements.
BLITZER: And let's not forget, over these six, seven months, what, almost 5.7 million Americans have been tested positive and suffering from coronavirus, more than 176,000 Americans have died.
Everybody stand by. There's a lot more we're following on all the breaking news as President Trump gets set for the Republican National Convention.
New secretly recorded comments from his older sister are now threatening to overshadow the event.
Plus, a radical conspiracy theory gets the attention it craves thanks to the president and some others in his party. I'll ask Congressman Adam Kinzinger about QAnon and the notoriety it is getting.
Much more on all the day's breaking news right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:15:00] BLITZER: Let's get to election politics right now. President Trump and his staff very accustomed to fending off what they consider political attacks. But this weekend, some very harsh words about the president emerged from someone in his immediate family, President Trump's own sister.
Let's get to the White House. Jeremy Diamond is joining us right now.
Jeremy, tell our viewers us how both the president and his political opponents are reacting to these very, very strong statements coming in from the president's older sister.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf.
Over the last week, listen, we have watched as the Democratic National Committee, we have watched prominent Democrats and even some Republicans trying to put character on the ballot, talking about President Trump in a way that they accuse him of being unfit for office, of being somebody who doesn't have any ideological or moral moorings, frankly.
And in this audio recording that we now have of this candid conversation by the president's older sister, she really describes the president in very similar terms, calling him cruel, calling him a liar, saying that he is somebody who has no principles.
And another thing that she did, Wolf, is she also appeared to confirm this account by the president's niece, Mary Trump, who has written a scathing book about the president in which she accused the president of having had somebody take his SAT exams for him.
[18:20:07]
Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARYANNE TRUMP BARRY, DONALD TRUMP'S SISTER: I mean, I didn't get him in but I know he didn't get into college. And he went to Fordham for one year. And then he got into University of Pennsylvania. I guess he had somebody take the exams.
MARY TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP'S NIECE: No way.
TRUMP-BARRY: And he --
TRUMP: He had somebody take his entrance exams?
TRUMP-BARRY: SAT, so whatever.
TRUMP: Yes. Oh, Jesus, you're kidding?
TRUMP-BARRY: That's what I believe. I even remember the name.
TRUMP: Oh, man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DIAMOND: And we did get some reaction today from Capitol Hill, as well as from the White House. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, called this heartbreaking that a family member would have that view of the president, in this case, of her brother. The White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, for his part, he said that it was a sad day to see this recording come out.
He also pointed out that he attended the president's -- the funeral service that the president held for his brother at the White House on Friday and he said that the president's love and compassion for his brother was evident.
Mark Meadows also rebutted the claim from the president's sister saying he simply does not read, insisting that he reads so much. Those were the words of the White House chief of staff.
And, of course, Wolf, we have seen many accounts that the president is not fond of his reading materials, he much rather prefers visual learning. Wolf?
BLITZER: Yes. And that one quote from what Maryanne Trump Barry, the retired federal judge, the older sister, 83 years old from New York said in this audio, this tape, what was recorded, all he wants to do is appeal to his base, he has no principles, none, none. And his base, I mean, my God, if you were religious person, you want to help people, not do this. And there are plenty more quotes like that. A very disturbing development indeed. She's, once again, 83 years old, so probably understandable why she didn't come to the funeral, come to Washington on Friday in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. Clearly, she's not a young person at all.
All right, Jeremy, standby, we're going to get back to you. There's a lot more news we're following.
Last week, the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, indicated the president would support a standalone bill to fund the U.S. Postal Service. Yesterday, the House passed just such a bill, approving $25 billion for the U.S. Postal Service. Today, Meadows said President Trump would only support Postal Service funding as part of a broader relief bill.
Republican Congressman from Illinois Adam Kinzinger is joining us right now. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. The bill passed overwhelming in the House yesterday. 26 of your fellow Republicans voted with the Democrats to approve the Postal Service funding, $25 billion, that the post office itself says it needs to continue working effectively. You've voted against it. Why?
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): So, I think, look, right now, the post office has about a $12 billion operating surplus. Once that goes below $8 billion, they have $10 billion available through the CARES Act that they can access. And I think at that point, when we see that we're kind of going towards the red, then it's appropriate to come forward.
What we did yesterday, quote honestly, was just Nancy Pelosi taking an issue that actually works well for the Democrats. I'd give it to them, they have played it well, and just throwing money at it. I think we have to do the right thing at the right time, not just playing politics with it. We need to do a broader CARES package again shoring up things like PPP, the unemployment checks, all that kind of stuff.
So when it comes to needing to get it done, we'll go get it done. But I think yesterday, just passing a $25 billion and using it as a talking point just wasn't the right way to govern. We've got used to spending a ton of money lately. I don't think that's ever an excuse to just go spend a ton money. We still have to be responsible to the next generation.
BLITZER: Are you with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, former Republican congressman, who says they would go along with $10 billion for the post office but once again only if it was part of a broader package? The post office itself, they said earlier this year they really need $25 billion.
KINZINGER: Yes. Well, look, I think if there was a standalone bill of $10 billion and it was needed now, I would absolutely vote for it. If the $25 billion was absolutely needed now, I would vote for it. What I don't want to do is, right now, when they have an operating surplus and they have $10 billion available to them, when their surplus drops below $8 billion, it's not the time.
I would love to do a broader package. If we can't get there in the negotiations because everything is political nowadays, then I'd absolutely vote for a standalone bill. But we've got to do it at the right time. Just going in, I think, throwing money and then just going back to the districts to say you did it, that has real implications in the future.
I support the post office. It is in the Constitution, in fact, but it also needs to do some reforms as well.
[18:25:01]
BLITZER: There's a new CBS News/YouGov poll that just came out that found 57 percent of Republicans say the number of U.S. deaths from coronavirus has been acceptable compared to 10 percent of Democrats. We have -- what -- getting closer and closer to 180,000 Americans dead from coronavirus, far more than any other developed nation. Why does the majority of the Republican Party right now seem to think that that's acceptable?
KINZINGER: Yes. I don't know. I mean, I certainly would say it's unacceptable. Of course, when we started this pandemic, the discussion was that there were going to be 2 million or 3 million dead. So this is, I guess, a terrible thing, it's not 2 and 3 million. And I think we need to do everything we can to continue to mitigate those deaths.
I don't know how the question was asked but I can tell you certainly would be in the 30-some percent that say it's unacceptable. There's a lot we have to do, a lot in therapeutics, a lot in the vaccine and we have to do our part to distance and wear masks so that we can get through this. We will get through it and we'll be able to look back and say not only did we learn some, we saved a lot of lives by taking those actions.
BLITZER: Yes. The University of Washington, the medical school, they estimate that if things go wrong the way they are right now, more than 300,000 Americans will have died from coronavirus by December 1st. That's not too far away. So it's something clearly has to be done.
Let's turn to another sensitive issue, and you've been outspoken to your credit on this, talking about the QAnon conspiracy theory, what the FBI says, is a potential domestic terror threat. A week ago, you called on Republican leader, including the president, to denounce QAnon. Since then, the president actually welcomed support from the QAnon followers. What's your reaction to that?
KINZINGER: It's disappointing. I mean, look, here is the danger with QAnon. It's not necessarily that there's going to be some attacks or anything. What happens though, you're always going to be conspiracy theories on the web. You can't do anything about that. And most of the time, you don't want to bring attention to it. But this has started to kind of creep into the mainstream.
And what QAnon does is it undermines people's faith in the very basics of representative democracy because they believe there's this Satan- worshipping pedophile cabal that's actually running government. If you believe that, then you start to think that your vote doesn't count, it doesn't matter and everybody wants to be heard. And that's when you cycle to the point of violence.
And I think it's incumbent on members of their own party to denounce conspiracy theories in their own party, because if I denounce a theory on the left they're not going to listen. If the left denounces some theory on the right, they're not going to listen. We have to protect basically the integrity of our party in that kind of stuff.
And so to the leaders in the party's credit, they've started to come out on this. I just think everybody needs to make it clear that this is very much a ludicrous theory.
BLITZER: We were showing the viewers some video of some conspiracy supporters in Hollywood making the case about this huge, huge plot which, of course, doesn't exist. Congressman Kinzinger, as usual, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for all your important work.
KINZINGER: You bet, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. The Gulf Coast is facing a nightmare prospect right now. Not one but two hurricanes in one week. Meteorologists say they have never seen anything like this before.
We have the latest forecast and all the day's major news coming up right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:32:50]
BLITZER: It was 15 years ago this week that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. We all remember that. Now Louisiana once again is bracing for not just one, but possibly two hurricanes. First up, Marco which strengthened from a tropical storm to a category one hurricane today, then there's Laura, also expected to strengthen to a hurricane before making landfall along the Gulf Coast later in the week.
Our meteorologist Tom Sater is joining us from the CNN Weather Center.
Tom, what's the latest on these two storms?
TOM SATER, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Well, a lot has changed, Wolf, since the 5:00 p.m. advisory from the National Hurricane Center. Let me explain what we were expecting a few hours ago compared to the newest advisory.
Marco, as you mentioned a category 1, was expected to make landfall tomorrow afternoon in the parishes of Louisiana as a category 1 hurricane. Followed by 48 hours later, Laura which is a tropical storm, to get up to maybe a strong category 2 hurricane. This is still going to be the case with Laura but things have changed now with Marco.
We do believe we're running into an area, an environment with sheer. Winds come across these systems. They want to break them down. If Marco can contain its status as a category 1 landfall is still expected up in Louisiana tomorrow afternoon, late tomorrow afternoon. But getting into this dry air now it seems that Marco in the models they're showing, it wants to fade away somewhat, lose strength, and then stay offshore possibly, drifting westward. It could even fizzle out possibly.
We're still going to see our warnings in red, our hurricane warnings. So there's evacuation orders for Plaquemines Parish, Grand Isle. Warnings have been issued now more westward. This is all for Marco. We're still going to see four to six in storm surges, just like Isaias three weeks on the East Coast. But again, if it starts to lose strength, it's still going to add some rainfall to this area and then Laura moves in on the Texas-Louisiana border.
Laura has been devastating parts of the Dominican Republic. The video coming out of the flash flooding and the homes destroyed is amazing. Over half million without power, water rescues in Port-au-Prince. Looks like Laura may stay from the mountains of Cuba, stay in the warm water, therefore it remains quite strong, warnings are in effect, but as it makes its way across the warmer waters, Wolf, it could reach strong category 2. Is it possible to become a major hurricane, category 3? Yes.
[18:35:07]
Quickly for you, the paths intersect somewhat. New Orleans is no longer in the cone of uncertainty as rain stays mainly to the south offshore. Houston is in both cones. Lafayette, Louisiana, St. Charles as well. Again, still looking at late Wednesday for Laura but let's cross our fingers and hope that Marco stays just offshore and starts to lose its strength because this is going to be devastating back to back. Not many had this on their 2020 bingo card this year.
BLITZER: Yes. And it's amazing exactly 15 years after Katrina did the enormous damage that it did do. All right. We're going to stay in very close touch, Tom, with you.
SATER: Right.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Tom Sater. Giving us the latest forecast.
As we're learning new details right now about who will be speaking at next week's Republican National Convention this coming week, starts tomorrow night, new secretly recorded comments from the president's sister are threatening to overshadow the event. We have that and all the day's news right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:08]
BLITZER: Truly stunning new recordings which were first obtained by "The Washington Post" reveal President Trump's older sister Maryanne Trump Barry trashing her brother, calling him cruel, someone who's accomplished very little and is only out for himself. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARYANNE TRUMP BARRY, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SISTER: This goddam tweet and the lying, oh, my God, I'm talking too freely but, you know. The change of stories, the lack of preparation, the lying, the -- holy shit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Her comments were secretly recorded by President Trump's niece Mary Trump without Barry's knowledge, and Mary Trump has made it clear in a recent best-selling book that she has major, major differences with her uncle.
The president has since responded and wrote, in part, quote, "Every day it's something else. Who cares?"
Our senior commentator, former Republican governor of Ohio, John Kasich, is joining us right now.
Governor, thanks so much for joining us. How revealing is it to hear the president's own older sister, a retired federal judge, highly respected, 83 years old, he's 74 years old, talk about the president in this way?
JOHN KASICH, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, Wolf, I actually think that people are so dug in, I think, you know, for those that don't like Trump they're going to go, did you see that? And for those that like Trump they just dismiss anything. You know, it's amazing to me. I'll just give you an example. Whenever he has been, you know, put women down, you know, the things
that he said about Kamala, like nasty woman and mad woman and all that stuff, you know, normally people would just -- they would say, now that's terrible, but his people just don't care.
They just don't. I mean, it is absolutely amazing to me. So I think this, you know, kind of damages the beginning of what they're doing here which doesn't make me happy. You want to see them have a decent convention and all that, but I'm not convinced it will make any difference. It will probably be played a lot, it's a lot of good sound there. But at the end, do I see people like flocking? No.
Two things, Wolf, that I think we're going to hear. One is they're going to paint the Democrats as very hard left and one mistake that I think the -- well, they didn't get everything right but Joe Biden needs to condemn this violence in our cities. You know? It's one thing to favor protesters. We all understand the power of protesting and we all appreciate it, we support it, but we do not support this kind of violence that is, you know, shutting cities down.
It is shutting small businesses down across this country. They need to speak out on this because I'm going to tell you, you're going to hear the Republicans talking about what's happening in these cities, and we are all united in the fact that violence has no place. It's just that Joe Biden better start talking about it.
BLITZER: So you think he made a mistake in not specifically making that point in his acceptance speech?
KASICH: Well, I think they should -- he should have talked about it. He doesn't have to -- you know, it's a big mistake then? Not necessarily. But he needs to be heard from on this. This is almost like Bill Clinton had a Sister Souljah minute. This is a time where Biden needs to make it clear, that protesting has been something that has changed America because it comes from the bottom up, that the people of this country demand change, and that change can be very good but there is no room for the violence.
John Lewis didn't believe in it, and of course the greatest reformer of all, Martin Luther King, you know, he sees the higher moral ground, as you know, Wolf, because he didn't respond with violence to violence. So I just think it's incumbent on everybody in this country particularly the Democrat nominee to be able to speak out forcefully on this issue of violence in these cities.
BLITZER: You're a Republican, you did speak in the Democratic National Convention. You endorsed Biden. What do you anticipate your fellow Republicans are going to do at their convention which starts tomorrow?
KASICH: Yes. Well, you're going to understand the power of incumbency. You know, when you have the president that can speak from the White House, can speak out there in the Rose Garden and be able to do all that, you know, the power of incumbency matters.
I can remember running, Wolf, that first election for Congress. I'm cruising along and I'm thinking this is going to be -- it's not going to be easy but I'm going to win. An old dog came to me and said, listen, John, it doesn't get started until the incumbent comes home. And that person was right.
And in terms of the president he's going to use the power of the incumbency and I think you're going to see, you know, a lot of things are great. I'm not sure that people will buy that, but there are also -- it'd be two ways. One, they're going to talk about how much they accomplished and secondly they're going to spend the other half the time trashing the Democrats and painting them as very far left-wing people.
And I think that the Democrats did a pretty good job in saying, oh, no, you can't say that about us, and I think Biden's speech of course was a homerun.
[18:45:02]
And we'll have to see how Donald Trump does. Does he stick to the script? He's going to speak every night. I mean, how's going to do? We're going to have to wait and see.
BLITZER: Yes, we'll find out tomorrow when the Republican convention begins.
Governor Kasich, as usual, thanks so much for joining us.
KASICH: Thanks, Wolf. Thank you.
BLITZER: So a former top adviser to President Trump is now facing criminal charges. Charges of fraud in connection with an involvement in a border wall fundraising campaign.
The former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, he's standing by live. We'll discuss when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:50:02]
BLITZER: New York federal prosecutors this week charged President Trump's former senior adviser Steve Bannon and three others with fraud. Prosecutors allege the men raised about $25 million through a fundraising campaign aimed at supporting President Trump's border wall, then used hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for their own expenses. Bannon pleaded not guilty. He was released on $5 million bail and now he's calling the entire arrest, in his words, a political hit job.
Our senior legal analyst, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District in New York, Preet Bharara, is joining us right now. He's also the host of a new and important podcast entitled "Stay Tuned with Preet."
So, Preet, let's talk about this. The evidence, you've gone through it. Does it refute, from your perspective, Bannon's claim that this was a political hit job? PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I mean, that allegation
gets made by anybody who is involved in any way in politics, Democratic or Republican, with respect to every prosecutor's office in the country. As I often said, you know, when I was U.S. attorney and after, I never got sent flowers and chocolates when we investigated and prosecuted someone. It's a convenient argument to make and say something as a political hit job. I don't think it holds water.
The Southern District is a particularly independent office. I have some parochial pride over that office. They have charged and arrested and prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans during my tenure and since. So I think it's a distraction from what the facts say. When you don't have the facts and law on your side, you have to make allegations about the prosecutors and the facts as allege in the complaint and the indictment, if they can be proven in a court of law, are devastating to Steve Bannon and the other three defendants.
BLITZER: Well, let's talk about the options that Steve Bannon might have. He could continue to plead not guilty and see what happens before a jury or he could perhaps decide to cooperate and try to get some sort of reduced sentence pleading guilty. The three other defendants potentially could do the same if they wanted to. How do you see this thing unfolding?
BHARARA: Look, it's an individual choice that everyone who gets ensnared in criminal conduct has to face. And some people decide they want to save their own skin and they cooperate. Sometimes it's not of any avail because they don't have substantial assistance they can provide to the prosecutors. And some people are just going to keep their mouths shut no matter what. No matter what.
We saw that with Roger Stone. Maybe he got a benefit from that, as people have argued with respect to the pardon. Steve Bannon is not in quite the same position as Roger Stone. In fact, the two men, as I understand it, don't like each other very much. You could have a scenario in which one or more of Bannon's co-defendants flip against him.
I'll note for folks that Steve Bannon, although he's the most famous and notorious member of this case, is not the lead defendant. The lead defendant is someone else who is, you know, much more at the sort of forefront of all of this. But Steve Bannon conspired with him as alleged in the indictment. It also could be true that Steve Bannon has information about other criminal conduct and conspiracies, whether it's against one of the president's relatives, one of the president's other associates, the president himself or something completely separate from all of this.
Steve Bannon has been in business in various forms for years and years and years, and you never know what kind of information he might have. Right now he and his lawyers are playing a very sort of loud and boisterous attack game against the Southern District of New York prosecutors and the government. But this is the -- you know, this is the Trump DOJ. Bill Barr has said -- I don't know the degree to which he was briefed, but Bill Barr has said he was aware of this before the arrest. I don't believe he's tried to stop it in any way so it's hard to make
the allegation he's making. But yes, he could flip on the president or someone else, true.
BLITZER: Because as you know, and you suggest, that maybe the president would want to get involved at some point, maybe after the election he commuted the prison sentence of his friend Roger Stone who was convicted of crimes including lying to Congress. Could the president step in, you know, on behalf of Steve Bannon who worked on his campaign, worked in the White House with him at the same time?
BHARARA: Well, you know, it's hard to sort of read the tea leaves with President Trump. The one thing that we know for sure is he's capable of anything. The other thing that I know we know is, although he doesn't care too much what people think, he didn't care so much when he fired Jim Comey, he didn't care so much when he commuted the sentence of Roger Stone over the objection of Bill Barr, with whom I have a lot of problems anyway.
But he does care a little bit. And even though it is legally and constitutionally permissible to pardon someone before they're convicted of something, I think in the case of Steve Bannon, especially when it has to do with these kinds of charges, it's not related to the president directly, it's not related to the campaign, it's not related to national security, it relates to basically bilking people who didn't have a lot of money who were contributing to a particular cause whether you like it or not.
And even for President Trump, in advance of the case being, you know, really playing out in court and there being a trial and some process, even for Trump it's a particularly bad look. And I guess we'll have to see where we are in the process at the end of the year.
[18:55:01]
If the president does not get re-elected, then, you know, anything is possible and if he does get re-elected, then he has some more time to figure out how he wants to deal with this case.
BLITZER: Preet, thanks very much. And to our viewers once again, check out his new podcast, "Stay Tuned with Preet." I think you will enjoy and learn in the process.
Preet, thank you once again.
We have another quick programming note for our viewers. Later tonight at 11:00 p.m. Eastern, make sure you tune into the CNN special report "DONALD TRUMP'S CONSPIRACY THEORIES" right here on CNN.
A day after suggesting his own FDA chief was part of the deep state operation set on derailing his re-election, President Trump is now hailing that agency's move to allow a new treatment for the coronavirus. We have details. That's coming up.
Stay with us. You're in The SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
