Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Historic Fight Looms As Senate GOP Vows Vote On Trump's Nominee; GOP's Graham Has Vowed Senate Wouldn't Vote In Election Year On SCOTUS; Ginsburg's Death Throws Chaotic Election Into More Turmoil; E-mails Show Top HHS Official And Trump Ally Intimidating CDC Official. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired September 19, 2020 - 11:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:59:50]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Anderson Cooper.

Thanks for joining us for our special coverage.

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now setting up a historic fight on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was quick to announce last night that he would bring President Trump's nominee to replace Justice Ginsburg to the floor for a vote.

That went against, of course, what McConnell actually did in 2016 when he blocked President Obama's nominee because it was in an election year.

We're just getting our first look at what the president's thinking is about the path forward. Our senior Washington correspondent Joe Johns is at the White House.

So the president has urged Republicans to fill the seat.

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's pretty clear. And you know what, this is the first time over the past 12 -- 18 hours where the president has really weighed in on this issue of replacing Justice Ginsburg.

He and his administration have been very careful to try to maintain decorum over this, but now the president has weighed in. What he says in a tweet is, "We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us the most important of which has been long considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court justices. We have this obligation," he writes, "without delay."

So, what does without delay mean? It certainly means the president is interested in beginning the process of replacing Justice Ginsburg. We know from our reporting here, my colleague Kevin Liptak at CNN says he's been told that the president could start interviewing possible candidates for nominee as associate justice as early as next week. So, that at least would be beginning of the process. After that, of course, the nomination and then at the very least would move to the question of hearings up on Capitol Hill, confirmation hearings.

So who is in play? Well, I did hear from the last hour you talked a little bit about Amy Coney Barrett. She, of course, is an appellate judge out in Indiana, about 46 years old and very popular with social and religious conservatives.

She was one of the clerks for Antonin Scalia who, of course, is revered, if you will, by social conservatives. And that's very important to this administration, especially given the fact that social conservatives, religious conservatives have been pushing so long to try to overturn Roe versus Wade and that line of cases that legalized abortion.

So, there's also that question of what would the timetable for an actual vote be. And even Democrats up on Capitol Hill tell me that as far as they're concerned they do see that Republicans have an advantage to starting the process, getting a name out there, getting confirmation hearings going. But the question is whether they actually hold a vote.

That's a very important question because there are a number of Republicans who are in danger out in the country running for re- election in the United States Senate. And the question is how would a fight over getting a new nominee through affect their reelection chances. So that's something in the future.

COOPER: Yes.

JOHNS: But the president for his part saying, hey, I want to get this thing going, Anderson.

COOPER: There's also an argument, Joe, that if the president was to push to wait until after the election and wait until the lame duck session that the motivation -- it might motivate his voters to go to the polls in order to move forward so that he would be the president and would get this nominee.

JOHNS: Absolutely. That's sort of the carrot and stick argument, if you will, to dangle the name out there or dangle the idea of having another Supreme Court justice who is conservative, just like the president's base, but not fully moving forward as an inducement to get those voters to the polls. So that debate is going to continue here at the White House and up on Capitol Hill.

But what's pretty clear is, at least they want to get moving. The president has a long list of names besides Amy Coney Barrett to consider. And we would like to see who is walking in and trying to sit down with the president to talk about the job, Anderson.

COOPER: Yes. Joe Johns. Joe, thanks. Appreciate it.

It's worth pointing out here that this is not unprecedented. Supreme Court justice passed away in the last few months of President Obama's time in office. The difference now is how Senate Republicans are responding. This is also much closer to the election than in that case.

You heard that majority leader Mitch McConnell is promising full support to whenever President Trump decides on a nomination. Republicans were saying something completely different in 2016.

Just take a listen to some of them here, particularly Senator Lindsey Graham who said then strongly that election season is no time to fill a Supreme Court position.

[11:04:49]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. And you could use my words against me and you would be absolutely right.

We're setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year, at least of a lame duck eight-year term, I would say it's going to be a four-year term, that you're not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court based on what we're doing here today. That's going to be the new rule.

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country. So, of course, of course the American people should have a say in the court's direction.

SENATOR MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): I don't think we should be moving forward on a nominee in the last year of this president's term. I would say that if it was a Republican president.

SENATOR TED CRUZ (R-TX): President Obama is eager to appoint Justice Scalia's replacement this year. But do you know in the last 80 years we have not once has the senate confirmed a nomination made in an election year and now is no year to start.

This is for the people to decide. I intend to make 2016 a referendum on the U.S. Supreme Court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Joining me now is Melanie Zanona, congressional reporter for Politico. Thanks so much for being with us. What are you hearing from Republicans on McConnell's push for a quick vote?

MELANIE ZANONA, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, there's sort of two schools of thinking here. One they could do it in the lame duck session. That would (INAUDIBLE) let the GOP use this as sort of a motivating factor on Election Day.

But then there's this other school of thought where they need to do it as quickly as possible and that's because GOP sources that I talked to said they don't know that moderate Republicans will feel comfortable supporting a Trump nominee if he loses the White House.

Another potential curveball scenario, Anderson, that I want to sort of put out there for your viewers is that Democrat Mark Kelly in Arizona is running in a special election. So if he wins in November, he would actually potentially be confirmed early which would make McConnell's majority even slimmer. So that could be another incentive to get it done as quickly as possible.

Of course, Trump has already tweeted this morning saying we need to move forward without delay. I do suspect McConnell will move forward at least getting the ball rolling on the process as soon as possible.

But these things do take time. There's confirmation hearings. There's a vetting process. There's background checks. But it's going to be a real battle and real war zone on Capitol Hill in the coming weeks.

COOPER: Given the stakes here, it seems -- you know, I mean I know everybody says it takes time and there's forms to fill out. It just seems like all of that could be rushed given the motivation that Republicans have to do this?

ZANONA: Of course. You've absolutely right. If they want to get it done, they can get it done although there's a big caveat here that if Mitch McConnell has the Republican vote. Keep in mind he can only lose three Republicans to get this over the finish line. So if he doesn't have the votes before Election Day, if it's something that's easier, I think he would have to wait until the lame duck session.

It's going to come down to the math here. Some of the senators we are keeping an eye on are Susan Collins of Maine. She's in a really tough reelection race. Her support for Kavanaugh has become a major issue as well as Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Both of them have said on the record, including (INAUDIBLE) that they wouldn't support filling a vacancy if it came up during a presidential election.

So it's going to get real interesting on Capitol Hill. We're also watching Mitt Romney who has no loyalty to the president. So it's going to be a discussion (ph) and a tough decision for some of these Republicans up for reelection.

COOPER: Yes. Melanie Zanona, I appreciate it. Thanks very much.

Joining me now is CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic. Putting aside 2016, Joan, what's the precedent on election year Supreme Court nominations?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANLAYST: You know, I remember so vividly, Anderson, February 13, 2016 when Justice Scalia died and within an hour of the announcement being public, Mitch McConnell laid down what became the law that President Obama was not going to get his appointment to the Supreme Court during that final year. It was 11 months. And that's exactly what he's done here.

So it's going to be a real test of Mitch McConnell's will. And the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as you know, she had definite views about President Trump. She had definite views of the confirmation process. There were times when progressives, liberal Democrats tried to pressure her to leave the court. And she said to me, who are they going to get in this atmosphere who will be as liberal as I am.

So, we've got a completely flipped scenario in the hands of Mitch McConnell and just as we say at the Supreme Court that it comes down to five votes for majority, here in the Senate it will come down to whether he can hold his majority for the action it appears he's going to try to take.

[11:09:51]

COOPER: You know, we were just talking about the timing of all this. I mean normally the process of putting someone on the Supreme Court does take longer than 45 days, which is what we have until Election Day. What does it mean to the court to try and hurry the process? What would that entail?

BISKUPIC: Well, you're right about the dates, the timing. Usually it's around 100 days from nomination to confirmation. So, we have got a couple different calendars that are -- three different calendars intersecting, you know, just the timing of how long it would take for a name to be put up -- and I'm sure the Trump administration is ready to do that shortly -- for name to be put up and then the Senate to act through hearings and through floor debate and ultimate confirmation.

But then you also have the election calendar superimposed on that and you have the court calendar. The Supreme Court will start on the first Monday in October. But even before then, Anderson, it faces so many emergency requests relative to election procedures in the states, relative to COVID-19 precautions. There are emergency petitions pending up there right now.

So, there are intersecting urgencies here. And typically, typically in a normal year, a normal time, it would take, as I say, about 100 days from start to finish. But between the will of President Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, they might just speed things along.

Now, they're going to have to have -- I'm stepping out of my usual legal analysis to talk about some of the political calculations. Will an open seat with a nominee pending -- will that help him on November 3rd or is it better for him to get it done?

COOPER: Right.

BISKUPIC: I'm sure they're factoring all that out.

But for the Supreme Court's part, for those who have -- who are surviving this terrible loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg at this time, I think they're going to try to just take it one case at a time, handle these emergency petitions as they come and try to bring some normalcy to a Supreme Court with only eight.

And I'll remind you, Anderson, and our viewers that back in 2016 into 2017, the court went more than 400 days with only eight justices. It can be done. It's complicated and difficult. But it can be done.

COOPER: If the president succeeds with seating somebody, what does it mean for the fate of Obama care?

BISKUPIC: Oh, man. You know, right now that case -- the third challenge, major challenge, to President Obama's signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, is before the justices to be heard the second week in November right after the election.

The two prior times, Chief Justice John Roberts cast votes that ensured that it would be upheld. He's still there. But you no longer have a majority. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in the majority when it was 5-4 in 2012 and 6-3 in 2015 to uphold Obama care. And the other person who formed the six-justice majority in the latter case was Anthony Kennedy. And he's gone, too.

So just looking at the numbers and the personnel the fate of Obama care suddenly, suddenly is really in doubt in a way that it wasn't before because there was a strong majority that said, come on. You know, don't try to do legally Republicans what you can't do legislatively. We're not going to do your work for you. And we're certainly not going to try to sink the whole thing.

And that's been John Roberts' position before and I'm sure it would be John Roberts' position now. It's just will he have a majority to sustain it.

COOPER: Right. The other factor is the election. And if the Supreme Court -- if Republicans are concerned that it may be up to the Supreme Court to sort of make decisions on the results of the election, would they want to try to get another conservative justice on the court before the election?

BISKUPIC: Well, that -- you know, that could be in the calculation for Republicans. The Bush v. Gore case of 20 years ago came down to a single vote, and it was along ideological, if not political, lines. Everybody is -- that case haunts this current election.

And with eight justices and essentially a 5-3 conservative majority, and even if John Roberts trying to preserve the integrity of the institution, which is a major concern of his, would vote with liberals, it would still be 4-4. So whatever happened in a lower court for or against President Donald Trump and for or against former vice president Joe Biden would stand.

So, I think the justice -- I actually think the justices will have an easier time of handling something if and when it comes to them. It's all this lead-up where we're just not certain what would happen.

COOPER: Yes.

[11:14:53]

BISKUPIC: So, I don't think we're going to hear a plea from John Roberts to hurry up and get a ninth person there. I definitely do not think we'll hear that. He never spoke out publicly on behalf of Merrick Garland in 2016 and I do not anticipate him speaking out publicly about how the Senate should handle this vacancy.

COOPER: Yes. I mean, it's just fascinating the number of issues that the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg now has raised.

Joan Biskupic, appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Senator Lindsey Graham back in 2016 told the judiciary committee to use his words against him if he allows a Supreme Court nominee to go through the confirmation process during election year.

Coming up the one who would most likely try to use his words against him, his senate challenger ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:19:47]

COOPER: I want you to use my words against me. That is verbatim what Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said to do if he ever moved to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. Well, here are those words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election. And I've got a pretty good chance of being the judiciary --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're on the record.

GRAHAM: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.

GRAHAM: Hold the tape.

I want you to use my words against me.

If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination and you could use my words against me and you would be absolutely right.

We're setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year, at least of a lame duck eight-year term -- I would say it's going to be a four-year term -- that you're not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court based on what we're doing here today.

Merrick Garland was a different situation. You had the president of one party nominating and you had the Senate in the hands of the other party. A situation where you've got both would be different.

I don't want to speculate, but I think appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020.

If there is an opening, whether it's Ginsburg or anybody else, I will urge the president to nominate a qualified conservative and hopefully those people will get through. That person will get through. And I expect it to be along party lines.

And this is what happens when you change the rules. This has come back to bite them. I predicted it would. And we'll see. I hope Justice Ginsburg serves for a long time. But if there's an opening on this court, I'm going to be hell bent to put a conservative to replace whoever steps down for whatever reason.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Senator Graham is in a tough re-election race right now. His opponent Jaime Harrison joins us now. Mr. Harrison is also the associate chair and senior counsel for the Democratic National Committee.

Mr. Harrison, do you think Graham will go back on his previous words?

JAIME HARRISON, SENIOR COUNSEL, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Well, first of all, Anderson, let me give my condolences and that of my wife to Justice Ginsburg's family and friends. She will truly be missed. She was an American treasure. And my thoughts and prayers to her family.

You know, my grandfather taught me growing up here in South Carolina that a man is only as good -- is only as good as his word. And the question is what is Lindsey Graham's word worth? What is the value of that word?

You know, he said -- and you have played the tape -- he has stated on a number of occasions that in the fourth year of a term in an election year that a president's judicial nominee should not be considered, should not be voted on. And that he would not vote on it.

So the question is, is he going to keep his promise to the American people? And he said, use his words --

COOPER: Do you believe he will?

HARRISON: Listen, we have come to see that Lindsey Graham's word has not been very valuable over the past few years. And so, in the end of the day I think the people of South Carolina is going to make a judgment on whether or not this the type of person that they want to represent them.

COOPER: In South Carolina won't a Supreme Court vacancy inspire conservatives there like it did in 2016?

HARRISON: Well, you know what, South Carolina is strong on standards and rule of law. And so, we believe that that's what makes this country, our democracy great.

But when we start to change and make modifications to those rules and to those standards, then we lose something as a nation.

And right now Lindsey Graham made a promise. Listen, in the end of the day, let's have this election. And, you know, Donald Trump wins, then we will -- the Senate should take up his nominee and duly consider and pass that on. If Joe Biden wins, the same thing should happen.

But we are 40-some odd days away from an election when Lindsey Graham said and so many of his colleagues said, that we have a new precedent. And that was established by them. That we would not consider these nominees in an election year.

And I think we need to keep that promise and let the American people make a decision on who should be the next president and who should -- and who should vote on that nominee.

COOPER: You talk critically about changing rules and standards just a second ago. There are some Democrats who are saying, well, if the Republicans go ahead and do this and a vice president Biden becomes president that -- and Democrats take the Senate, Democrats should try to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Is that something you would support?

[11:24:52[

HARRISON: Well, that's a lot of ifs, ands and butts, Anderson. I'm focused on the folks here in South Carolina. You know, again, let's get over this first step.

Will the Senate undo their precedent? Will they undo the rule of law that was established in the United States Senate and do something that they all claimed should not happen?

They're going to have to make that determination. And then what happens after the election the American people will determine what the ramifications of those actions really look like.

Jaime Harrison, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

HARRISON: Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: Just before her death Ruth Bader Ginsburg told her granddaughter her wish was that a new Supreme Court justice would not be installed until after the election. President Trump certainly shows no signs of slowing down the process.

Plus, one wild card in all this, Senator Kamala Harris. She sits on the Judiciary Committee which would be questioning the president's nominee.

[11:25:48]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Forty-five days until the most chaotic election most of us have ever seen and the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just adds fuel to the political fire.

Justice Ginsburg also made sure to leave her last request with her granddaughter telling here, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

Joining me now CNN Political Commentator, Jess McIntosh, former director of communications outreach for the Hillary Clinton campaign, and CNN political commentator Scott Jennings, former special assistant to President George W. Bush.

Scott, you know Majority Leader Mitch McConnell very well. How do you see this playing out?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, number one, I don't think he's going to put up with any crocodile tears from the Democrats about not filling the seat. So obviously his statement this weekend lays out that he thinks there should be a nominee and there should be a vote. So that's number one.

Number two, I think the timing on all this, Anderson, is really vague. I think there's plenty of time between now and the end of the year, a lot of people are focused on whether it would become before or after Election Day. But I think that's really unknown at the moment.

And number three, I think the White House and the Republicans have a number of highly qualified people to put forward that most of the Republican senators would be very excited about.

So, I think the Republicans are moving ahead. I think the president's moving and they intend to see the process through.

COOPER: Scott, you talk about crocodile tears of the Democrats. You know, you heard Lindsey Graham, you know what he had said previously in 2016 and said, you know, play the tape. Is it not hypocritical to have argued for in favor of what the Republicans in 2016 and then to claim it's ok now to push forward to appoint a new justice?

JENNINGS: Well, first of all, on the McConnell precedent that he laid out, a lot of people conveniently leave out the part about which party controls which chamber. In that particular case, you had two different parties in control of the White House and the Senate.

In this case you have unified control which was reaffirmed by the voters in 2018. So it's a different situation. A lot of Democrats like to leave that out. But that was the McConnell rule which was previously the Biden rule.

Secondly on Lindsey Graham, he's in a close race in South Carolina. And I would just say that Donald Trump's pretty popular down there. And the idea that he would not move forward with Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court would not sit well with the conservative voters of South Carolina.

So I think a lot of people are assuming that he's going to be knotted up by some previous statement, but there's a lot of Trump supporters down there that would be really unhappy if he were to put the brakes on this.

COOPER: Jess, I mean the president is laser-focused obviously on his reelection. What do you make of the chances that the Republicans are going to move forward before the election?

JESS MCINTOSH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, any time we're expecting Republicans to stand on principle and do the right thing for democracy in America, we are disappointed. And I would imagine that that will be the case here.

It is up to Democrats, Democrats in the senate, Democrats on the streets, to make as large a noise as possible to stop this from going through. I don't know that we'll be able to do it. I do know that we'll be able to vote. And we are seeing record turnout already in just in a couple of days that a couple of states have had early voting.

I think that's the way to save our democracy at this point. We're very much in danger of falling farther into a minority rule that gets cemented over and we're unable to get out of it.

This is sort of our last chance. And I think we were all feeling the urgency before last night, now I don't even have a word for what we're feeling. But I know that people are motivated to save our country.

COOPER: Yes. I mean Scott, it motivates on both sides of the political aisle.

JENNINGS: No question. Look, pro-life conservatives out there who were recalcitrant frankly and nervous about Donald Trump in 2016, they ultimately came home to his campaign because of the Supreme Court vacancy. And now you have another Supreme Court vacancy.

And by the way, Democrats were already making noise about expanding and packing the Supreme Court with even more non-pro life justices. And so, I actually don't look at this through the lens of there being one vacancy. There could be as many as five vacancies if the Democrats have their way and, of course, the people that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would put up would not be people that would be approved of by pro-life conservatives out there.

So I do think -- I agree with Jess. There's going to be a lot of voter motivation on both sides. And the previous time this happened, 2016, it inured to Donald Trump's benefit.

COOPER: Jess, one wild card -- I mean Kamala Harris sits on the judiciary committee. So potentially she could be questioning a nominee as a vice presidential pick?

[11:34:50]

MCINTOSH: And she is very, very good at that. I would like folks to remember what Kamala Harris on the judiciary committee was capable of doing with, say, a Jeff Sessions. I don't think that these hearings are going to go the way that Republicans are hoping that they will.

I think they are going to face incredibly tough questions. We are talking about a president who has been impeached, a president who did not win the popular vote and a president who has presided over the deaths of 200,000 Americans. COOPER: But tough questions, I mean does that matter?

MCINTOSH: I don't think very many Americans want that man deciding what is going to set policy for the next generation.

COOPER: Right. But I mean a tough hearing doesn't really amount to much. You know, the process still moves forward, no?

MCINTOSH: That's why it's so frightening. I think we can do every -- everybody needs to do whatever they have in their power. Kamala Harris has a lot of power and a lot of talent. And I would expect her to use it.

COOPER: Jess McIntosh, Scott Jennings, appreciate it. Thanks.

From Justice Ginsburg, the Notorious RBG, the woman behind the name was full of surprises like working out with comedian Stephen Colbert. Well have more on her life and legacy after this short break.

[11:35:59]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Today we're reflecting on the life and legacy of someone who served in the highest court in the United States for nearly three decades, only the second woman in American history to do that. Her legendary and historic legal career aside, Ruth Bader Ginsburg watched her husband of 56 years die of cancer and fought cancer herself three times, scheduling chemotherapy around oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. And through it all Notorious RBG, as she became known as refused to take herself too seriously.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

RUTH BADER GINSBURG, FORMER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: I would never, never exercise to that noise.

Let's shut it. Let's shut it off.

STEPHEN COLBERT, TV HOST: Do you ever listen to anything a little more exciting like the sound of rain?

Am I doing this right right now?

How strong are you on the Second Amendment because welcome to the gun show -- boom, boom, boom?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why are you on your knees?

COLBERT: What? I'm cramping and I'm working out with an 85-year-old woman.

Can I ask you a question and I want you to give me an honest answer. Are you juicing? GINSBURG: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Irin Carmon -- is she juicing -- Irin Carmon is here. She writes for "New York Magazine", also co-authored the book "Notorious RBG: the life and times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg".

Irin, thanks so much for being with us. This woman you spent so much time with her both professionally and in your personal life as well. What was she like?

IRIN CARMON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know, Anderson, as much as she was this dignified, serious, brilliant jurist, somebody who had been a flaming feminist litigator as she liked to put it, somebody who is a giant in the law, she was also a human being.

And she was so generous to the people in her life and to the public in showing herself in more informal ways. I mean you just showed that clip with Steven Colbert. How many Supreme Court justices would have kind of the -- you know, just the wherewithal to do something like that because they want to connect with the public that is so interested in her.

She had a beautiful marriage of over 50 years that modelled gender equality at a time where there really was no role model for that. And she was somebody that I looked up to professionally in terms of the integrity and thoughtfulness and innovativeness that she brought to all of her work. But she was also someone who modelled that personally and that inspired not just me but millions of people.

COOPER: You know, I mean -- before she was on the Supreme Court, she argued cases before the Supreme Court or worked on cases that were argued before the Supreme Court. And it's so fascinating because, you know, it's hard to kind of imagine it now, but back then she had to kind of move the justices and kind of open their minds to an expansion of sort of understanding the role of women in society and how laws that were in place that were supposed to be helping women maybe actually were -- well, not even maybe -- were actually keeping them in a subservient, unequal position.

CARMON: Right, Anderson. So picture this tiny little woman and she's standing in front of nine male justices, one of them a civil rights hero, Thurgood Marshall. But many of the rest of them she talked about how they believed themselves to be good husbands and to be benevolent and they didn't think that the lack of constitutional recognition for gender equality was a problem because my wife, you know, has it great. She doesn't have to serve on a jury. She can be at home all day.

They failed to recognize the fact that gender constraints in the law harmed everybody. And she actually convinced them step by step. She had a brilliant legal mind and she did it in an incredibly innovative way.

She actually -- even though she was the cofounder of the ACLU Women's Rights Project she actually represented a series of men before the Supreme Court. And I think it's actually one of the reasons that her cases ended up becoming relevant to the cause of LGBT rights and later became cited in some of the court's major decisions on that because what she was actually arguing was that the law couldn't tell a man how to be a man and couldn't tell a woman how to be a woman but that each individual had to reach their potential regardless of the role that gender and society imposed on them.

[11:44:53]

COOPER: Yes. Because there were all these laws sort of based on notions that -- there was one I think in Idaho, there was an Idaho law that -- which I think was the first one she argued which was that men got favored -- were more likely to be picked -- or got special dispensation, I guess, to represent estates because it was based on the idea that men had more business experience.

CARMON: Yes. And you know, Anderson, we're used to the idea that women are knocking on doors of rooms that were occupied by men. And she certainly worked on cases like that that made assumptions that men were more suited to public life or to politics. But she also represented men who wanted to be parents or who wanted to take care of their elderly parents and who the law didn't recognize.

I mean some of the Supreme Court justices at the time they couldn't believe some of these men, men like Stephen Wiesenfeld (ph). They wanted to be the primary caretaker for their child. And because she in her own life had a true partnership both as a parent and at home and at work, she could actually have the imagination to say, in fact, let each person fulfill their destiny. Whether that's a woman who is working -- is a service member in the military, whether that's a woman who is just as qualified to be an administrator of an estate, or a man who is sort of dispelling the stereotypes that men don't want to take care of children or elders.

COOPER: Irin Carmon, I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Coming up, as the U.S. nears 200,000 deaths from the coronavirus, new emails show how a close ally of President Trump and top Health and Human Services official intimidated a CDC official. Details on that next.

[11:46:32]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: A new report surfacing of the Trump administration manipulating the COVID-19 information coming from government agencies or at least attempting. This happening in the middle of a pandemic.

Just yesterday the CDC reversed controversial coronavirus testing guidance which previously said that people who didn't have symptoms or were exposed to an infected person do not necessarily need a test.

I want to discuss this with CNN medical analyst and emergency room physician Dr. Leana Wen. Dr. Wen, your reaction to the reports of political interference. DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: -- Extremely worrisome, Anderson.

because we're in the middle of a pandemic where our response thus far has already been hampered because of mixed messaging.

This entire confusion over CDC guidelines has caused a lot of people to not know what to do when actually the science is clear that asymptomatic people are the primary drivers of transmission. Symptomatic people should be staying home. And so asymptomatic individuals are the ones who are transmitting to others and not knowing it.

And now testing sites, providers, patients may be confused about what to do when, in fact, we should be making it clear that they should be tested. Everyone should be tested, including asymptomatic individuals at high risk.

And I also worry, Anderson, about the long-term damage that this type of political interference has done to the credibility of our top scientific institutions like the CDC which were previously known for their independence and scientific rigor. This could have lasting damage for many years to come.

COOPER: CNN has now seen emails that show Michael Caputo, who is head of communications for Health and Human Services Department -- or department who was obviously a Trump supporter attempting to -- an appointee -- attempting to intimidate a CDC communications official.

One email shared with CNN, Caputo confronts the CDC spokesperson for responding to a question from one of our reporters. Caputo wrote, "In what world did you think it was your job to announce an administration public service announcement campaign to CNN?

There was video of Caputo earlier discussing kind of a conspiracy theory on Facebook accusing CDC officials of sedition, saying that people were going to try to kill him.

How much damage do you think has been done to, you know, to HHS, to the FDA, to the CDC, not just the morale but the work with their legitimacy?

DR. WEN: A tremendous amount of damage has been done already. And I fear that much more is on the way. The sad thing is that we have some of the best scientists in the world working at these institutions who have dedicated their careers to doing this work.

These institutions are also regarded around the world as the places that we turn, especially in the middle of a pandemic for information like this. And now there is lasting damage that not only harms our response to COVID-19 but also it puts all the rest of the work that the CDC does at risk, too.

I mean there are local and state health departments that can no longer trust the guidance that's coming from the CDC. And the last thing that we need in the middle of a pandemic is this kind of distrust that unfortunately has been hampering our response all along. COOPER: I mean is that something one can get back? How do you get back

the -- the government scientists back on track, working to stop or slow the pandemic?

DR. WEN: It's going to be really hard at this point, and part of it is that the elected officials, the politicos have to get out of the way. They have to stand behind the scientists instead of undermining them.

And I'm not sure how much the administration at this point is able to do that. But that is the path back (ph). Let the scientists speak.

[11:54:52]

DR. WEN: Let public health lead this public health response. Make the data, for example, around vaccines. There are all kinds of people who are now distrusting the vaccine, who are not anti-vaxers or science skeptics but they're a afraid of political interference rather than scientific process drive the approval.

So make the data totally transparent. Let the scientists have the ability to brief the public directly and very critically stand behind the scientists, not constantly contradict and undermine them.

COOPER: Yes. Dr. Leana Wen, appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Just in, a potential showdown between the president and his party. We're getting now first reaction from Senator Lindsey Graham on the strategy going forward to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat after he spent the last few years saying the senate would not vote for a nominee during an election year.

[11:55:35]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)