Datasets:

karukas

/

mediasum-summary-matching

like 1

Interview With National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci; Trump Campaigns in Florida as Coronavirus Pandemic Escalates.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: In minutes, I'm going to talk to Dr. Fauci, as we wait for President Trump to depart the White House and perhaps talk to reporters, as he heads to a campaign rally in Florida tonight. It's the first of four Trump rallies this week, as President Trump continues to defy all public health guidance in stopping the spread of this deadly virus, astoundingly continuing to hold rallies, with no requirement of masks or distancing, rallies that we know have led to his very own supporters getting infected, and worse. This comes even in the wake of his own battle with coronavirus, in which he was able to get experimental drugs and treatment not available to those whom he is inviting into harm's way. President Trump, in an effort to secure his own political future, is putting the health and lives of his supporters at risk. And, as CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports, the president's physician has yet to say whether or not his client, his patient has tested negative for the virus.</s>KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After being sidelined from the campaign trail because of coronavirus, President Trump returns tonight with an outdoor rally in Florida. It'll be his first appearance outside Washington since testing positive. And, as his opponent is widening his lead, Trump is packing his schedule, with more rallies in Pennsylvania, Iowa and North Carolina this week alone. But questions remain unanswered about the president's condition.</s>QUESTION: Has the president tested negative for coronavirus?</s>COLLINS: White House officials won't say whether he's tested negative, and Trump's doctor hasn't taken questions from reporters in a week, leaving the president to spin his own health.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm immune for, I don't know, maybe a long time, or maybe a short time. It could be a lifetime. Nobody really knows. But I'm immune.</s>COLLINS: The science on immunity is still out, though CDC guidelines do say that those who had COVID-19 can be around others starting 10 days after their symptoms first appeared. And there are also still questions about whether the White House is taking COVID-19 seriously, after Chief of Staff Mark Meadows refused to answer questions when reporters asked him to keep his mask on inside today.</s>MARK MEADOWS, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Let me do this. Let me pull this away.</s>QUESTION: Yes. Pull away.</s>MEADOWS: And then, that way, I can take this off to talk.</s>QUESTION: No.</s>MEADOWS: Well, I'm more than 10 feet away. I'm not -- well, I'm not going to talk through a mask.</s>COLLINS: The president is returning to the trail, as Dr. Anthony Fauci says a new campaign ad that features him is misleading.</s>NARRATOR: President Trump tackled the virus head on, as leaders should.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more.</s>COLLINS: Dr. Fauci says that ad misrepresented what he said seven months ago.</s>FAUCI: I'm not the only one. There's a whole group of us that are doing that. It's every single day. So, I can't imagine that, under any circumstances, that anybody could be doing more.</s>COLLINS: Fauci told CNN in a statement he has never endorsed any political candidate and his comment was "taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials."</s>COLLINS: So, clearly, Jake, Dr. Fauci not happy with that ad. But we should talk about the president's campaign schedule. He's got at least four rallies this week. But we're told by campaign officials that he's been on their case to add more to his schedule, and they said to expect it to go up to two to three events per day soon. And we should note, his campaign manager, who tested positive for coronavirus 10 days ago, did tell reporters today he is back at the office, which he says is in compliance with those CDC guidelines -- Jake.</s>TAPPER: All right. Well, we're glad he's feeling better. Kaitlan Collins at the White House, thank you.</s>TAPPER: Here to discuss, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH, and a key member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Dr. Fauci, good to have you back. I do have to ask you about this Trump campaign advertisement where you're on camera saying -- quote -- "I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more." You quickly came out with a statement that noted that that sentence had been taken out of context. You were talking about the whole-of- government response, not President Trump. And, of course, you have never endorsed a presidential candidate in your five decades of public service. Should the Trump campaign take this ad down?</s>FAUCI: You know, I think so, Jake. I think it's really unfortunate and really disappointing that they did that. It's so clear that I'm not a political person. And I have never either, directly or indirectly, endorsed a political candidate. And to take a completely out-of-context statement and put it in which is obviously a political campaign ad, I thought was really very disappointing.</s>TAPPER: What would you say if I told you I heard that the Trump campaign was actually preparing to do another ad featuring you?</s>FAUCI: You know, that would be terrible. I mean, that would be outrageous, if they do that. In fact, that might actually come back to backfire on them. I hope they don't do that, because that's -- that would be kind of playing a game that we don't want to play. So, I hope they reconsider that, if, in fact, they are, indeed, considering doing that. I hope that they reconsider and not do that.</s>TAPPER: The -- let's talk about the pandemic, because, right now, President Trump is getting ready to leave for Florida. That's a state that has an 11 percent positivity rate. That's pretty high. Any minute, he's going to go there to hold an outdoor campaign rally. Now, you called the Rose Garden event two or so weeks ago a super- spreader event, no distancing, very few masks. We know that previous Trump rallies in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Minnesota have led to infections and illnesses, possibly even death. We know the Trump campaign does not require masks, they do not require distancing. As a public health matter, how worried are you about these rallies that the president is kicking off?</s>FAUCI: Yes, you know, Jake, I'm glad you used that word as a public health matter, because put aside all of the issues of what political implications a rally has, and just put that aside, and look at it purely in the context of public health. We know that that is asking for trouble when you do that. We have seen that, when you have situations of congregate settings, where there are a lot of people without masks, the data speak for themselves. It happens. And now is even more so a worse time to do that, because, when you look at what's going on in the United States, it's really very troublesome. A number of states right now are having increase in test positivity, states above the Sunbelt, states in the Sunbelt. If you look at the map with the color coding of cases and states that are going up, you see states in the Northwest and the Midwest, it's going in the wrong direction right now. So, if there's anything we should be doing, we should be doubling down in implementing the public health measures that we have been talking about for so long, which are keeping a distance, no crowds, wearing masks, washing hands, doing things outside, as opposed to inside, in order to get those numbers down. We're entering into the cool months of the fall and ultimately the cold months of the winter. And that's just a recipe of a real problem, if we don't get things under control before we get into that seasonal challenge.</s>TAPPER: President Trump says he's immune to the virus because he has survived it. His physician, Dr. Sean Conley, gave him the OK to travel. He says the president is no longer considered a transmission risk. Conley did not say the president has tested negative. Now, I know the CDC does not say that testing negative is required before somebody is allowed to travel and be around others. Can you explain that to us? Why not?</s>FAUCI: Well, it just goes to what's practical in the community. They have found that, if you are 10 days from the onset of symptoms, the chances are extraordinarily low that you are going to be transmissible, that you would be able to transmit it. If you really want to nail it down, you do a PCR test, and you show that the person has a level of virus that's not going to be transmitted. And that's what you can do sometimes. Whether they do that or not, that remains to be seen. But the president is -- would be well within the 10-day time frame of being nontransmissible.</s>TAPPER: What about him saying that he's immune because he has the viruses? Is the science conclusive on that yet?</s>FAUCI: Well, the problem with the word immune, I -- it means different things to different individuals, Jake. If he means that he's been infected, and, having been infected and recovered, that he will not get infected again, that's true for a limited period of time. What we do not know is how long that protection lasts. So, technically speaking, the fact that he has recovered, from an immunological standpoint, he has an immune response in him that very likely would protect him from being reinfected. But we have got to be careful about that, because we're starting to see a number of cases that are being reported of people who get reinfected, well-documented cases of people who were infected, after a relatively brief period of time, measured anywhere from weeks to several months, come back, get exposed, and get infected again. So, you really have to be careful, that you're not completely -- quote -- "immune."</s>TAPPER: I want to talk about this idea of, like, once you're past that 10-day period of showing symptoms, you're likely not contagious anymore. Given that there's so much we still don't know about this virus, would it not be better for those who have been infected -- I'm thinking right now specifically of Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who was maskless at the Supreme Court confirmation hearing today. He said that he got a -- he produced a letter showing that he's outside the 10 days, and the doctor gave him the all-clear. But I have to say, I don't know that I would feel comfortable sitting next to him so soon.</s>FAUCI: Right.</s>TAPPER: Wouldn't it -- in the name of being better to be safe than sorry, wouldn't it be better for President Trump, Senator Lee to wear masks and limit their exposure to others, even if they're past the 10 days?</s>FAUCI: Yes, I mean, as the better part of caution, I think that would be appropriate to do that. I mean, I certainly think, from a practical standpoint, I probably would do that myself, just to be extra careful. But the thing that you mentioned just a moment ago of doing an actual test to look for the level of virus and viral remnants would probably get people to be feeling much more comfortable about the lack of transmissibility. And they very well may do that to just go that extra step, to show that an individual, whoever that might be, the president or anybody else, a senator or anybody, to just go that extra step, in addition to the 10-day period, to show that the virus itself is not present in a form that would be transmissible.</s>TAPPER: We're going to squeeze in a quick break and have more with Dr. Fauci in just a few seconds. There's early data showing that classrooms do not appear to be the major spreaders of COVID-19 that experts once feared. I'll ask him about that. Plus, brand-new polls that show President Trump losing two states he won in 2016. We will talk about that with our polling guru. Stick around.

Study Says Estimated Cost of Pandemic in U.S. Will Be Over $16 Trillion; New COVID Cases in America Up 41 Percent from Last Month

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: In our NATIONAL LEAD today, experts estimate that the coronavirus pandemic will cost the United States a staggering $16 trillion. But the authors to the study say that's an optimistic assumption. They base their assessments on the outbreak being largely contained by next fall. But when you look at the situation today, the idea of a contained outbreak feels almost unthinkable. Right now 31 states are seeing cases rising and the United States is averaging almost 50,000 new cases every day as CNN's Erica Hill reports.</s>ERICA HILL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The numbers are not good. Nationwide we're adding an average of more than 49,000 new cases a day, up 41 percent from just last month.</s>DR PETER HOTEZ, PROFESSOR AND DEAN OF TROPICAL MEDICINE, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: We're predicting a pretty worrisome fall and winter.</s>HILL: New cases are surging in 31 states, more than a dozen posting their highest weekly averages for new daily cases. Seven states reporting their highest daily new case counts since the pandemic began.</s>DR. LEANA WEN, FORMER BALTIMORE HEALTH COMMISSIONER: These are extremely alarming trends and there should be warning bells going off around the country.</s>HILL: Hospitals especially in rural areas bracing.</s>DR. GEORGE MORRIS, PHYSICIAN VICE PRESIDENT, CENTRACARE: We have the beds, we have the people, but as we get more of these exposures, what's going to happen to our availability?</s>HILL: North Dakota, which leads the nation in cases per capita, has fewer than 20 ICU beds available.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People are continuing to operate kind of as they had before COVID even was here, and that's leading to a lot of our numbers increasing.</s>DR. THOMAS FRIEDEN, FORMER CDC DIRECTOR: Any time we ignore, minimize or underestimate this virus, we do so at our peril.</s>HILL: New research in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds a 20 percent increase in U.S. deaths from March to August, adding to the evidence that our current COVID death toll is likely an undercount.</s>FRIEDEN: If you died from COVID and you also had diabetes, you died from</s>COVID. HILL: As an influential model now projects, nearly 400,000 COVID- related deaths by February 1st. But if more Americans wore masks, that could change dramatically.</s>DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR, VACCINE EDUCATOR CENTER, AND PEDIATRICS PROFESSOR, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: If 95 percent of Americans wear a mask, we will prevent roughly 80,000 deaths over the next few months. I mean it's a remarkable statistic. Those are people. I mean if you saw those people, you would try and do something to prevent their deaths, but somehow, we just ignore it all.</s>HILL: The human toll is growing, both in lives lost and in lives forever changed.</s>DR. DEEPAK CHOPRA, CLINICAL PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO: People are going through different stages of grief, so some feel victimized, some are angry, some are hostile, some are resentful, some are helpless.</s>HILL: Researchers at NYU warning of a second wave of devastation. This one tied to mental health and substance abuse. The magnitude, they write, is likely to overwhelm the frayed mental health system. Of particular concern is essential workers including those on the front lines.</s>HILL: And, Jake, just another note on U.S. deaths, more research also published in JAMA today found that the U.S. death rate is high, even when you compare it to other countries that have high COVID-19 mortality rates. We're talking about France, Italy, the U.K., Spain. As for why the U.S. death rate is so high? Well, the authors noted weak public health infrastructure and an inconsistent pandemic response in the United States -- Jake.</s>TAPPER: Erica Hill, thank you so much. Surprising new information about schools and COVID. We'll have the new study about getting kids back to the classroom. That's next. Also ahead, Dr. Anthony Fauci will join us. The action, he says, is asking for trouble when it comes to the pandemic. Stay with us.

Roberta McCain Mother of Senator McCain Dies At 108

TAPPER: In our HEALTH LEAD as coronavirus cases continue to rise across the United States, 31 states are reporting an increase in cases from last week. An influential model is now projecting nearly 400,000 deaths in the U.S. by February. Joining me now, Director of Division of Infectious Disease at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo. Dr. Marrazzo, good to see you. Given that the cases are on the rise, do you think this prediction, this model of nearly 400,000 deaths by February is accurate, reasonable?</s>DR. JEANNE MARRAZZO, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, BIRMINGHAM: I think it's entirely within the realm of possibility, Jake. It's really concerning. If you look at the average daily count over the last 7 to 14 days in the United States, as you said, it's been 49,000. So, it's gradually inched upward, where we're getting down to the high 20's, 30's. And I'm really concerned we're going to start tip over 50,000 again and get back to 60,000 which is what we were seeing in July and certainly in the absence of significant interventions and control, I think that's inexorably what's going to happen.</s>TAPPER: So, my kids are doing school remotely. You know, I'm in a studio now, nobody's around me. I wear a mask when I'm outdoors. I speak for tens of millions of Americans who are doing everything we're being told. Why is the case counts going up?</s>MARRAZZO: I think there are a few reasons. It's very clear that not everybody is being as diligent as you and your family are. And I think in some ways it's understandable. There is a significant amount of fatigue particularly among college students, particularly among young people. You know, it's this balance of being tempted to villainize that and criticize it, which I think we all sort of instinctively want to do. Because we know the things that you're doing for example are doable. You can do it and you can make a difference. On the other hand, you know, kids want to be kids. They want to have a college experience. They want to get out there and they want to do the things that everybody had the chance to do before them. So I think the balance is trying to really call on their sense of responsibility and their caring for their community and try to really hammer home that if we don't change our behavior, again, we're going to continue to see deaths mount and mount and mount. And our system is going to get overwhelmed again which is what I'm really scared about. Those data from North Dakota, the 20 beds being available there, that's really quite frightening and should be a huge alarm bell to people.</s>TAPPER: The U.S. has reported more than 50,000 cases in the last four out of five days and total cases are up 41 percent from last month, 41 percent. I don't know if we're headed for a nationwide second wave or just another bump in the first wave, but where are we in this?</s>MARRAZZO: So I'm one of those people who really never loved the wave metaphor because for us, for example, and I think I've mentioned this before, we've had pretty rock solid inpatient census of COVID since June. And many hospitals in our situation where there's kind of this endemic transmission are really in the same boat. So, we never really had a recession of that wave down to the point where we felt we could take a deep breath and really loosen restrictions up again. You know, we had a brief period where we were maybe thinking about the mask ordinance going away, but that rapidly didn't happen because we realized that there was really not significant improvement on the major outcomes, particularly hospitalizations and deaths. So, I think it's just a relentless surge that is -- there is a little bit of this going up and down. Every time you look at that downturn, it's been associated with an increase in mask wearing and social distancing. It works. So almost certainly these ups and downs are related to community behaviors that really can be altered and sustained.</s>TAPPER: But the data supports that it's mostly college students and young people in their 20s that are the major vectors for the spread right now?</s>MARRAZZO: You know, I think it's not totally clear. There are some interesting data. If you look at some of the recent data from the CDC looking at the rates of infection, particularly between August and September. Nice MMWR a couple weeks ago showing an increase in the rates of infection in people aged 18 to 24. They didn't specifically look at college students, but it was definitely in that age group. And interestingly enough, it was also predominantly in white people. So not the people who on your average community intake sort of assessment are more likely to get COVID. So it was really strongly suggestive national data that that movement of people together in those settings could be one big part of the picture.</s>TAPPER: And there's this preliminary data collected from Brown University saying that when it comes to students -- I think it's grade school and high school students -- only 0.13 percent have tested positive for coronavirus and 0.24 percent of teachers testing positive. That seems like a very low figure, two low figures. If schools, you know, do social distancing, have their students wear masks, et cetera, is it safe for schools to open person-to-person classes?</s>MARRAZZO: That's a great question. You know, one of the things we're learning, and again, this will need to be borne out by others' experience, but certainly anecdotally and in talking with a lot of public health folks, the infections that we're seeing in students and in teachers are generally not being acquired in the classrooms, right? People in these classrooms and schools are mostly doing an extraordinarily good job of trying to keep those environments safe. Unfortunately, they can't be a police sort of agent when those individuals leave the school. So, in our situation, for example, literally almost all the new infections are being acquired when students go out into the community. They go to restaurants, they go to bars, they congregate with their friends like they want to do. So, you can do as much as you can to protect that school environment and you're still going to be prey to whatever is happening in the community. That's why we all need to pay attention to this.</s>TAPPER: All right, Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, thank you so much, as always appreciate it. And we have some breaking news now. Cindy McCain, the widow of the late Senator John McCain has just tweeted that Roberta McCain, Senator McCain's mom has passed away. Roberta led a remarkable life for 108 years. Cindy McCain writing, quote, I couldn't have asked for a better role model or a better friend. She joins her husband, Jack, her son, John, and daughter, Sandy. Senator McCain credited his mother when he accepted the Republican nomination for president in 2008 saying, quote, I wouldn't be here tonight but for the strength of her character. The McCain family is in our thoughts this day. May Roberta's memory be a blessing. It's a crisis wrapped in a pandemic. Lines of people wrapped around the block with no sense of urgency coming from Washington. How one community is making sure its neighbors don't go hungry. Stay with us.

Texas Church Helps Feed 3000 People A Week Since Crisis Hit.

TAPPER: Turning back now to our NATIONAL LEAD, a standstill in Washington D.C. is leaving millions of Americans still looking for some financial relief from the pandemic. Coronavirus stimulus negotiations collapsed again over the weekend. And as the outbreak gets worse, again, millions remain behind on rent, millions face evictions. CNN's Ed Lavandera visited one small town in Texas where lines at the food bank have more than tripled since the start of the pandemic.</s>ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): For three months this year, Diane Lusk was out of work and watched unpaid bills pile up. And her electricity turned off.</s>DIANE LUSK, FACES EVICTION: It scared me whenever I lost my job and I was like, how am I going to make it? What am I going to do?</s>LAVANDERA: Now she's making $11 an hour cooking Philly cheese steaks in little place called Happy Eats in Dallas. But when Lusk leaves work, she doesn't know what she's coming home to.</s>LUSK: The constable was in the driveway and handed me court papers.</s>LAVANDERA: Lusk faces eviction from the house she rents for $600 a month. Her landlord isn't renewing her lease. The 60 year old cook is struggling to find a place she can afford.</s>LUSK: I just never dreamed that I would see the days that I've seen. All I can do is pray. That's all I can do is pray.</s>LAVANDERA: We met Lusk in this food line at Praise Fellowship Church in Wilmer, Texas where she comes to get meats and fresh vegetables. It's stunning to see the endless car line that shows up every Tuesday in this unlikely place, a little church on the side of an interstate. Pastor Edwin Favors says COVID-19 struck and the crisis knocked on his church doors. They went from helping 400 people a week to 3,000.</s>PASTOR EDWIN FAVORS, PRAISE FELLOWSHIP CHURCH: This is a crisis that has literally hit every household. When a crisis comes, it doesn't stop.</s>LAVANDERA: From the kitchen of his Dallas home, Mark Melton is witnessing the edge of the pandemic cliff.</s>MARK MELTON, DALLAS ATTORNEY: Normally evictions are a two-step process.</s>LAVANDERA: Milton is a lawyer. In March he started offering free legal advice to people facing eviction.</s>MELTON: And I got your message. I hear you're having some trouble.</s>LAVANDERA: This woman is calling for a friend.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's unable to pay her rent tomorrow. Been on unemployment since the beginning of this year.</s>LAVANDERA: So many calls poured in that Melton has recruited a small army of 150 lawyers to help.</s>MELTON: There are definitely days where I just turn the lights off and sit in here and just cry my eyes out trying to figure out how to take the next step.</s>LAVANDERA: Ed Lavandera, CNN, Dallas.</s>TAPPER: And our thanks to Ed Lavandera for that piece. Dr. Fauci caught off guard after popping up in a Trump campaign ad. Falsely depicted as appearing to praise the President. Fauci will join me in moments to talk about that and the President claiming that he's now immune. Stay with us.

Will Trump Supreme Court Nominee End Obamacare?; Trump Campaigns in Florida as Coronavirus Pandemic

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: You are looking at live pictures of what the nation's top infectious diseases expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, just told me was asking for trouble, a crowd gathering for a Trump rally in Florida tonight, very few masks visible, very little social distancing. Joe Biden will also be in Florida tomorrow, as his campaign zeros in on four states President Trump won in 2016. Biden is in Ohio today, while his wife tries to pick up Southern support in Georgia and Texas. CNN'S Jessica Dean is in Cincinnati, Ohio, where Biden will speak shortly. Jessica, the map really shows where the Biden campaign believes their time will be well spent 22 days out from this election, though these states, we have to say, they're reaches.</s>JESSICA DEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they really are, Jake. And it certainly tells us, looking at that, gives us a little peer into what the Biden campaign is looking at and thinking about right now. Look, Ohio is one of 17 what they call priority states. But if you have been following along over the last several months, Ohio hasn't gotten nearly the attention and resources from the Biden campaign that other higher priority states have, so places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, all places they need to win. The thing about Ohio and to a certain extent Florida as well, where Joe Biden's headed tomorrow, is, he doesn't have to win Ohio or Florida to win the election, to get to 270. But if he wins one or certainly if he wins both of those, it makes President Trump's path to reelection incredibly, incredibly difficult. The Biden campaign sending Joe Biden to two stops here in Ohio today. Earlier, he was in Toledo, really selling his economic message, that Park Avenue vs. Scranton messaging that we have heard, leaning into union jobs, American manufacturing, terms and themes that we have heard from him all across these kind of white-working class cities where he's been talking to union workers, Jake. And if you zoom out, what this really says is, the Joe Biden campaign right now is playing offense in these states -- Jake.</s>TAPPER: All right, Jessica Dean in Cincinnati, Ohio, thanks so much. Despite what the polls show, President Trump says, just like in 2016, he's actually going to win this election. That's what he's telling supporters.</s>KATE BEDINGFIELD, BIDEN DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER: His point is that the people have an opportunity to weigh in on this constitutional process through their vote.</s>TAPPER: That is obviously the wrong clip. CNN's Harry Enten analyzes poll numbers. Harry, we are 22 days out from the election, and President Trump is not doing well in the national average of reputable polls. Give us an idea of where you think we are.</s>HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICAL SENIOR WRITER AND ANALYST: Yes, I mean, look, here's the key nugget, which is, if you compare where we are right now, compared to four years ago, what you see is that Joe Biden holds a double-digit advantage in the national polls. Hillary Clinton was up at this point, the national polls, but that lead was only six points, and, more than that, Joe Biden above 50 percent. That said, I should warn the viewers here that this election is not over yet, right? If you look back over time, incumbents who were in trouble at this particular point, whether it be a Barack Obama in 2012, whether it be George H.W. Bush in 1992, or whether it be Harry Truman in 1948, what you see in those elections is that, in fact, the incumbent sort of closed right at the very end. So, look, Trump is down 11. He's in a lot of trouble. But this election isn't quite over yet.</s>TAPPER: Now, of course, it's not a national election. It's state by state. You have been looking at these new polls from two states Trump won in 2016, Michigan and Wisconsin. These are new polls from today. What do they show?</s>ENTEN: Yes, I mean, they show that Joe Biden has a clear advantage. In Michigan, his lead is eight points, the "New York Times"/Siena College poll consistently showing him ahead there. And, in Wisconsin, another key state that Donald Trump won in 2016, what do you see there? You see that Joe Biden's up by 10 points and over 50 percent. So, to two key Midwestern states, Joe Biden leading that Trump won four years ago.</s>TAPPER: Now, a lot of folks out there remember 2016 state polls that were wrong. I'm not talking about the national polls that were largely right, because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but state polls, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, that said that Trump was going to lose and Hillary Clinton was going to win. Why would you have faith in these state polls?</s>ENTEN: Here's the reason why. Look, let's just take a look at the electoral map and essentially say we have the same errors in each of the states that we had four years ago. What you would see is that Joe Biden was still well ahead with 319 electoral votes. So, even if we have those errors, Biden's ahead, although I should note, there's no necessary reason that we think those errors should apply. But, even if they did, Biden is still ahead in the Electoral College, which, of course, is what ultimately counts.</s>TAPPER: Have polling companies gone back and recalibrated and figured out why they got it wrong before, why there were so many Trump voters that they didn't see there last time, and just to make sure that they see them this time?</s>ENTEN: Yes, I mean, look, one key thing that a lot of pollsters are doing is, they are weighting by education, right? College -- there were too many college-educated voters in the polls last time around. Those favored Clinton vs. those without a college degree favored Trump. They're weighting those up now to the proper levels. And more than that, they're going to pull until the very last minute. Last time, I think there were a lot of times where the pollsters didn't exactly get it. One other nugget I should just point out for you, Jake, though, is that one key thing why I really do think the polls at this point are looking largely accurate is, Joe Biden is just much more popular than Hillary Clinton was at this point. And look, voters are not just coming out to vote against Trump. They actually do like Joe Biden.</s>TAPPER: He's -- his favorability rating is above 50 percent there, and Hillary Clinton's favorability rating -- unfavorability rating, I should say, was above 50 percent four years ago, all sorts of reasons of that -- for that, of course. We don't need to go into those now. The pandemic, of course, is a big factor in this race. How much do you see that as driving these negative polls for President Trump?</s>ENTEN: I mean, look, the fact is, if you're going outside, like me, and you're going to pick up food at a takeout place, you got to put on a mask, right? That's very unusual. And the fact is that voters don't like the way that Trump is handling the pandemic. They think he's acting irresponsibly, and that is, in fact, driving it largely. But I will point out, of course, that, because we have a pandemic, it's unusual times. So I wouldn't be shocked if there's some last- minute poll moment either for or against Trump that history may not necessarily lead us to believe is there.</s>TAPPER: Do you think that Trump having these rallies that are empirically reckless, no masks required, no distancing, in states where the infection rate are going up -- this is some pictures right here from Sanford, Florida, where, obviously, President Trump is going to head, and that does not look like a safe place to be. It's a crowd and they're not wearing masks. Obviously, President Trump has his base. Do you think these rallies could end up hurting him more than helping him because of how many older voters and female voters think he is completely irresponsible?</s>ENTEN: This is some of the dumbest politics I have ever seen, to be perfectly honest with you, Jake. I study the polls day in, day out. I look at past campaigns. I just don't know what the heck he's doing, besides an ego trip. You pointed it out earlier. Seniors, women, these are voters who are moving heavily against Trump, compared to four years ago. And the actions that he is taking, the polls suggest to us, are very much hurting him in the polls.</s>TAPPER: Yes, it's not like that arena full of red hats can vote more than once. They can't.</s>ENTEN: That's exactly right.</s>TAPPER: Whether you're enthusiastic or unenthusiastic, your vote counts the same. Harry Enten, thank you so much.</s>ENTEN: Thank you.</s>TAPPER: The Supreme Court nominee's hearings overshadowed by a COVID- positive senator not wearing a mask. That's next.

Investigation Launched Into Unofficial Drop Boxes for Mail-In Ballots in California.

TAPPER: In today's installment of our "Making It Count", pre-election series, a troubling start for Georgia's first day of early voting. Technical glitches led to long wait times to vote at a so-called super site in Atlanta. In California, unofficial drop boxes for mail-in ballots have caused confusion and now an investigation and similar problems are popping up nationwide -- as CNN's Pamela Brown reports.</s>PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Roughly 8 million Americans have already cast their ballots, some standing in line for hours.</s>JULIA VINEYARD, NEVADA VOTER: I thought maybe one hour at most. I would never have even came out to be honest if I knew it would be five hours.</s>BROWN: While others are putting them in drop boxes like these. But the seemingly simple process turned quite complicated throughout the country.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's insane. I just -- I can't imagine you would think that would be acceptable.</s>BROWN: This California woman alerted local officials after finding an unofficial ballot drop box at a nearby church. In a Facebook post, the church's pastor told followers that the church had a voting drop box, but it wasn't a legal one.</s>MATTHEW JUDGE, CALIFORNIA VOTER: It was up for like four days before I even saw it, before it started to kind of gain traction. So I'm really worried that someone put their ballot in there.</s>BROWN: In a sermon at the church, the pastor denied tampering with any ballots.</s>PASTOR JERRY COOK, FREEDOM'S WAY BAPTIST CHURCH: Obviously, we have a situation here with the ball becomes and folks are saying things that we're tampering, with things of that nature. Of course, we're not tampering with anything.</s>BROWN: Meanwhile, California's secretary of state tells CNN operating unofficial ballot drop boxes, especially those misrepresenting to be official drop boxes, is not just misleading to voters. It's a violation of state law. The box has been removed. The Facebook post also gone. As a Los Angeles County Registrar's Office investigates.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's an attack on democracy. It's not okay.</s>BROWN: In Pennsylvania, a Trump-appointed federal judge rejected an argument by the RNC and Trump campaign that drop boxes were unconstitutional. While in Texas, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Republican Governor Greg Abbott's directive for one location per county for ballot drop boxes, after a lower court reversed Abbott's decision last week. And in Georgia, early voting started today at one location with a little hiccup, delays of an hour due to a technical glitch that caused voters cards to be rejected.</s>BROWN: And in California, the D.A. is investigating now that several of these unofficial drop boxes have popped up in a few counties there. Now, the Republican Party bought these drop boxes according to a spokesman, but that person would say how many or where they placed it. But the GOP denies any wrongdoing, and, Jake, late this afternoon, the RNC gave me this statement, basically saying that these drop boxes, these unofficial drop boxes are to combat ballot harvesting by the Dems, they said, who are not going to let them have an artificial advantage of places where it is legal. But they stopped short saying they would support this practice elsewhere -- Jake.</s>TAPPER: All right. Pamela Brown, thank you so much. Finally, today, we want to take some time to remember some of the nearly 215,000 Americans who have lost their lives to coronavirus. Today, we're going to remember Edward Konaha of Wisconsin, who died earlier this month. A proud Native American, member of the Menominee tribe. He was a family man, a devoted papa to his six grandchildren. Konaha is remembered as a jokester who had a smile on his face. He was just 53 years old. May his memory be a blessing. Our condolences to his family. Our coverage on CNN continues right now.

Biden Heads To Texas And Ohio; Trump Campaigns In Florida As Coronavirus Pandemic Escalates.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: That is good news. Bianna Golodryga, thank you so much. Our special coverage continues now with Jake Tapper.</s>JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper. We begin today with the 2020 lead. It is, on its face, shocking. President Trump, a week after his release from the hospital where he battled coronavirus, days after seemingly acknowledging that he could have died from coronavirus, is not rethinking his approach to this deadly pandemic or his own behavior as the leader of the nation. Instead, he is continuing to do exactly what health officials advise against, bringing together crowds of people for campaign rallies with no mask requirements, no distancing, rallies that we know have already led to his supporters getting infected, or even worse, this as the spread of the virus is also getting worse, more than 50,000 new cases daily four days in a row, the worst such stretch in two months. North Dakota is already sending COVID patients out of state, a public health official there warning that there are only 20 hospital beds available in the entire state right now. Next hour, President Trump will leave the White House on his way to the rally in Florida. These will be followed by rallies in Pennsylvania, Iowa and North Carolina, all four states where coronavirus cases are sharply rising. Dr. Anthony Fauci will join me here on THE LEAD to discuss the dire coronavirus situation in the U.S. momentarily. But let's begin with CNN's Kaitlan Collins at the White House. And, Kaitlan Kaitlan, I guess it's not surprising, but it's still shocking. Nothing seems to have changed, even though the president has now seen up close how dangerous this virus is.</s>KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake, there were a few days where White House aides seemed unsettled now, but it seems that things are slipping back into their old pattern, with the president going back on the campaign trail. And you just pointed out the several states that he's already got on his agenda for this week, starting today in Florida. But we're told by campaign officials that, after this, they expect it to be back to those two to three events per day that we saw in the lead-up to the 2018 midterms and, of course, in 2016, the president's first time running. And so they say that they're not going to be changing the practices that they're doing at these rallies to let people inside. Mostly, they have been outdoors, though there have been several events by the president and by his surrogates that have been indoors and pretty crowded without masks. But at these events that you see the president holding even outdoors, there is little social distancing. And though they encourage people to wear masks, you don't actually see that many people wearing masks when you're actually there seeing them, Jake. So it doesn't seem that the president's diagnosis or that of many of his campaign aides and West Wing staff has really changed the calculus on that, even though it was an outdoor event that so many of those positive cases are now linked to.</s>TAPPER: Yes. And the White House said they would announce when the president tests negative. That has not happened yet, although his doctor says he's not contagious. They still haven't told the public when he last tested negative before he got infected, which the states he traveled to need to know.</s>COLLINS: Yes, there are still so many unanswered questions about the president's health. But one of the biggest is whether or not he's tested negative yet. And we were told on Friday that he was expected to take a test then. The president says that he has. And we were told that they would let us know when he did test negative. So, of course, Jake, because they have not told us that, it leads us to believe that he has not in fact tested negative, though they're pointing to CDC guidance that says that you can get back around other people if you have tested positive for coronavirus 10 days after your first symptoms. But they are still withholding so many questions about the president's health, and instead letting him go out there and spin it as he's immune and he's not transmissible, without us actually being able to hear from the president's doctor in person. You pointed to last -- it's been one week since he got back to the White House. It's also been one week since we have seen Dr. Conley and actually had the chance to ask him questions about the president's condition. And it doesn't appear that we will see him again any time soon either, Jake.</s>TAPPER: All right, Kaitlan Collins at the White House, we will see you in the later show. Team Biden is making major plays in four states that went solidly for Donald Trump in 2016. With 22 days until the election, Joe Biden is spending his time in Ohio today. His wife is in the Republican stronghold of Georgia. And, tomorrow, Biden moves to Florida, while she will campaign in Texas. I want to bring in CNN's Arlette Saenz who covers the Biden campaign for us. Arlette, do they actually think that they have a -- I mean, obviously, Florida he's been campaigning for a while, but Texas and Ohio and Georgia?</s>ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, Jake, they're certainly trying to make a run for some of these states that were typically reliably red states for the president heading into this election year. And Joe Biden taking that message straight to Ohio today. President Trump won Ohio by eight points back in 2016, after President Obama and Joe Biden won that state in both 2008 and 2012. And Biden was taking his pitch to the auto industry, talking about the way that his economic plans could help rebuild the economic industry -- or the auto industry, as well as bring back manufacturing jobs, Biden trying to appeal to those white working-class voters who might be disaffected from President Trump after the past four years. And take a listen to some of the criticism that he lobbed towards the president a little bit earlier today in Toledo, Ohio.</s>JOSEPH BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Erratic tweets and bluster that's only stiffed American workers and consumers, including farmers. He's let you down. He's let us down. First president I can ever remember, in the middle of a national economic crisis, did not try to call the parties together. He turned his back on you. I promise you I will never do that.</s>SAENZ: Those were some cars honking at a bit of a drive-in rally. And Biden also reminded Ohio voters of the work that he and President Obama did during -- in 2008 during the economic recovery. Now, Biden traveled to Toledo. Later today, he will be in Cincinnati, both of those counties typically Democratic strongholds. But it's those red counties in the surrounding area where Biden is really trying to make appeals to white working-class voters, trying to persuade them to vote for him this time around, after potentially being upset or frustrated with the president's performance in the past four years.</s>TAPPER: Arlette, these states are reaches. And, obviously, what Biden is focused on more are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, the states that Hillary Clinton is not president because she lost them to Trump. Is there any reason to think that this is working, this play for states like Texas and Ohio and Georgia?</s>SAENZ: Well, you have seen the polls start to tighten in each of those states. And Joe Biden hasn't really traveled there himself. He had been in Ohio, did a stop in Alliance, Ohio, right after the debate, traveled there today. He still hasn't made his own imprint in Georgia or Texas. But you have seen the campaign start to ramp up some of their advertising. They have a lot of money after those giant fund-raising hauls the former vice president has had. So that is one way that they can try to put these states in play, by placing more money in their ads.</s>TAPPER: It also theoretically helps with down-ballot races, House candidates in more Democratic parts of those generally Republican states. Arlette, thanks so much for joining us. Let's discuss this now with our experts. President Trump, Nia-Malika, he only seems more defiant after being infected with coronavirus. He doesn't seem to have learned anything. He's more emboldened. He's holding these rallies, potentially exposing his own supporters to the virus, with just 22 days to go until the election.</s>NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: The president wants to get out there and feel good again. He's been isolated, obviously, in the White House. And we know that being out there with all those supporters feeds his ego. The problem, of course, is that they are likely to not be wearing masks. We saw a gathering at the White House over this weekend. Some of those folks had masks on. There was really no social distancing. So it is problematic. And if you're with people in those states, here he is having these big public rallies that could be super-spreader events in the way that White House event was, at least according to Dr. Fauci, the Amy Coney Barrett gathering there. So this is problematic. And it doesn't make sense from a health point of view for the folks in that audience, for the president himself. It doesn't make sense politically either. What is dragging his approval ratings down and his standing among voters more generally is his handling of COVID. And acting so irresponsibly in some of these states he's got to win, I think, only underscores the problems that voters see with his presidency already.</s>TAPPER: That's a smart observation, because, obviously, his base is with him. He needs suburban women and others who disapprove of how he's conducting himself. Jackie, I asked Larry Kudlow, the White House chief economic adviser, yesterday on "STATE OF THE UNION" to respond to the fact that these rallies are a risk to Trump's own supporters. Take a listen.</s>LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: There will be masks at these rallies. There will be social distancing at these rallies.</s>TAPPER: There hasn't been before. I mean, do you really think that there are going to be not just masks present, but actually required and distancing required at these rallies?</s>JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I mean, that was supposed to be the case at the White House this weekend. And we saw, of course, more attendees with masks, but there wasn't a lot of social distancing. I mean, Kaitlan Collins just said that there haven't -- masks haven't been a priority at these rallies. And that comes from the top, Jake. The president has made a big scene of taking off his mask when he's walking up the stairs, when he walks up to podiums. He's never been a fan of masks, and he's made that abundantly clear. We have reporting in The Daily Beast today that, inside the White House, even some close advisers don't feel like they can wear masks inside the White House because the president really looks down upon it, and it's this kind of, I guess the opposite of virtue signaling.</s>TAPPER: Vice signaling, right.</s>KUCINICH: Vice signaling, is that a thing? I guess it can be. And so I think that moment has passed, where the president could have said, OK, well, I had this, maybe we should start doing this for real this time. That's gone out the window, and he's going back to what he's most comfortable doing, which is going to those rallies and getting the applause from the people around him, and kind of their health be damned.</s>TAPPER: Yes. And you say that he's not a fan of masks. None of us are fans of masks.</s>KUCINICH: Right.</s>TAPPER: They're awful.</s>KUCINICH: No one like masks.</s>TAPPER: But we wear them because it's responsible. But, Nia-Malika, look at this. The president's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, he's been with the president in recent days, although he has said he's tested negative, but he was with the president at the hospital, inside the Oval Office with him within that 10 day period. And yet Meadows on Capitol Hill today refused to keep his mask on when he was talking to reporters, and it resulted in this. Take a look.</s>MARK MEADOWS, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: That way, I can take this off to talk.</s>QUESTION: No.</s>MEADOWS: Well, I'm more than 10 feet away. I'm not -- well, I'm not going to talk through a mask.</s>TAPPER: He said he wasn't going to talk to the press with his mask off. I mean, he literally has been with an infected, according to his own words, deathly ill president in the last week.</s>HENDERSON: Yes. I mean, all I can do is shake my head at this. Listen, we have all become accustomed to wearing masks, to trying to hear a person and listen to a person who is speaking through a mask. We can do it. It happens. So, this idea that he just can't bother to speak through a mask, I mean, it's ridiculous. But, again, I think Jackie is exactly right. This is all about loyalty to the president. Are you with him or against him? If you're with him, you have got to go without a mask and show your loyalty to him, show that you're with his supporters as well. And it has had terrible consequences for this president, for folks in that White House as well, and reporters as well. And that's why you hear those reporters saying, no, no, no, no, no, please, sir, put your mask on. But he can't be bothered to put a simple piece of cloth around his face.</s>TAPPER: I mean, it's not virtue signaling. In Arkansas, they have a mask mandate. I mean, this isn't about liberals. This is about health.</s>HENDERSON: Right. Yes.</s>TAPPER: Jackie, while the president's physician puts out these very brief, very opaque notes about the president's health, he himself is calling himself immune, which is not accurate. And he's putting out all this false information about coronavirus again. And yet there's tens of millions of Americans who believe every word he says.</s>KUCINICH: Exactly, which is why his words do, in fact, matter. And if he decided -- I mean, there was that moment, remember, a couple months ago, where he posted a picture of himself on his Twitter feed with a mask, and a lot of his people around him in the administration were saying, oh, my gosh, look how great you look in a mask, seems kind of to try to encourage him to wear it. And we're not there. But here's the other thing, Jake. When he goes to these rallies, it's not just the people at the rallies. It's those communities. We had a reporter talk to some business owners in Sanford, Florida, over the weekend. And they're afraid because of the people in their communities that are going to these rallies, and then may become infected and spread it throughout the community, the county, the state. So, it affects so much more than just the president's supporters, who listen to him. It affects everyone they come in contact to without a mask and without social distancing in their communities.</s>TAPPER: Yes, in Minnesota, they contacted traces after a rally there, nine infections, two hospitalizations, one person in the ICU because they attended a Trump rally. Nia-Malika, Jackie, thanks to both of you. Democrats saying Amy Coney Barrett, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, could be the justice, jury and executioner for Obamacare, as the battle lines are being drawn on day one of the hearings. And the number of deaths across the United States was unusually high, as coronavirus rampaged through the U.S. earlier this year, a staggering new look at the toll that the virus has taken on this country. Stay with us.

Interview With Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Will Trump Supreme Court Nominee End Obamacare?

TAPPER: We're back with our politics lead. Just moments ago, we heard from Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Capitol Hill for the first day of hearings on her Supreme Court nomination. Judge Barrett, addressing the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that she believes the judge should make decisions based on how laws are written, not based on their personal beliefs. She also said that the courts should not be expected to solve every problem faced by the public. Tomorrow, Judge Barrett will face questions from the senators. Democrats made it clear today that their focus will be on the Affordable Care Act, which goes before the Supreme Court on November 10 for a challenge from the Trump administration, while Republicans are defending Barrett's qualifications and their right to hold hearings so close to an election. CNN's Manu Raju live on Capitol Hill for us. And, Manu, what was your biggest takeaway from the day so far?</s>MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it really went as expected. The Democrats had made very clear that their strategy going into this hearing was all about the Affordable Care Act. They wanted to make every single -- every single senator to make the case about their concerns that her as a justice could potentially strike down the law when she -- when it comes before the court on November 10. Of course, she has -- had previously criticized Justice John Roberts' decision upholding the constitutionality of the law. So expect those questions to be directed to her when she comes before the senators tomorrow. Now, when she had a chance to make her own case, she talked mostly about her family, but also talked about her judicial philosophy and her argument that it should be up to Congress to make law, not the courts.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINEE: Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.</s>RAJU: In addition to focusing on the Affordable Care Act, Democrats also today making it very clear about why they believe this process should not even go forward to begin with, given that we're only 22 days away from an election. There's never been a Supreme Court nominee confirmed after July of a presidential election year. But Republicans push back on that. They're moving straight ahead. And, at the moment, Jake, they are on track to get this nomination confirmed before the end of the month. Even one of the members on this committee who was absent because he already had tested positive for coronavirus about 10 days ago, Mike Lee, came back today, said he had been cleared by his doctor. We expect another Republican senator to come back who had also tested positive before, Thom Tillis, and that should be enough for them to establish a quorum to move forward with votes. So, Republicans believe they are on track to get her confirmed before the end of the month, unless something changes over the next couple of days when she answers questions, Jake.</s>TAPPER: Yes, I saw Mike Lee not wearing a mask there, which must have upset some of the -- some of his colleagues on the dais. Manu, as Democrats tried to focus today's hearing on health care and on the Affordable Care Act specifically, President Trump weighed in on Twitter, as is his wont. What did he have to say?</s>RAJU: Yes, he actually called on the Republicans to scrap the hearings altogether, move straight to a vote. He said the Democrats were given way too much time to talk. And Republicans are not listening to that. Lindsey Graham was asked about that specific tweet. He said, we're going to move forward with the hearings. Of course, this is still happening at a very rapid clip, Jake. Typically, it takes about two to three months for confirmation hearings to happen. This will happen in just over a month, if she gets that job before the end of the month -- Jake.</s>TAPPER: All right, Manu Raju, thank you so much. Joining us now to discuss Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. He's on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which, of course, is holding the confirmation hearing. Senator, I want to get your reaction to Judge Barrett's opening statement and the arguments you heard from your colleagues today.</s>SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Well, we have heard these kind of standard confirmation hearing pabulum open statements before. They happen all the time. They say they're going to respect precedent. They say that judges shouldn't make policy. And then they get onto the court, and they go off and overrule statutes that have been passed by Congress with huge bipartisan majorities, like the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, because they reached a determination that there was no danger to minority voters of being disenfranchised in the states that had a history of disenfranchising majority -- minority voters. So, you know, they upend American politics by letting corporations spend unlimited amounts of money in politics. Those are not things where they're following the law. Those are things that they have made up, and they have done it 5-4, through partisan Republican majorities, and it always helps the big donors on the Republican side. So -- but we have heard that before. So, we hear it again. It's perfectly understandable.</s>TAPPER: So I want to ask you about one specific part of Judge Barrett's remarks today. Take a listen.</s>BARRETT: More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia's reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward. A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were.</s>TAPPER: So, Judge Barrett seems to be suggesting that she will not let her personal views affect her judgment, she will just adhere to the law. It sounds like you don't believe her.</s>WHITEHOUSE: I don't. I think that this is very scripted confirmation hearing stuff that we hear over and over and over again, and then judges go on the court, having said all this stuff, and they go out and behave completely differently. And, frankly, her description of Judge Scalia is not even very accurate. Justice Scalia was in the Citizens United court and in the Shelby County court, I believe, and both of those were decisions that violated the principles that this nominee just said he stood for. It just -- it just ain't so. It's confirmation theater, Jake.</s>TAPPER: Well, let's -- I mean, but let's get down to brass tacks here. I mean, you guys are focusing, Democrats are focusing on the Affordable Care Act. But, by all indications, she's not likely to answer how she's going to rule on the case. And she has...</s>WHITEHOUSE: She's already answered how she is going to rule on the case. She sent a loud enough signal to get this nomination. And the signal was that the swing vote in that case, Justice Roberts, was wrong, that she disagreed with it.</s>TAPPER: You're talking about the book review she wrote when she expressed disagreement with Justice Roberts.</s>WHITEHOUSE: Correct.</s>TAPPER: So, I guess my point is, the Republicans are going to vote for her. And she has the votes. Republicans control the Senate.</s>WHITEHOUSE: Correct.</s>TAPPER: So, is your goal, since you don't appear to be able to pick off any other Republican votes that I can tell, to make the case about that she's going to overturn Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, and make it kind of like a rallying cry to vote against Trump? Is that really the goal of the hearings here?</s>WHITEHOUSE: Well, if there's any way to turn this, it's because a Republican in the committee or two more Republicans on the floor choose to vote against her. And there's immense pressure from big Republican political forces to cram her on the court. They have been desperate to own this court for a long time. So they're really going to have to have a good reason to push back. And that reason is going to be the public, particularly for senators in close races, calling up and saying, hey, whoa, whoa, wait a minute, she's going to get rid of my health care, she's going to get rid of Roe vs. Wade and my ability to determine my own choices, and she's going to get rid of Obergefell. Those are the three -- being the gay marriage case, that is -- those are the three things that are in the Republican Party platform.</s>TAPPER: Right.</s>WHITEHOUSE: Judges must reverse those decisions. So, I think it's very fair for Democrats to point out that that's the plan. And we know that's the plan because the Republicans said so.</s>TAPPER: Yes, I'm not saying it's not fair. I'm just wondering what the strategy is, since it -- I mean, I don't see any more votes for you to pick up. I guess, who has said they're going to vote against her in the Republican Party right now?</s>WHITEHOUSE: Well, the signals are from Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins.</s>TAPPER: Senator Collins, right, yes. But you need four.</s>WHITEHOUSE: Correct.</s>TAPPER: I mean, I don't see any...</s>WHITEHOUSE: So, we need two more.</s>TAPPER: I don't see anyone else. Do you?</s>WHITEHOUSE: Not at the moment. That's why it's important to make this confirmation process salient to real Americans who have real skin in the game for health care, for instance, in the middle of a pandemic, for -- we have had a whole generation of women who've been brought up with Roe vs. Wade as a constitutional baseline, as a given. The idea that this nominee might knock that out from underneath and reopen all those sore wounds, that's something that I think people should be concerned about. And if people are concerned enough, even politicians with very grumpy donors trying to get something done, sometimes answer.</s>TAPPER: Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of the great state of Rhode Island, thank you so much for your time today, sir. We appreciate it.</s>WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Jake.</s>TAPPER: Coronaviruses is -- quote -- "the greatest threat to prosperity since the Great Depression" -- unquote -- that in a new study that puts a nerve-wracking number on the financial and human toll. That's next.

Trump To Hold A Rally In Florida; Fauci Asks Trump Campaign To Take Down Ad; U.S. Reports High New Cases Of Coronavirus; Trump's Doctor: President Tested Negative "On Consecutive Days"

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: He was a family man, a devoted papa to his six grandchildren. Konaha is remembered as a jokester who always had a smile on his face. He was just 53 years old. May his memory be a blessing? Our condolences to his family. Our coverage on CNN continues right now.</s>WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM. We're following breaking news. Right now, President Trump is on his way to Florida to hold his first official campaign rally since testing positive for the coronavirus. Take a look at this. Live pictures coming in, with no social distancing and masks not required at that rally. Folks are there in big numbers already. The rally risks becoming yet another super spreader event like the White House Rose Garden ceremony for the Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Also breaking, Dr. Fauci now asking the Trump campaign to take down an ad featuring him saying his comments were taken completely out of context making it sound like he was praising the president. And Dr. Fauci just told CNN's Jake Tapper it would be "terrible and outrageous" if the Trump campaign does more ads featuring him. At the same time, the U.S. is seeing its highest average daily case rate in two months with 31 state now heading in the wrong direction and the death toll is now more than 215,000 people with almost 7.8 million cases. First, let's go straight to the site of the president's rally tonight. Our chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, is on the scene for us in Sanford, Florida. Jim, very serious concerns about the public health threat at this rally tonight. What's the latest?</s>JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. President Trump is on his way down to Florida right now for his first campaign rally since his bout with the coronavirus. And as you can see behind us, many of the supporters here are not wearing masks, they are not social distancing, setting up the possibility for yet another super spreader event. The same kind of super spreader that may have given the president the coronavirus.</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): Even after putting his own health on the line by catching the coronavirus, President Trump is tempting fate with a go for broke campaign strategy, with plans for more big rallies creating the potential for super spreader events across the U.S. And there are signs top White House officials haven't learned a thing as the White House chief of staff Mark Meadows refused to wear a mask around reporters on Capitol Hill despite being exposed to the president.</s>MARK MEADOWS, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Let me pull this away.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yup, pull away.</s>MEADOWS: And then that way I can take this off the top. Well, I'm more than 10 feet away. I'm not -- well, I'm not going to talk --</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): Inside the hearing for Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee was speaking without a mask after he tested positive for COVID-19 less than two weeks ago. The president believes now that he's had the virus, he's immune from it.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (via telephone): It looks like I'm immune for, I don't know, maybe a long time or maybe a short time. It could be a lifetime.</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): The president's doctor released a memo over the weekend stating Mr. Trump is no longer a transmission risk, but the president is going further than that claiming he's tested negative.</s>TRUMP (via telephone): I have been tested totally negative.</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): The president plans to hold rallies this week in big battlegrounds states, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa and North Carolina. White House officials say there won't be a major change in safety protocols at the events.</s>KAYLEIGH MCENANY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We will have the same policies that we've had in place.</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): Over the weekend, the president staged a campaign-style rally on the White House south lawn where some in the crowd weren't wearing masks.</s>TRUMP: We got to vote these people into oblivion. Vote them into oblivion.</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): Democrat Joe Biden is blaming the president for that.</s>JOE BIDEN (D) PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: His reckless personal conduct since his diagnosis has been unconscionable.</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): To bolster his COVID credentials, the president is pointing to Dr. Anthony Fauci in a new campaign ad creating the false impression the top health expert is praising Mr. Trump.</s>ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more.</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): That prompted Fauci to state he's not offering Mr. Trump his support.</s>FAUCI: I think it's really unfortunate and really disappointing that they did that. To take a completely out of context statement and put it in which is obviously a political campaign ad I thought was really very disappointing.</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): A former senior administration official who worked on the White House COVID Task Force told CNN, the West Wing has been muzzling Fauci adding, "There were conversations about not letting Fauci talk on TV. They would say he's exaggerating. He's alarmist." The administration is still failing to bring the pandemic under control as the U.S. is averaging roughly 50,000 cases every day, the highest average since mid-August. Yet the president has been telling the public the U.S. is rounding the turn on the virus.</s>TRUMP: We're really rounding the turn and the vaccines are coming. We're rounding the turn. You see what's happening. You see the numbers are plunging. You see how good we're doing.</s>ACOSTA (on camera): After this rally in Florida tonight, the president heads off to Pennsylvania for yet another rally tomorrow. And then later on in the week, Iowa and North Carolina. Pennsylvania is obviously a critical battleground state. But Iowa and North Carolina are really states that should be in the bag for President Trump right now. That's an indication as to how much trouble he's in politically right now, Wolf. And as this crowd is chanting that there are members of the press here who suck, I should also point out, Wolf, what also sucks getting the coronavirus. Wolf?</s>BLITZER: That would be really, really awful. Over the weekend the president said the coronavirus is disappearing. Clearly, it's not disappearing. It's getting a whole lot worse. All right, Jim Acosta, thanks very much. Let's get some more on the breaking pandemic news. Our national correspondent Erica Hill is working the story for us from New York. Erica, the U.S. is going clearly in the wrong direction right now when it comes to getting ahead of this pandemic. What's the latest?</s>ERICA HILL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, bottom line, Wolf, we are not getting ahead of this pandemic. It is not disappearing despite what the president may wish and the information that he wants to put out there. Cases are rising. The average number of new cases being reported every day is rising and that is leading to more concerns about the strain on hospitals and ultimately the rising death toll.</s>HILL (voice-over): The numbers are not good. Nationwide we're adding an average of more than 49,000 new cases a day. Up 41 percent from just last month.</s>PETER HOTEZ, PROFESSORD AND DEAN OF TROPICAL MEDICINE, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: We're predicting a pretty worrisome fall and winter.</s>HILL (voice-over): New cases are surging in 31 states. More than a dozen posting their highest weekly averages for new daily cases. Seven states reporting their highest daily new case counts since the pandemic began.</s>LEANA WEN, FORMER BALTIMOR HEALTH COMMISSIONER: These are extremely alarming trends and there should be warning bells going off around the country.</s>HILL (voice-over): Texas now sending extra resources to El Paso as hospitalizations rise. Rural areas across the country also bracing.</s>GEORGER MORRS, PHYSICIAN VICE PRESIDENT, CENTRACARE: We have the beds. We have the people. But as we get more of these exposures, what's going to happen to our availability?</s>HILL (voice-over): North Dakota, which leads the nation in cases per capita, has fewer than 20 ICU beds available.</s>RENAE MOCH, DIRECTOR, BISMARCK-BURLEIGH PUBLIC HEALTH: People are continuing to operate kind of as they had before COVID even was here. And that's leading to a lot of our numbers increasing.</s>HILL (voice-over): New research in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds a 20 percent increase in U.S. deaths from March to August. Adding to the evidence that our current COVID death toll is likely an undercount.</s>TOM FRIEDEN, FORMER CDC DIRECTOR: If you die from COVID and you also had diabetes, you died from</s>COVID. HILL (voice-over): As an influential model now projects 400,000 COVID- related deaths by February 1st. But if more Americans wore masks, that could change dramatically.</s>PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR, VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER & PEDIATRICS PROFESSOR, CHILDREN HOSPITAL OF PENNSYLVANIA: If 95 percent of Americans wore masks, we would prevent roughly 80,000 deaths over the next few months. I mean, it's a remarkable statistic. Those are people. I mean, if you saw those people, you would try to do something to prevent their deaths, but somehow we just ignore it all.</s>HILL (voice-over): The human toll is growing, both in lives lost and in lives forever changed.</s>DEEPAK CHIOPRA, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY MEDICINE & PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO: People are going through different stages of grief. So, some feel victimized, some are angry, some are hostile, some are resentful. Some are helpless.</s>HILL (voice-over): Researchers at NYU warning of a second wave of devastation. This one tied to mental health and substance abuse. The magnitude, they write, is likely to overwhelm the already frayed mental health system. Of particular concern, essential workers including those on the front lines.</s>HILL (on camera): And another note about some research that we learned about today, also published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a look at U.S. deaths and why they are so high noting that even compared to other countries, France, Italy, Spain, the U.K. for example, who also have a high COVID-19 mortality rate, Wolf, the U.S. death rate is still high. Why? Well, researchers say there are a number of factors, but among them, inconsistent information and also issues with the public health infrastructure.</s>BLITZER: So worrisome indeed. Erica Hill, thanks very much. Let's get to more on all of this. The dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Dr. Ashish Jha, is joining us right now. Dr. Jha, thank you so much for joining us. So as you heard, the president is about to hold his first official campaign rally since getting the virus himself. But if you look at these images right now, we're showing our viewers these pictures, live pictures, coming in from Sanford, Florida. You would think this was pre-pandemic. Huge crowds. Very few people wearing masks. How shocking is this to see this after the president of the United States himself, his wife, the First lady, so many of the president's top aids got infected?</s>ASHISH JHA, DEAN, BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: You know, Wolf, thank you for having me on. You now, it is very upsetting from a public health and medical point of view, looking at that and thinking its irresponsible. We know from previous rallies is that they have fuelled more cases, hospitalizations, probably deaths, and it is all unnecessary. We shouldn't be doing this in a pandemic. We should be wearing masks and be social distancing.</s>BLITZER: Of course. You know, and the country, as we heard, is also averaging, what, nearly 50,000 new infections every day. Dr. Fauci just told Jake Tapper those numbers, should jolt the American public into practicing what are really very simple public health measures like simply wearing a mask, but clearly the track record here in the United States is at best mixed. Can we really turn things around without more drastic measures imposed on a national level right now?</s>JHA: Yes, Wolf, so we're one of the few countries in the world that has managed to politicize mask wearing. It's completely baffling to most of us in public health why this is a political issue. But if we continue to have large proportions of the public not wear masks and our politicians not call for people wearing masks, we might find ourselves in a situation where we have to have more draconian measures. And I think the key here is to avoid that and avoid all those infections. And mask wearing is a really helpful step in that goal.</s>BLITZER: Critically important one. It will save thousands and thousands of lives over the next few weeks and months. Dr. Fauci also says the trajectory is getting worse and worse and this would be a recipe of a real problem, especially heading into the winter. What are your biggest concerns, Dr. Jha, for these cold months that are coming up?</s>JHA: Yes. I think every public health expert I'm speaking to, all my colleagues, folks in the government, everybody is very worried about the next three to four months. Colder weather, people spend more time indoors. The virus likes to spread indoors. Colder drier air also makes the virus spread more efficiently. All of that is going to make things I think much, much worse. We're heading in the wrong direction. And of course, we're about to undergo an election, the political leaders are distracted. So, I am worried that we're not going to pay attention to the virus. The virus is not distracted. The virus is doing what its doing and we've got to pay attention.</s>BLITZER: Yes. As it gets colder and colder, people are going to be more reluctant to eat outdoors, hang out outside, it's going to be a real problem. There is one bright spot. Early research from your university. Brown University, shows right now a very low infection rate in K-12 schools since reopening. That's pretty encouraging, right?</s>JHA: You know, it is encouraging. And I have been saying that as much as I have been concerned about opening schools in the hot zones and remain that way, I think the data that's coming in is preliminary data, suggests that schools are not a major source of acceleration of these, you know, infections. And that says that we probably should be a bit bolder about opening schools especially in the kind of green and yellow zones of the country where the outbreaks are not terrible.</s>BLITZER: Yes, that would be so significant. Parents would be so happy. The kids would be happy too. Dr. Ashish Jha, thanks as usual for joining us.</s>JHA: Thank you, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Up next, Joe Biden goes on the offensive trying to flip critical states carried by President Trump in 2016. Plus, confirmation hearings begin for President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. We're taking a closer look at the contentious questioning that's expected to start tomorrow morning.

Interview With Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL); Democrats Argue Barrett Confirmation Is A Threat To Obamacare

BLITZER: We have some breaking news coming into THE SITUATION ROOM, we're getting some new information from President Trump's doctor, a statement from Dr. Sean Conley says the President has now tested negative for coronavirus on consecutive days. The statement does not give specific dates. I want to go to CNN's Jim Acosta. He's down in Florida where the President will be holding a campaign rally later tonight. So, update us, our viewers on the latest the statement coming in from the doctor.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow, to follow the next --</s>JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right, Wolf. We're just getting this in the last couple of minutes. The White House Press Secretary are releasing this from Dr. Sean Conley, the White House physician, and it says it's very interesting. It says, I released the following information with the permission of President Trump. So, obviously, this is -- with the permission of the President, this is something he wants out there. It says, in response to your inquiry regarding the President's most recent COVID-19 test, I can share with you that he has tested negative on consecutive days. It is important to note that this test was not used in isolation for the determination of the President's current negative status. Wolf, I have to plead a little bit of ignorance here. It is not altogether clear what they mean by this, which consecutive days to the President test negative on, when was his last negative test before he tested positive for the coronavirus, that, obviously, has not been disclosed to us. And so, this is something that we're going to have to take the word of Dr. Conley on this and he is making it very clear on this note that the President wanted this information out there. We heard the President over the weekend say he was testing negative for the coronavirus, even though that is not what we saw in that last letter from Dr. Conley over the weekend. So, another letter from the White House physician that seems to raise more questions than offer answers, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: All right. We'll get back to you. Jim Acosta at the scene for us at that campaign rally in Sanford, Florida. Meanwhile, Senate confirmation hearings started today here in Washington in the fast track nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. The real fireworks likely will be tomorrow when senators will have an opportunity to question Judge Barrett. We're joined now by the number two Democrat in the U.S. Senate, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. He's also a member of the Judiciary Committee. Let me get first get your reaction to what we just heard the President's doctor saying he's now tested negative in consecutive days. What do you say to that, Senator?</s>SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Listen, I'm not a medical expert and don't pretend to be, but trying to follow the President's claims and then the statements by his medical team, it's been pretty tough. You know, this President comes off the helicopter, does his balcony scene, veto moment, strips off his mask and says I'm cured, who knows? At this point, he's making it all up as far as I'm concerned. I hope the doctor's report is accurate.</s>BLITZER: Yes, we all hope it's accurate. And we hope the President is going to be just fine. You participated, Senator, in today's confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. You joined your fellow Democrats in pointing to what her confirmation potentially could mean, for example, for the Affordable Care Act, which will come before the U.S. Supreme Court for arguments a week after the election. So, why are Democrats focusing in specifically right now on health care? Will that remain the case throughout the remainder of these confirmation hearings?</s>DURBIN: Because we're smack dab in the middle of a pandemic and America is worried about its health, and to think that this President wants to put somebody on the Supreme Court who's going to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. Take away health insurance from 20 million plus Americans say that our own health insurance won't cover people with pre-existing conditions, you bet it's an issue. And every single Democrat drove at home today. We were glad to do it, and I hope the American people are following this debate.</s>BLITZER: You've been very critical of the timing and the speed at which the Republican majority in the Senate that they are moving forward with this confirmation process but appears the Republicans do have the numbers to confirm Judge Barrett. So, what do you hoped to accomplish in the next few days leading up to the election?</s>DURBIN: Listen, they're at breakneck speed. And I want to tell you, Wolf, there's an announcement just a few minutes ago that Graham, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is going to change one of the other deadlines to make it even faster to move her through the committee. I just wish this weren't the case. It's a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. And what we're trying to say to people, the reason why it's at breakneck speed is because they want this new justice on the Supreme Court in time to hear the oral argument on November 10th, and then to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. That's what this is all about.</s>BLITZER: The 22 members of the Judiciary Committee, the Democrats and the Republicans, they can start asking questions of Judge Barrett tomorrow morning when she appears at the committee. Once again, today, she just delivered her opening statement, the senators all made their own respective opening statements. So, what questions do you want to hear her answer?</s>DURBIN: Well, we're going to have quite a few. On the Affordable Care Act, she's basically said it's unconstitutional. We know where she's going. We're certainly going to ask her questions on that. Other decisions that she's handed down, she's had about 100 decisions so far. We've gone through them, there are some that really kind of define her in terms of her values. And, frankly, we want to know whether or not the President is right. Is she being put on the Supreme Court to defend him if there's an election contest? If she willing to say flat out, she'll recuse herself from any election contest, so there won't be any question about her honesty and integrity. These are critical questions.</s>BLITZER: But realistically, they have the votes, right? There's limited -- there's limits to what you guys can do on the Democratic side.</s>DURBIN: Wolf, of course, we're limited, but let's put it down to the basics. If one Republican senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee says I've had enough, I can't push this through this quickly. I can't afford to go back home and explain how these people lose their health insurance. If one Republican Senate says that it's tie vote, we hold her in committee. If two on the floor say that, even if she comes out of committee, she's not going to be able to be considered. We already have two Republican senators who've stepped up and said they don't want to be part of this farce.</s>BLITZER: But they still, the Republican majority, even if she doesn't get confirmed in the committee, they could still bring it up for a vote on the Senate floor.</s>DURBIN: They can, but let me tell you. If there are questions being raised by the American people about how in the midst of a pandemic, we can eliminate the Affordable Care Act with no substitute, nothing to take its place. If those questions are asked of many Republican senators who were in cycle, Wolf, in very close election contest, perhaps we'll see a change of heart.</s>BLITZER: We'll have live coverage of the Q&A tomorrow at the committee. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, thanks as usual for joining us.</s>DURBIN: Thanks, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Coming up, United States isn't the only country seeing a new spike in coronavirus cases. Coming up, we'll have an update on the coronavirus headlines from around the world. And later, former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, he's standing by live. He will join us to discuss the state of the campaign with just 22 days to go until Election Day. We'll be right back.

Stimulus Talks Stall As Millions Increasingly Desperate.

BLITZER: The coronavirus is getting worse increasing the financial strain that millions of Americans are facing right now, but desperately needed help in the form of a new economic stimulus package is possibly still weeks away. Let's get some more from our CNN Political Commentator, the former Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang. Andrew, thanks so much for joining us. The Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she wants to pass a bill, President Trump says he wants to pass a bill. Why are Americans going to continue suffering right now, when most people agree that getting this done is absolutely essential?</s>ANDREW YANG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We need a relief bill in the worst possible way, Wolf. I talked to a restaurant operator, operates a whole chain of restaurants and he said that up to half of American independent restaurants will go out of business without a relief bill. And you can imagine what that's going to mean for communities around the country. 82 percent of Americans agree that we need a relief bill, and the only thing that's keeping us from passing it is politics. Right now, Nancy Pelosi has maximum leverage where President Trump's last offer of $1.8 trillion was so high that Senate Republicans didn't like it. It's a good deal. Nancy needs to say yes, she is one to take this deal. So we can get some relief out to Americans before the holidays. If we don't get this done now, who knows when a relief bill will pass.</s>BLITZER: Yes. The President is now putting some pressure on his fellow Republicans in the Senate. He just tweeted this, "Republicans should be strongly focused on completing a wonderful stimulus package for the American people". Have you spoken with the Speaker Nancy Pelosi, other House Democratic leaders about getting this done?</s>YANG: I've been speaking to members of Congress, and many of them are frustrated by the lack of progress. You had the problem solvers caucus proposed a compromise bill. A lot of them know that this is a good deal and want Nancy to say yes, that's what I'm hearing from members of Congress who are in their districts, in many cases, seeing the pain and suffering up close. We've had tens of millions of Americans declare for unemployment benefits. And economists say that almost half of these jobs will never come back. We have to stop pretending that the economy is going to snap back. It will not. And the American people know we need relief right now.</s>BLITZER: Yes. Just last week, in one week, more than 800,000 additional Americans filed for first time unemployment benefits. People are struggling, Andrew, they're struggling to pay their rent, they're struggling to buy groceries. Many people are relying for the first time in their lives on food banks to give them some food. It's hard to believe this is going on here in the United States of America. Do you think the politicians in Washington, the Democrats, the Republicans fully understand how dire the situation is right now for millions of Americans?</s>YANG: I don't think they do, Wolf, or else we would have had a relief bill passed weeks ago, but that the pain is spreading. The food bank lines are stretching on for miles and hours and places that before did not see that kind of need and desperation. I hear from people every single day about the fact that they can't make rent or pay for groceries or they don't know where they're going to be able to get the money to put gas in their car. And we can prevent this. We have a deal that's on the table right now from President Trump, $1.8 trillion. That would extend federal unemployment weekly benefits of $400 a week for Americans who are struggling right now. $1,200 in cash directly to households, $300 billion plus to state and local governments. This is a great deal. Nancy Pelosi has won. All she has to do now is take the win for the American people.</s>BLITZER: Yes, take the money and run, as they say. If Congress can't come to an agreement before the November 3rd election just about three weeks from now, how long, Andrew, will Americans need to wait before they finally get this economic relief?</s>YANG: That is the painful part of this, Wolf, that if we were to pass this relief bill right now, Americans could still be waiting for days and weeks to actually see that money in their hands. And if we let Election Day come, we all know we might be waiting for days for the outcome. And then afterwards, this bill might still languish for an additional number of days and weeks. Americans might not see relief until after the holidays if we don't get this done right now. And if you think about it from the perspective of politics, when is the pressure going to be higher on the President than right now to deliver for the American people? It won't. Right now, he's desperate for any catalyst to show that he's actually coming through. So, we have him where we want him, we just need to say yes,</s>BLITZER: Yes. A few weeks ago, he said there won't be any deal before the election. Now, he is flipped and he's trying to squeeze the Republicans to accept this package that's on the table. Our Political Commentator Andrew Yang, thanks so much for joining us.</s>YANG: Thank you, Wolf. Let's get this done for the American people. Congress, please do your job.</s>BLITZER: All right, we hear you, Andrew. Thank you so much. Coming up, President Trump holds a campaign rally with few mask, no social distancing, as the coronavirus cases are surging here in the United States.

Trump Campaigns In Florida As Coronavirus Pandemic Escalates; Trump's Doctor Says, President Tested Negative On Consecutive Days; Technical Problems Force Long Lines In Georgia On First Day Of Early Voting.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.</s>WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM. We're monitoring a very, very large crowd just ahead of President Trump's campaign rally in Florida. Looking at these live pictures coming in, live pictures, amid serious fears that it could be another super-spreader event, as the state sees a new spike in cases. The president is heading there right now. He's aboard Air Force One for his first big appearance outside the White House since his own battle with COVID-19. The president's doctor, by the way, just confirmed for the first time that president has tested negative for the virus on consecutive days. Also breaking right now, Dr. Fauci tells CNN he's asking the Trump campaign to take down an ad that uses his remarks totally out of context to promote the president's response to the pandemic. Also this hour, we're seeing more evidence the coronavirus crisis is worsening here in the U.S.; 31 states are now trending in the wrong direction. The death toll in the U.S. just topped 215,000, with nearly 7.8 million cases. And the U.S. is reporting the highest average daily case rate in nearly two months. Let's go to our chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. He's over at the Trump rally in Sanford, Florida, where there's a huge crowd. They have gathered. Jim, the president's bout with COVID-19 seems to have little, little, if any, impact on the safety of these rallies. That crowd, I don't see any social distancing at all.</s>JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely right, Wolf. And I can tell that, just in the last several minutes, we did receive from the White House physician, Dr. Sean Conley, a new statement on the president's health. That statement says that the president has tested negative for coronavirus on consecutive days, but it was using a testing machine that is a more rapid testing machine and, in some cases, less reliable. So we will have to keep tracking that. But, in the meantime, as you said, we're at this rally in Sanford, Florida, just outside Orlando, where, as you can see in this crowd behind me, many people here not wearing masks, not social distancing, potentially setting up the kind of super-spreader event that got the president sick in the first place.</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): Even after putting his own health on the line by catching the coronavirus, President Trump is tempting fate with a go- for-broke campaign strategy, with plans for more big rallies, creating the potential for super-spreader events across the U.S. And there are signs top White House officials haven't learned a thing, as White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows refused to wear a mask around reporters on Capitol Hill, despite being exposed to the president.</s>MARK MEADOWS, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Let me pull this away.</s>QUESTION: Yes. Pull away.</s>MEADOWS: And then, that way, I can take this off to talk.</s>QUESTION: No.</s>MEADOWS: Well, I'm more than 10 feet away. I'm not -- well, I'm not going to talk through a mask.</s>ACOSTA: Inside the hearing for Mr. Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, Utah GOP Senator Mike Lee was speaking without a mask after he tested positive for COVID-19 less than two weeks ago. The president believes, now that he's had the virus, he's immune from it.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It looks I'm immune for, I don't know, maybe a long time, or maybe a short time. It could be a lifetime.</s>ACOSTA: The president plans to hold rallies this week in big battleground states, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa and North Carolina. But White House officials say there won't be a major change in safety protocols at the events.</s>KAYLEIGH MCENANY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We will have the same policies that we have had in place.</s>ACOSTA: Over the weekend, the president staged a campaign-style rally on the White House South Lawn, where some in the crowd weren't wearing masks.</s>TRUMP: We've got to vote these people into oblivion. Vote them into oblivion.</s>ACOSTA: Democrat Joe Biden is blaming the president for that.</s>JOSEPH BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: His reckless personal conduct since his diagnosis has been unconscionable.</s>ACOSTA: To bolster his COVID credentials, the president is pointing to Dr. Anthony Fauci in a new campaign ad, creating the false impression the top health expert is praising Mr. Trump.</s>NARRATOR: President Trump tackled the virus head on, as leaders should.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more.</s>ACOSTA: That prompted Fauci to state he's not offering Mr. Trump his support.</s>FAUCI: I think it's really unfortunate and really disappointing that they did that. To take a completely out-of-context statement and put it in which is obviously a political campaign ad, I thought, was really very disappointing.</s>ACOSTA: A former senior administration official who worked on the White House COVID Task Force told CNN, "The West Wing has been muzzling Fauci," adding, "There were conversations about not letting Fauci talk on TV. They would say he's exaggerating, he's alarmist." The administration is still failing to bring the pandemic under control, as the U.S. is averaging roughly 50,000 cases every day, the highest average since mid-August. Yet the president has been telling the public the U.S. is rounding the turn on the virus.</s>TRUMP: We're really rounding the turn. And the vaccines are coming. We're rounding the turn. You see what's happening. You see the numbers are plunging. You see how good we're doing.</s>ACOSTA: And the president will be holding more of these possible super-spreader rallies in the coming days. He goes to Pennsylvania tomorrow, which is obviously a critical battleground state. But he's also heading off to Iowa and North Carolina, two states that really should be in the bag for the president right now. But, Wolf, getting back to this crowd here, you can see there are thousands of people here not wearing masks, not social distancing. Even after the president of the United States got the coronavirus, it hasn't changed the behavior for either him or his supporters -- Wolf.</s>BLITZER: And not just the president, but the first lady and so many of the president's top aides at the White House, they also got the coronavirus. Hard to believe what's going on. Thank you very much, Jim Acosta. Be careful over there. We will get back to you. Let's get some more on all these disturbing trends unfolding in the pandemic. CNN's Brian Todd is putting all of this together for us. Brian, we heard from Dr. Anthony Fauci just a little while ago. He spoke with our own Jake Tapper, and he sounded very concerned.</s>BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He is worried, Wolf, Dr. Fauci worried about the projections ahead for fall and winter. But he's also hitting home the point that Americans have the ability to bring some of those dire projections down.</s>TODD (voice-over): Tonight, a new warning from America's top voice on the coronavirus pandemic, as new cases nationally are up 40 percent from a month ago.</s>FAUCI: We should be doubling down in implementing the public health measures that we have been talking about for so long, which are keeping a distance, no crowds, wearing masks, washing hands, doing things outside, as opposed to inside, in order to get those numbers down. We're entering into the cool months of the fall and ultimately the cold months of the winter. And that's just a recipe of a real problem.</s>TODD: There are new worries that Florida could return to previous crisis levels. Some top experts say Florida Governor Ron DeSantis wasn't tough enough regarding distancing and mask-wearing rules and opened too many places back up too soon.</s>DR. MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH: Florida is ripe for another large outbreak. What they have done is opened up everything as if nothing had ever happened there. And you and I could be talking probably in eight to 10 weeks, and I will likely bet that Florida will be a house on fire.</s>TODD: Florida now joins more than 30 American states with new coronavirus cases trending upward. Many hot spots in the Upper Midwest and Plains states, rural areas where hospitals are overwhelmed. One public health director in North Dakota told CNN today they had less than 20 hospital beds available in the entire state.</s>RENAE MOCH, DIRECTOR, BISMARCK-BURLEIGH PUBLIC HEALTH: We have some hospitals in very rural areas that are having difficulty meeting the demand, and having to send patients to different areas across the state of North Dakota, and even had to send out of state at some point to Sioux Falls and also Billings, Montana.</s>TODD: In New York, positivity rates in hot spot neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and suburban counties outside New York City continue to be way above the rest of the state. And officials say law enforcement will step up measures to enforce shutdown and distancing rules in those communities. Not all of the news is bad. A Brown University survey of more than 200,000 students in 47 states shows that, at least early in the school year, schools do not appear to be the super-spreaders they were feared to be, with infection rates among students and staff often lower than they were in their broader communities.</s>EMILY OSTER, ECONOMICS PROFESSOR, BROWN UNIVERSITY: A lot of the schools in our data are doing masking. Some of them are doing distancing. Some of them are doing smaller pods.</s>TODD: But growing concerns over mental health impacts. A new article published today in "The Journal of the American Medical Association" warns -- quote -- "A second wave of devastation is imminent," a mental health crisis, with increased deaths from suicide and drug overdoses.</s>DR. CELINE GOUNDER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: This is not just about isolation. This is about people losing their jobs, feeling socially and economically insecure. And that is what is driving many of these mental health issues and substance use issues.</s>TODD: All of which is taxing America's resources and finances. According to an article just published today by "The Journal of the American Medical Association," the estimated cost of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States is more than $16 trillion. The authors of that report say, this is the greatest threat to the U.S. economy since the Great Depression -- Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Wow. That's awful, indeed. All right, Brian, thank you very much. We're joined now by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama White House health policy adviser, now the vice provost of global initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania. He just co-wrote a very important new study comparing COVID-19 deaths here in the United States to 18 other countries. Dr. Emanuel, thank you so much for joining us. I want to get to that study in a moment. But we just got this letter from the president's doctor, saying the president tested negative on consecutive days with an antigen test and is not infectious to others, according to the president's physician. Does this put you at ease that the president as he's getting ready for this rally in Florida tonight? Or do you have more questions, based on the letter?</s>DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL ADVISER: Well, having multiple rapid tests is actually good. As I think your reporter said, the rapid tests are not as precise, as technically sensitive as the PCR test. But having multiple ones does increase your confidence that the result is a true result. And so that is good. But the impact is more than just the president. The impact is modeling behavior. And the president himself is not modeling good behavior. And he's creating crowds, without masks, without social distancing, yelling and screaming, all of which are, we know, if someone in there has -- is positive, is the kind of situation to create super-spreading events. And we know that this coronavirus, 80 percent of cases are from these kinds of super-spreading events. So, this is very worrisome from that perspective.</s>BLITZER: Yes, thousands of people have gathered in Sanford, Florida, right now. We will show our viewers this crowd. It's a huge crowd for this rally tonight. Very little -- there's no social distancing at all. Thousands of people are there, and not everyone, of course, wearing a mask. These rallies, they were taking place before the president's illness. It almost looked like -- looks like campaigning as usual pre-pandemic. Look at the crowd, very few people, as I said, wearing masks, very little, if any, social distancing. From your perspective, Dr. Emanuel, how risky is this?</s>EMANUEL: And also yelling, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: They're yelling and screaming. They're applauding, obviously, as well.</s>EMANUEL: Yelling.</s>BLITZER: So how risky is this?</s>EMANUEL: Very risky. This is the top end of risk. When we did a risk index, having fans go to football games and outdoor sporting events was actually in the highest risk category. And this is basically equivalent to that.</s>BLITZER: Yes.</s>EMANUEL: And we should not be doing this.</s>BLITZER: Yes, it's very -- and the president of sets a bad example when he goes out doesn't even wear a mask, even though when -- here's Air Force -- he boarded Air Force One a little while ago to make the flight to Florida at Joint Base Andrews. Everybody else is wearing masks, but the president clearly not wearing a mask. He could set an important example to his political supporters if he simply wore a mask. He simply refuses to do so. On average, Dr. Emanuel, the country is recording now almost 50,000 new coronavirus cases a day, even though the president said over the weekend, this virus is disappearing. Dr. Fauci is warning that, if we don't get these numbers down, it's a recipe for real problems, especially in the coming months, as we approach winter. Is the willpower there to double down after all these months and get this done?</s>EMANUEL: I think the willpower is there, but it's got to be led. And we have to actually galvanize people. And the president's not doing that. You have to model the right behavior. You have to get other leaders, whether in sports or entertainment or business or in academia, to all do the right thing, and to model this and create a social norm. I mean, we showed, when we compared to Italy, right? Right after April and May, when there was all of this overwhelming of the system, Italy actually did the right thing. And they were able to bring the number of cases down. If we had followed Italy, and been able to bring the number of cases down, we'd have 90,000 fewer deaths after that first wave, compared to Italy. We know how to do it. It's not like Italy has some vaccine or magic treatment that we don't have. It's that they are better at putting in place these public health measures. And we know what they are, right? Everyone knows what they are. And that's the problem. We're having tens of thousands of people die because we're not willing to do that. And we should be shocked and ashamed of ourselves as a country for that.</s>BLITZER: It's true. And, as Dr. Ashish Jha said to me in the last hour, only in the United States is wearing a mask a political statement. Everyplace else in the world, it's accepted as absolutely essential to save lives. You just published a very important study, Dr. Emanuel, looking at the death rate here in the United States compared to 18 other countries. Tell our viewers what you found out.</s>EMANUEL: Well, if you compare us to the absolute best countries, like Australia, I mean, we have -- most of the 200,000 deaths we have should be alive. If you compare ourselves to Italy or Canada, we have tens of thousands of excess deaths after the first wave, after that big bulge, when all the systems were sort of turned upside down, and we didn't know how to cope. But, beginning in May, if you compare the United States to Italy, we have 90,000 extra deaths. That's 90,000 Americans who should be alive if we were just as good at fighting this pandemic as Italy. And, similarly, if you look at us compared to France, we should have -- or the Netherlands, we should have 100,000 people alive. And if you compare us to Canada, 117,000 Americans would still be alive. We have been doing a very bad job. And other European or Canadian countries have been doing a much better job at doing these public health measures. And, again, they don't have some magic bullet. They don't have a treatment or something else that we don't have. What they have is the resolve to do those basic public health measures, stay outdoors, stay socially distanced, wear a face mask, do hand hygiene, and keep to small crowds, because we know that large crowds create these super- spreading events. It's not that hard, but we will only do it as a country if we have the leadership.</s>BLITZER: It's only going to get worse as the weather gets colder. Dr. Zeke Emanuel, thanks for everything you're doing. Thanks for joining us.</s>EMANUEL: Thank you, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: All right, just ahead: The president is about to resume his crowded campaign rallies, but are Americans buying his efforts to seem like things are back to normal? And Joe Biden's campaign is going on the offensive tonight in states President Trump had hoped to win. We will be right back.

Confirmation Hearings Begin For Trump's Supreme Court Nominee

BLITZER: Confirmation hearings for the president's Supreme Court nominee kicked off today, Senate Republicans pushing ahead big time with their goal of trying to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to by Election Day despite the Democrats' very strong objections. Our Congressional Correspondent, Phil Matingly, is covering the hearings for us. Phil, after the first day, do Republicans seem to be on track right now with their timetable?</s>PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. If there's one thing, and there may only be one thing, that both Republicans and Democrats agree on, it's that, at this moment, Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court nominee, should everything go according to plan, will be confirmed before the November election. And that actually provide a window into House senators in both parties operated today. In the first day of the hearing, really the introductory part of the hearing, just opening statements from the 22 members of the Judiciary Committee, and the Supreme Court nominee herself. And you saw Democrats focused extremely hard on issues, on the types of things that Amy Coney Barrett may vote on in the future if she does end up in the Supreme Court or on the Supreme Court, whereas Republicans are focused just on defending the nominee and making clear she is imminently qualified. Take a listen.</s>SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): This Supreme Court nominee has signaled in the judicial equivalent of all caps, that she believes the Affordable Care Act must go and that the precedent protecting the ACA doesn't matter.</s>SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Now, in any measure, Judge Barrett's credentials are impeccable.</s>MATTINGLY: And, Wolf, you saw some version of that going back and forth between Democrats and Republicans throughout the day and expect to see it when the question and answer portion begins starting tomorrow and continuing on to Wednesday. Democrats want to make this about the Affordable Care Act. Obviously, the Supreme Court will take up a case to strike down the Affordable Care Act just a few days after the election, a case Amy Coney Barrett would be seated to rule on if she is confirmed to rule before that time. And Democrats want to make this case, not to try and persuade Republicans to vote against Amy Coney Barrett, they know the 51 votes necessary are already there, but to make the case to the American people at a very, very key moment in time for an election, on an issue, Wolf, that Democrats believe cycle after cycle over the course to last couple of elections, they have won out on, the issue of health care.</s>BLITZER: Phil Mattingly reporting for us, Phil, thanks very much. We're joined now by our Chief Legal analyst, the former federal prosecutor, Jeffrey Toobin. He's also the author of the new book, True Crimes and Misdemeanors, the Investigation of Donald Trump. I know you watched the hearings closely earlier in the day. You've been reviewing Judge Barrett's record, Jeffrey, including her work with an admiration for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. What kind of justice would Amy Coney Barrett be if she is confirmed?</s>JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: You know what specially struck me today was that Judge Barrett didn't just embrace Justice Scalia as a friend and a mentor, she said, I am going to be the same kind of justice. And so what does that mean? Well, Antonin Scalia thought Roe versus Wade was incorrectly decided and should be overturned. He thought that the Constitution should be interpreted as the framers understood it, so that means no protections for LGBT people, no protections for women. That's how the framers thought of it. And it's a very different approach than Ruth Bader Ginsburg had. But this is the approach that Judge Barrett endorsed without a provocation today.</s>BLITZER: In her opening statement today, and she will only start answering the senators' questions tomorrow morning, but in her opening statement, she reaffirmed her stance that the court should leave it to legislators to make the law as if she is confirmed. How will that stance inform her decision-making when the Affordable Care Act, for example, comes before the Supreme Court who's supposed to hear arguments a week after the election?</s>TOOBIN: You know, that was really kind of fascinating, I thought, because you know, you have all the Republicans saying you know, keep the courts out of policymaking, leave that to Congress. Well, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. It is the law of the land passed by the Democratically elected branches of government, but Republicans, over and over again, have asked the unelected judges to strike it down and they're their asking the court to do that again the week after the election. So it will be interesting to see if Judge Barrett engages on that question because it is a pretty contradictory position.</s>BLITZER: It's only about three weeks to go until Election Day. Barrett's confirmation hearing is playing out though as voters are already casting their ballots by the millions here in the U.S. Look at these images, for example, hundreds of voters lining up to make their voices heard as Judge Barrett appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier today. So, how extraordinary is it, Jeffrey, to see those things happening almost simultaneously?</s>TOOBIN: Never happened, never happened before in American history, that we have had a Supreme Court confirmation so close to the election. And the Democrats I think recognizing that Judge Barrett is on a glide path to confirmation. They are using this hearing to talk about health care. They are saying this vote is a proxy for whether the Affordable Care Act survives. They think that's a political winner, as several of these senators, especially several of these Republicans, face the voters in a few days. That's what they're focusing on is the election in November. Not this vote in the Senate, because they know, barring some widely unexpected development, they're going to lose and Judge Barrett is going to win.</s>BLITZER: What do you expect to see tomorrow morning when the she starts answering the senators' questions?</s>TOOBIN: Well, one thing I'm sure we're not going to see is any sort of attack on her religion. You saw Senator Holly of Missouri, you know, making out like she's been attacked because of her religion and the senators are going after her. No Democrat even mentioned that at all, her Catholicism. What I expect will be a lot of pressure on her to explain her views about the Affordable Care Act, because that's the case the Democrats are all focused on. I expect like most or all Supreme Court nominees, since Robert Bork in 1987, she will not engage with the senators much at all about her actual judicial philosophy and it will be very frustrating for the Democrats who try to draw her out.</s>BLITZER: We'll, of course, have live coverage tomorrow. All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you very, very much. Just ahead, the president's doctor just confirmed for the first time that Mr. Trump has tested negative for the virus on consecutive days. Plus, California authorities are investigating several fake and possibly illegal mail-in ballot drop boxes set up in the state. We'll have much more. That's coming up.

Interview with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D- MN).

COOPER: Just moments ago, the Senate wrapped day two of its Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, two more sessions remaining. Republicans hoping for a quick confirmation as Democrats today stress policy issues presents the November elections. Short time ago senator and Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris spoke about Barrett's potential impact on the Affordable Care Act also known as Obamacare.</s>SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D) VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Republicans are scrambling to confirm this nominee as fast as possible, because they need one more Trump judge on the bench before November 10th to win and strike down the entire Affordable Care Act. This is not hyperbole. This is not a hypothetical. This is happening.</s>COOPER: Our next guest Senator Amy Klobuchar question Judge Barrett have focused part of her time on voter suppression and intimidation.</s>SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Judge Barrett under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls?</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Senator Klobuchar, I can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation and I can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. Well, I'll make it easier. 18 USC-594 outlaws anyone who intimidates, threatens, coerces or attempts to intimidate, threaten or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote. This is a law that has been on the books for decades. Do you think a reasonable person would feel intimidated by the president presence of armed civilian groups at the polls?</s>BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, you know, that is eliciting. I'm not sure whether it's a it's eliminating a legal opinion from me because the reasonable person standard, as you know, is one common in the law, or just an opinion as a citizen, but it's not something really that's appropriate for me to comment on.</s>COOPER: Joining me now, is Senator Amy Klobuchar. I appreciate you being here. I'm wondering what you made of the Judges answers. She obviously is very reticent to give you an answer on voter suppression, election integrity.</s>KLOBUCHAR: I was actually pretty shocked because this isn't a court opinion that she's being asked, this is a law on the books. And I was just making the point, it's very relevant, because as you know, a contractor from outside of my state was actually trying to recruit outsiders, former Special Forces. That's what they asked for, to come in and stand at the poll places in Minnesota. And by the way, that is illegal. I want to make that clear on your show, even though she wouldn't talk about it is illegal. Under Minnesota law, there's going to have one person in the polling place, you can't intimidate people. There's all kinds of rules that apply. And so, that's why I asked it. And I was very much shocked, as well as the fact that she has a previous opinion that she wrote a dissent, in which she really downplayed voting rights to me talk about them as civic rights as opposed to individual rights. And, you know, we're losing a seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg here. And I don't want to be filled by someone that doesn't share Justice Ginsburg, profound commitment to voting rights. She's the one that wrote that dissent in the show be case, which was her blueprint for the future, and which she talked about. I mean, she talked about how Congress should have the reigns, how she talked about in that case, how you shouldn't be throwing out the protections from the Voting Rights Act. And as I asked the Judge today, they got thrown out because of the majority, and now over 20 states have enacted laws that suppress the vote. So Ruth Bader Ginsburg was right. But Justice -- Judge Coney Barrett would not agree that she was right.</s>COOPER: Is it -- I mean, is it fair to assume that that she would go to the mat for President Trump, if he contested the election? I mean, she will have a lifetime appointment. She wouldn't be beholden to him for her job security. You know, there are those who say, give her the benefit of the doubt.</s>KLOBUCHAR: Well, let's look at what he has said. I mean, he has said that he wants nine justices on the court. After the election, he's made that very clear because of the election. And he actually went as far as to say that they could count the ballot. That was a recent statement that he made. So, it's very clear what he's thinking, and he has set out every sign. And that's why, you know, I think she could should recuse herself. And we asked her that today, but she would not commit to doing that. If there was any kind of an election case that went before the court, unlike some Michigan judges, who had actually done that, when they're -- when a case came before their court. They had been on the Trump list of potential U.S. Supreme Court justices, and they actually recused themselves.</s>COOPER: We heard from Senator Harris before about the upcoming Supreme Court -- the challenge of the Supreme Court's the Affordable Care Act. Judge Barrett said today that she's, quote, not hostile to the ACA. But she's also criticized Chief Justice Roberts and his rulings on the ACA in the past. So how do you square her answers on that?</s>KLOBUCHAR: Well, what I said to her today, finally, because she won't commit to where she is on it, I said, you know, in northern Minnesota, where I used to go up there growing up, and my mom would take me on these walks on muddy paths, and we would look for deer tracks, and we would follow those deer tracks and it was always a mystery. Where would they go? I don't think this is a mystery. What we have to do is follow her tracks. When you follow the tracks of her record, what do you see? She criticized Justice Roberts, in one case for upholding the Affordable Care Act, as she was very pointed in her criticism. Then in another case, in the Burwell Case, she actually said that she thought that Scalia who wrote the design, again, Affordable Care Act case, she said that Scalia had the stronger of a legal argument. I don't think it's that hard. When you look at the fact that she says Scalia is her mentor, where she is on that where, she's been on Roe v. Wade, you can follow those tracks very, very clearly. And they point you in the polar opposite of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for her whole life.</s>COOPER: At this point, though, there's not really a path where the Judge does not get confirmed. I mean, isn't that correct?</s>KLOBUCHAR: Oh, that's a different path Anderson. So, I made that point yesterday in my opening, and that is that we don't have some clever procedural trick. That's true with the way the rules are. And I don't think you're going to see some incredible cross examination, that's going to change the trajectory of this judge. But one thing can change that your trajectory, and that is the American people. People who have had it and thinks we should be working on a COVID relief package instead of sitting in that hearing room that shows the priorities of the Republican Party. So, people are I know they're doing this calling those Republican senators saying, this isn't what you should be doing right now. You should follow your own precedent, and the people should choose the president and the president should choose the justice and you should be getting a COVID relief package done. The other thing that people can do is vote. And once they see and I think many of them have, where this judge is coming from, if anything, it should make them want to vote and not just in the presidential race, but in the Senate races, which is really at issue here. We need a different leader of the Senate and we need a different Senate.</s>COOPER: Senator Klobuchar, I appreciate your time. Thank you.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK, thanks, Anderson.</s>COOPER: Still to come tonight, a new development, what authority so it was a kidnapping and terror plot focused on Michigan's Democratic governor. The FBI now says a second Democratic governor was potential target. Details when we return.

Interview with Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY)

COOPER: Disturbing development in the case of the 13 men federal and state authorities say plotted to kidnap the governor of Michigan. Today, an FBI agent testified during a preliminary hearing that some of the men also discussed a plot against a second Democratic governor. President Trump tweeted that people should quote liberate, unquote both states. Details now from CNN Brynn Gingras.</s>BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Michigan's governor Gretchen Whitmer wasn't the only sitting governor with a target on their back by a group of alleged extremists. Virginia's governor Ralph Northam was also eyed by the 13 men charged in an alleged domestic terrorism plot foiled by the</s>FBI. GOV. RALPH NORTHAM (D-VA): We don't work under a cloud of intimidation and I'll continue to serve Virginia.</s>GINGRAS (voice-over): The new details of the chilling scheme were revealed by an FBI agent during a bond hearing where three of the six men charged federally were denied release, the other men are charged at the state level. The agent testified that in an early June meeting, the group discussed possible targets including taking out a sitting governor, but specifically governors of Michigan in Virginia over shut down orders due to the coronavirus. An informant who attended that meeting flagged the potential violence to the FBI. Withmer and Northam, both Democrats and both criticized for their response to COVID-19 in their states, particularly from the President who said this about Northam in May.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES: I might, be careful. I might. I'll be there. We're going to -- we're going after Virginia with your crazy governor. We're going after Virginia. They want to take your Second Amendment away. You know that right? You'll have --</s>GINGRAS (voice-over): Trump early on in the pandemic also singled out the two states in tweets liberate Michigan and liberate Virginia.</s>NORTHAM: When language issues such as to liberate Virginia, people -- they find meaning in those words, and thus, these things happen and that's regrettable.</s>GINGRAS (voice-over): The White House said in the statement, the President condemns white supremacists and pass the blame to both governors saying they are sowing division. It's not clear up the group's alleged plans were inspired by the President's tweets. But the agent testified that they did want to carry out the kidnapping of Withmer by Election Day. Their idea in part cold for sending an explosive device to her vacation home. In another option, the agent testified they wanted to quote, take her out on the boat and leave her out in the middle of Lake Michigan by disabling the engine.</s>GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER (D-MI): I knew this job would be hard. But I'll be honest, I never could have imagined anything like this.</s>GINGRAS (voice-over): A federal complaint unsealed last week shows the men some recruited from an anti-government group called Wolverine Watchmen connected through rallies, meetings and social media. Together, they planned practice and even conducted surveillance in the hopes of executing their missions, which also included storming Michigan's Capitol building and warding off law enforcement by blowing up their vehicles. According to the complaint. Brynn Gingras, CNN, New York.</s>COOPER: Let's get some perspective now from Elizabeth Neumann, former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security under President Trump who's endorsed Joe Biden. She says the President's language has helped embolden the threats from white nationalists. Also with us, former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin, a CNN chief legal analyst. Elizabeth, are you surprised that the plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer allegedly also included Governor Northam and what does it say about sort of the scope of what the suspects were originally interested in?</s>ELIZABETH NEUMANN, FMR ASSISTANT SECRETARY, HOMELAND SECURITY: Yes, I'm not surprised. I was kind of waiting to see what we learned through the prosecutorial process. I'm sure we'll find more tidbits that that draws similar connections. I don't think that what we're dealing here with is causation. But it's more correlation. You had a group of people that were already anti-government in nature, the pandemic increased their antagonism towards their government, they didn't like the shutdowns, they perceived it to be an infringement on their liberties. But then when you add somebody like the President, putting more rhetoric on there that you liberate Michigan liberate, and Virginia and I can appreciate that he probably thinks he's just using political rhetoric. But groups like these, they view that as a call to arms. And so, the caution for all leadership is to realize we're in a very, very tense situation within our country, that pandemic makes it tense, the election period makes it tense. And so every leader has a responsibility to be very cautious with their language and how it might be interpreted by a threat actor.</s>COOPER: And Jeffrey, I mean, is it weird that the attorney general has not publicly commented on this case, I mean, involves two sitting governors. And it seems like a pretty big deal for the Justice Department in the</s>FBI. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Unfortunately, I'm sorry, we live in a country where it's rare that governors get kidnapped and have violent threats against them. And you would think it would be something that the attorney general would want to call attention to. But, you know, what we've seen with Attorney General Barr is that he only wants to call attention to Donald Trump's enemies. You know, he's happy to talk about Antifa and the violence in Portland in Seattle and those should be prosecuted. But this threat seems much bigger. And it's also, you know, worth mentioning that, you know, the Attorney General silence is revealing in another way. Today, we learned in the Washington Post that one of his big investigations of so-called unmasking of people that the supposedly that the Obama administration, you know, unmasked people who were in intelligence intercepts and that was supposedly a big scandal. They're not even going to do a report because the whole thing turned out to be so bogus. I mean, that's what the Attorney General is interested in, not the actual threat of these militia groups,</s>COOPER: When all that -- all the unmasking stuff, which has been talked about on, you know, Fox, on and on and on and on, it's all amounts to nothing.</s>TOOBIN: John Bash, who was the U.S. attorney who was in charge of that investigation left the Justice Department this week without filing a report, the whole thing went away. We have the President of the United States calling for Barack Obama and Joe Biden to be indicted and prosecuted for their role in this. And it's nothing. It's absolutely nothing.</s>COOPER: Elizabeth, you know, for the second time</s>NEUMANN: Yes.</s>COOPER: Yes.</s>NEUMANN: Yes. Absolutely not answer to Anderson. I thought that their -- even their most recent statement, saying that they condemn white supremacy tells me they're not paying attention. It is possible some of these members also held white nationalist white supremacist views. But these were a different group of threat actors. They're anti- government extremists who associate with militia movements. They had some QAnon adherence had boogaloo boys adherence. So, it was a different group of mix of extremists. And they seem to not be paying attention, even to the case now five days later, more interested in heaping blame on two governors that were subject of a kidnapping plot. So, it's kind of boggles the mind how much they're not interested in doing their jobs and just seemingly answering the mail so that they can get back to running a reelection campaign.</s>COOPER: Yes.</s>TOOBIN: And it's not, you know, and this is not new. If you listen to their rhetoric, it's Timothy McVeigh, it's Terry Nichols. It is the militia movement from the '90s that has been brought back to life, apparently, because it's been encouraged by the President of the United States.</s>COOPER: Yes. Elizabeth Neumann, Jeff Toobin. Appreciate it. Thank you. With the election three weeks from today, Florida's 29 electoral votes, of course are critical. When voting bloc, they're considered essential to victory though 65 and older. Up next, our Randi Kaye with an update from the battleground.

Trump Holds Rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania

COOPER: Former Vice President Biden spend most of the day campaigning in Florida. President Trump held a rally in the state yesterday and he's returning on Friday. All to say the state is vitally important to both sides, obviously, which Trump won back in 2016 with a lot of help from voters 65 and older. There are signs that voting blocks could change. Our Randi Kaye is on the ground and has been talking with some of Florida seniors.</s>STEPHEN STARUCH, BIDEN SUPPORTER: Definitely going to vote for Joe Biden. There's nothing that Donald Trump could do at this point in time that would change my mind about that.</s>RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): That's a huge statement coming from this lifelong Republican who voted for Donald Trump in 2016. But Stephen Staruch is 67, a senior citizen and part of the group considered one of the most vulnerable to COVID-19. He's so turned off by Trump. He's now a registered independent and Biden supporter. He says Trump's mismanagement of the pandemic was the final straw, especially his messaging on masks.</s>STARUCH: So the fact he's not listened to the scientist is really concerning. And the fact that he's ignoring it and in fact, encouraging the opposite. It's just really dangerous. We're taking people's lives and into his hands.</s>KAYE (on-camera): Do you believe the President when he says that a vaccine is just days or weeks away?</s>STARUCH: No, he's lied about it several times now. It really affects his credibility. So whatever comes out of his mouth, you just don't believe.</s>KAYE (voice-over): Florida senior Dave Davidson also supported Trump in 2016, but not this year, even though he's registered Republican. (on-camera): So what is it about the pandemic that he didn't handle right, in your opinion?</s>DAVE DAVIDSON, BIDEN SUPPORTER: Starting with the very beginning, not giving me the truth.</s>KAYE (on-camera): Didn't want anybody to panic?</s>DAVIDSON: He didn't want anybody to panic. And that's a wonderful thing. However, wouldn't it be nice for us to have all the information and then make our decisions?</s>KAYE (voice-over): Unlike his neighbor's, Republican John Calandro, is voting Trump just like he did in 2016. At 74 he says it's about personal responsibility that seniors should know how to protect themselves. (on-camera): When you say the President handled the pandemic. Well, right now we see there's an increase in cases in 33 state, 215,000 Americans are dead. Wisconsin is now opening a field hospital. They're seeing such a spike. Hospitalizations are up once again. How did he handle that well?</s>JOHN CALANDRO, TRUMP SUPPORTER: We deliver health care in this country, through state and local government. The federal government has a responsibility to support that. We have to look at how those states have handled the pandemic within their own regions. And whether or not they have done a good job --</s>KAYE (on-camera): So you're saying it's not the President's fault.</s>CALANDRO: I'm saying the President is not the sole responsible person for how the pandemic was handled.</s>KAYE (voice-over): Tell that to Florida voter Michele Yeger, who's turning 70 this week. She blames Trump's attitude and lack of action early on for the virus spread and won't vote for him again. She was a registered Republican in 2016 when she voted for Trump. But she since switched to independent and is supporting Biden.</s>MICHELE YEGER, BIDEN SUPPORTER: had a listen to the CDC and Dr. Fauci and the leaders who are the science leaders, we might have been able to save many, many lives. But because of him and him being having narcissism and being ego driven, he thought it was macho not to wear a mask.</s>COOPER: Randi joins me now. I'm wondering what the voters told you how that compares to the polling of senior voters.</s>KAYE: Well, Anderson some of the polls are tighter than others. If you look at a recent CNN national poll for voters 65 and older, Biden has 60% support Donald Trump has 39% support. But there's also this New York Times/Siena College Florida poll, so not a national poll, just very specific to this state for 65 and older, Biden has 47% Trump has 45% so much closer. But we really don't know where this is going to go. One of those Biden's supporters told me today that he has Republican friends, his close friends who he thinks are moving towards Biden, but are afraid to say so. But the Biden supporters also really like him for the fact that he's going to keep that Affordable Care Act intact and keep those -- keep that for the millions of Americans that won't lose their health insurance. Anderson.</s>COOPER: Appreciate it, Randi. Thanks very much. The news continues. Want to hand it over Chris for "CUOMO PRIMETIME." Chris,

Corona Virus Headlines from Several Countries; Early Voting in America; Virtual Tour of Dubai; Record Setting T. Rex

CARL AZUZ, CNN 10 ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to everyone watching worldwide. My name is Carl Azuz. We are covering a range of topics today from early U.S. voting to a virtual tour or a Middle Eastern city. But we`re starting with the status of the corona virus both in America and abroad. It`s still out there. It`s still spreading but the number of cases and deaths blamed on the disease are different from nation to nation and community to community. Globally, Johns Hopkins University has recorded 37.6 million positive corona virus tests since the pandemic began. The U.S. has seen more than 7.7 million. Globally scientists have blamed more than 1 million deaths on corona virus. America has accounted for roughly 215,000 of those fatalities. Over all estimates that came out this summer indicate that COVID-19 is deadlier than the flu. Roughly one-tenth of one percent of people who catch influenza are estimated to die from it. Roughly six-tenths of one percent of people who catch corona virus are estimated to die from it. Over the past week, the number of corona virus cases has increased in 31 U.S. states. The remaining 19 are either holding steady of seeing decrease in case numbers according to Johns Hopkins. And worldwide, it`s a mixed bag as well with very different approaches from nation to nation. There are countries like Australia and New Zealand which imposed strict lockdowns during corona virus outbreaks and saw new case numbers come under control. But there`s also Sweden, it made the controversial decision not to have the lockdowns of other countries but it`s also seen a relatively low number of new cases in recent months. Though they have been increasing lately. Numbers in several other parts of Europe appear to be on the rise.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m Nick Horbison (ph) in London where the British Prime Minister is expected to announce a simplification of COVID regulations that tackle the growing number of infections across the country, has expected to announce a three tier system, medium, high and very high. We know that the city of Liverpool is expected to be in the very high category. They are expecting bars, gyms and casinos to be shutdown but a lot of other details still to be worked out.</s>FRED PLEITGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I`m Fred Pleitgen in Moscow as new corona virus infections here in Russia remain at a very high level. Russian authorities recorded around 13,600 new infections in a span of 24 hours, and one of the main epicenters remains the capital here in Moscow with about 4,400 new infections in a single day. The Russian authorities are urging people to abide by the anti-pandemic measures but also say if the high numbers persist they might have to put additional measures in place.</s>SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I`m Scott McLean in Berlin where nearly every large city in this country is now considered a corona virus hotspot. Stuttgart has even called in the military for help. Berlin though, is seeing the highest rates of infection. This past weekend the health minister though is warning for the potential of uncontrolled spread of the virus fueled by weddings and large religious gatherings. Later today, German officials are expected to announce a new testing strategy and quarantine rules.</s>MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I`m Melissa Bell in Paris. After a week of record rises here in France in terms of the number of new corona virus cases, two extra cities on top of the four that entered the maximum alert category on Saturday will do so from tomorrow. They join then Paris and Marseilles with all the fresh restrictions that that will bring. And yet, for now, the national positivity rate continues to climb 11.5 percent this Monday. That`s up from just 4.3 percent on September 1st. And for the greater Paris region, it has now reached 17 percent.</s>AZUZ: 10 Second Trivia. Who was the candidate in the U.S. election that saw the highest percentage of voter turnout? Rutherford B. Hayes, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy. Though 50 to 60 percent of voters have turned out for modern elections, 82 percent turned out for Hayes victory in 1876. More than 128 million votes were cast in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and so far this year, more than 9 million votes have been cast. But Carl, you might be saying, Election Day isn`t until November 3rd. Right. But 38 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia allow early voting. There`s also been a surge in mail-in voting because of concerns about the corona virus pandemic. So according to the U.S. election project, millions have voted and millions more will vote before October is over. What`s interesting, according to one analyst is that the votes that have been cast are based on what the political environment is right now. How people currently feel about Republican Incumbent President Donald Trump, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden or any other candidate they want to see in office. So if those early voters change their minds before November 3rd, they can`t change their votes. Those have already been cast. Except for Tuesdays, the Louvre Museum in Paris is open again from 9am to 6pm. Visitor numbers are limited and they have to wear masks but for Americans it`s a moot point. Most aren`t allowed to travel from the U.S. to France right now. In southern Asia, the Taj Mahal reopened to visitors last month. Only 5,000 people are allowed to go there per day when it was 70,000 before the corona virus pandemic hit, but for Americans it`s a moot point. The State Department says, don`t travel to India. Even as tourist venues reopen, there`s a lot less travel going on in the world because of COVID-19. But there is a way to see some venues and cities without leaving your living room.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The COVID-19 continues to confine us inside. More institutions around the world are opening their online doors than ever before. All you need is an internet connection and a power cord. That`s Michael (inaudible) who`s helped launch one of the world`s largest virtual city tours.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So Mark360 (ph) is a 360 virtuality have decided to create a virtual 360 tour of the whole of Dubai.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: From the Burg Califa (ph) to the lounge inside, Dubai Marina`s (inaudible), Michael`s company has digitized dozens of Dubai landmarks including malls, museums and most everything in between. But how do these virtual tours compare to the real thing?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you virtually walking yourself up to a museum, of course, seeing a sights and sounds and -- and the smells of the place. You can`t reputate that (inaudible). If you want to see a -- a specific exhibit in a museum, whether you`re there or whether you`re online, the information and the look and feel is exactly the same.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He says filming these experiences isn`t all that difficult. I imagine it`s much more labor intensive than just getting your digital camera and uploading it online.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. It`s -- and -- and the process itself is not to -- not to difficult. Yes, 360 is not a complicated thing. It`s -- it`s -- anyone can go and buy a 360 camera and it`s cheap.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But the challenge comes in the edit suites.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You take all those photos (inaudible) and now you have to stitch them into what you see as a panoramic photo. Which is (inaudible) 360 photo that you can look around and then you have to stitch all of those panoramics together into a walk through. And then it could take us a week to film but could take us six weeks to stitch together.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dubai 360 launched long before corona virus became a common term but like many virtual experiences, website hosts say that more visitors have been logging on during the pandemic than ever before. And the International Council of Museums are seizing this moment by encouraging people to use online exhibits as a relaxing way to spend your extra indoor time.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Binge watching series is going to melt your brain. You`ve got to (inaudible). Go to (inaudible) educate yourself and better yourself. Get out there. Explore the world more. There are other options to (inaudible) and if you can`t leave your house 360`s the way to do it.</s>AZUZ: For 10 out of 10, we have some "sad ish" news for you today. Your chance to own your very own fossilized T-Rex has come and gone. Last month we told you how "Stan" a dino skeleton named for the paleontologist who discovered it was going up for auction. Christie`s Auction House estimated it would fetch $6 million but in true T-Rex fashion, "Stan" ate that for breakfast. The winning bidder paid $31.8 million. It`s the most money any fossil has ever fetched at auction and the skeleton isn`t even complete. Though it took a complete fortune to "fossilitate" such a "giganotosaurus" sale and "triceratops" the record. Maybe someone`s all "velocirapted" up in this idea of collecting "allysaurus" he can for his own "Jurassic Park". I`m Carl Azuz. "T-wrecking" our show with dinosaur puns. We hope you`ll come back tomorrow. Shout out to the Anglo-American School of Moscow watching from the Russian capital. And thank you for your comment at You Tube.com/CNN. END

Germany Sees Highest Infection Numbers Since April; President Trump Holds First Rally Since Diagnosis; First Day of In-Person Voting In Georgia; Tropical Storm Nangka Taking Aim at Vietnam and Southeast Asia; President Trump Back to Campaign Rallies; Supreme Court Nominee on Day One of Hearing; South Korea Take Masks Seriously; China Paranoid with the Virus

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. This is CNN Newsroom. And I'm Rosemary Church. Just three weeks until the U.S. presidential election and the country's coronavirus pandemic is getting worse. The death toll has topped 215,000 people. And infection numbers are soaring in more than half the country. And with it, being October, the flu season is also heating up. Top infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony fauci says the U.S. is in a bad place.</s>ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: We are entering into the cool months of the fall, and ultimately the cold months of the winter. And that's just a recipe of a real problem if we don't get things under control before we get into that seasonal challenge.</s>CHURCH: Dr. Fauci also warned against holding large public gatherings, especially political rallies. But that message was ignored by U.S. President Donald Trump who held his first campaign event since he was diagnosed with COVID-19. He told rally goers he feels fine, even joked about kissing the crowd.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I can feel - - I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience.</s>CHURCH: The president's doctor insists Mr. Trump is not infectious and says he is tested negative over consecutive days. Many of his supporters are also dismissing concerns about the virus. One saying this at his rally.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe you won't get sick from it?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't care if I do. Because I know I'm not going to die from it. That's been --</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you know? How do you that with all due respect?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know what, if I do, I do. I'm not afraid.</s>CHURCH: The president's political rival Joe Biden also held campaign stops, but unlike Mr. Trump, he wore a mask and practiced social distancing. Meantime, Washington a Republican led Senate panel began hearings for the president's Supreme Court nominee. They defended their decision to move forward with the process despite strong opposition from Democrats. We'll have more on that in just a moment. But first more details on President Trump's health as he returns to the campaign trail. CNN's Kaitlan Collins has that from Washington.</s>KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It was only hours before this rally that President Trump's doctor actually announced he had tested negative for the coronavirus, the first time we've been told that since of course the president's diagnosis. And in this memo Dr. Sean Conley said the president had tested negative for consecutive days using a rapid test, though he didn't say which days it was that the president had actually tested negative. And we know that the White House has declined to say when the president last tested in a detective for his diagnosis. Something that Conley made no mention of in his memo. But this memo came out just hours before the president took the stage in Florida. He was there and spoke for little over 65 minutes or so. And at times he sounded hoarse. But at others he talked about his diagnosis with coronavirus and said that he felt powerful. And talked about what his recovery has been like. And of course, as he's been doing now, claimed that he is immune.</s>TRUMP: One thing with me, the nice part, I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I can fell -- I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience.</s>TRUMP: I'll walk in there I'll kiss everyone in that audience. I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and the -- everybody. I'll just give you a big, fat kiss.</s>COLLINS: Of course, we know science says that what the determination on immunity is and how long it lasts is still very much out despite the way the president is spinning his own health. And though he tried to talk about coronavirus as if it was in his past, we know it's at the top of mind for voters. And it even appeared to be so for some of the president's own advisers, including his chief of staff who doesn't typically wear a mask but was seen wearing a mask on this trip yesterday. Only hours after he refused to take questions from reporters on Capitol Hill because they asked him to keep his mask on. Kaitlan Collins, CNN, the White House.</s>CHURCH: Well day two of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings is set to begin in the coming hours. And it could be a tough day for Amy Coney Barrett who will be questioned by senators for the first time. It comes after an already tense first day of hearings. CNN's Jessica Schneider reports.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): The floor is yours judge.</s>JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Amy Coney Barrett starting out her confirmation hearing, spilling out her judicial philosophy.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The public should not expect courts to do so. And courts should not try.</s>SCHNEIDER: The 48-year-old was clerk for late conservative Justice Anthony Scalia. And while she would sit in the spot of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it's Scalia's seat she'll really fill.</s>BARRETT: It was the content of Justice Scalia's reasoning that shape me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward. A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were.</s>SCHNEIDER: Democrats immediately aired their disdain that Republicans are racing to fill Justice Ginsburg seat before the election.</s>SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Senate Republicans have made it crystal clear that rushing a Supreme Court nomination is more important than helping and supporting the American people who are suffering from a deadly pandemic and a devastating economic crisis.</s>SCHNEIDER: Vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris skip the in- person hearing to go virtual and slammed the committee for moving forward without mandatory testing.</s>HARRIS: This committee has ignored common sense requests to people's safe, including not requiring testing for all members despite a coronavirus outbreak among senators of this very committee.</s>SCHNEIDER: While Harris stayed in her office, Republican Senator Mike Lee was there in person without a mask despite having tested positive shortly after the White House event announcing Barrett's nomination about two weeks ago. Lee release a letter from the Senate physician today clearing to attend in-person. While six of Barrett's seven children sat behind her, the political posturing played out for hours in front of her. Democrats warned Americans that their access to healthcare is at stake when the Supreme Court hears arguments on the Affordable Care Act on November 10th.</s>SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): The president has promised to appoint justices who will vote to dismantle that law.</s>SCHNEIDER: Republicans preemptively made Barrett's Catholic religion the focus, calling out any Democrat who makes Barrett's fate an issue, though no Democrat did.</s>SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): When you tell somebody that they're too Catholic to be on the bench, when you tell them they are going to be a Catholic judge, not an American judge, that's bigotry. The pattern and practice of bigotry from members of this committee must stop.</s>SCHNEIDER: Barrett meanwhile kept the focus on her family and her resume. Noting how she would be the only justice without an Ivy League degree.</s>BARRETT: I would be the first mother of school age children to serve on the court. I would be the only sitting justice who didn't attend school at Harvard or Yale.</s>SCHNEIDER: Monday's format kept things relatively tamed but it could get a lot fiery on Tuesday and Wednesday when all members of the committee will ask their questions. Democrats will stay laser-focused on healthcare. And we also know it's on the president's mind on Monday. He tweeted twice before noon saying that Republicans have a better plan, at a lower cost but we have yet to see any concrete plans from the president. Jessica Schneider, CNN, Washington.</s>CHURCH: Joining me now is Reid Wilson, he is a national correspondent for The Hill. Thank you so much for being with us.</s>REID WILSON, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE HILL: Thanks for having me.</s>CHURCH: So about three weeks away from the election and just about 10 days or so after testing positive for COVID-19, President Trump was out on the campaign trail holding a rally in Sanford, Florida with more rallies planned in three other states. It's a message of course of business as usual, trying to put this virus behind him. Is that going to work given 60 percent of voters disapproved of the way he's handling this pandemic?</s>WILSON: Well, I don't think that the virus is ever going to be out of voters' minds. It has been front and center in absolutely everything that we've done for the last nine months as a community, as a nation. And it's not simply going to go away because a president wants to will it away. As a matter of fact, infections are rising once again. Hospitalizations are rising in many states around the country. And we are heading into a fall and winter that can be really abysmal. We're going to be stuck back inside again. And those are exactly the conditions under which this virus spreads. So, it's going to be troubling. And President Trump is taking a clear risk every time he hosts one of these forums, one of these big rallies. That one of the rallies themselves might become a super spreader event which would be a disastrous outcome for his campaign just as it was when his introduction of a new Supreme Court nominee became a super spreader event a few weeks ago.</s>CHURCH: Right. And new polls on Monday from the New York Times and Sienna College for likely voters in Michigan show Biden support at 48 percent, Trump at 40 percent. And then in Wisconsin, Biden is at 51 percent to Trump's 41 percent. What are those numbers tell you?</s>WILSON: Well, there are two things that should be troubling for President Trump in those two numbers, and in a lot of the surveys that we've seen recently. First of all, he is trailing in some of those blue wall states that he won back in 2016. Michigan and Wisconsin were critical pillars to his taking the White House why it's such a large margin as he did. The other thing that trouble -- that should be troubling to the president's campaign is that those numbers that you read off for him are so low. It's not as if he's neck and neck with Joe Biden in the high 40's. It's that only 40, or 41 percent of people in these critical swing states say they're going to back him. We're only three weeks out from election day, voters have tuned in, millions of voters have already cast their ballots. You know, if those numbers, if his numbers aren't 45, 46, 47, he's got zero shot at winning these swing states. He needs to improve dramatically. And the clock is ticking and running out very fast.</s>CHURCH: So, as you point out, all reputable polls show the president trailing his Democratic rival Joe Biden nationally and in some battleground states. But Democrats still fear a repeat of 2016 because of course it's the Electoral College that decides the winner. Do you see any path to victory for Donald Trump? Because he thinks the polls look very good for him.</s>WILSON: Yes, and it's funny that you mention the Democrats. They have this collective feeling of what Biden's own pollster called PTSD about the polls being so wrong from 2016. I'd argue that the polls weren't that far off. The big difference here between 2016 and today is that Hillary Clinton was leading Donald Trump. But she was in the mid-40s and he was in the low 40s. Today, Joe Biden is at or above 50 percent in a lot of these key swing states. Trump does have a path. There are millions, tens of millions of votes still to be counted. And there are a lot of people who support the president to the very end. There's nobody in America who doesn't need a wealth or hate Donald Trump. There's not a lot of people in the middle there. But the fact is his coalition is shrinking by the day, it seems. And Joe Biden is doing substantially better than Hillary Clinton did among some key demographic groups, among women, among suburbanites, among moderates, especially among college educated white people that she struggled to win over. Joe Biden is winning. So that tells me that President Trump's path is difficult geographically and it's difficult demographically too.</s>CHURCH: And so, overall, how big a role has President Trump's handling of the pandemic played into Biden's lead over him in the polls? Because of course he has been struggling to make law and order the big issue. But apparently, voters doesn't care about that as much.</s>WILSON: Well it's funny you mention that. As we look at the surveys, on questions of law and order, more Americans actually trust Joe Biden to handle law and order issues than they do President Trump. Now, Biden's advantage on law and order issues is narrower than his advantage on coronavirus handling which is substantially larger than President Trump's margins. But the fact is, I mean, it's as if the president has picked two losing issues. Everybody is focusing everything through the lens of the coronavirus pandemic, whether it's the discussion of healthcare, discussion of the economy, even discussion of law and order. You know, a lot of these protests that are happening, people are talking about it in the context of the potential to spread the virus. Fortunately, we haven't seen virus -- the virus spreading through a lot of these protests. But the fact is, I mean, this election is going to be a referendum on President Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Unless there's some miracle in the next three weeks which spoiler alert, there won't be, then his handling of it is going to determine the outcome of this election. And that clearly does not work in his favor.</s>CHURCH: Reid Wilson, great to talk with you. Thanks so much.</s>WILSON: Thank you, Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: Now to China where nine million people are being tested for coronavirus after the country reported its first new outbreak in nearly two months. This as other parts of Asia are just adjusting to life having mostly contained the virus. And we have reporters covering the pandemic from across the globe this hour. Let's start with our Kristie Lu Stout with more on the virus across Asia and the South Pacific.</s>KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN ANCHOR: Test rugby is back in New Zealand, so to the fans, some 30,000 of them are cheering, sitting shoulder to shoulder with no masks in sight unless you count the face paint. A COVID-19 restriction in Wellington where the match was lifted last month. But with so many sports events around the world being played with fewer or no spectators some wonder if a large gathering like this could set the country back. After being a model for coronavirus containment, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern encouraged fans to be vigilant.</s>JACINDA ARDERN, PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND: We want people washing their hands. And we definitely do not want you to attend if you are unwell. These are your extra public service now.</s>LU STOUT: The reality across Asia for countries that have successfully contain the virus in the past is that they will have to do it again. China which has been largely virus-free since mid-August is facing a new cluster and will test the entire population of the city of Qingdao some nine million residents over the next days. It's a mass response that just worked before, and one that may need to be used again especially since the country just wrapped up golden week, a holiday where the government says 600 million people travel some crowding into tourist sites. In densely populated parts of India, which now has more than seven million infections, officials worry about its upcoming festival season which begins in less than a week because they say many people are tired of social distancing.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): People have become very negligent. They are stepping outside in roads without wearing masks. They are crowding markets. I guess only 40 percent of the people are using masks.</s>LU STOUT: Australia, which still one of its largest cities, Melbourne, under lockdown says it is in talks with nations like South Korea and Japan to reopen travel as infections in these places level off. And while there are signs of progress around the region, confirmed cases in Myanmar have shot up in just a few hundred two months ago to nearly 30,000 today. An example of how fast things can change. The virus is still very active across Asia. And that is why China is not letting its guard down. And the northeastern Chinese coastal city of Qingdao, a city of nine million people, the entire population is currently being tested for COVID-19 after only 12 people were detected with the virus at the weekend. As of this morning three million people have tested negative for COVID-19 in that city. And just that follows other cities that have done similar mass rapid testing programs in China like Beijing, Xinjiang, Wuhan, and Dali. This is part of China's pandemic containment success story. But there are concerns this time around China is just coming out of its golden week holiday season where over 600 million Chinese tourist traveled across the country, cramming into popular tourist sites like the Great Wall of China and all it takes is just one infection, one asymptomatic carrier to lead to exponentially more. Back to you.</s>CHURCH: It is extraordinary response, though, isn't it? Kristie Lu Stout reporting there from Hong Kong. Many thanks. And now we turn to South Korea. The country is mandating the wearing of face masks in crowded areas and public transport beginning next month. Health officials reported more than 100 new coronavirus cases on Tuesday. Our Paula Hancocks reports from Seoul.</s>PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Rosemary, South Korea from today this Tuesday is strengthening its face mask rules. Now, they're bringing in rules nationwide with travel already been here in Seoul in the capital and other cities that you have to wear a mask on all public transport, in places like cafes, restaurants if you are not eating and drinking. Things like wedding, parlors, rallies and medical facilities. So, they are making sure that from today, everybody knows they have to wear a mask. There will be a 30-day grace period, we are being told, and then from November 13th, you can be fined for either not wearing a mask or even wearing it incorrectly. The health officials give the example of wearing it just under the nose or even wearing it as a chin strap, which I'm sure we have all seen. Now this does come at the same time as social distancing rules are being relaxed as well. They are now down to level one, which is the lowest level that they can be, which effectively means that all restrictions on the number of people who can gather indoors or outdoors has now been completely lifted. But they are bringing in the mandatory face mask wearing at the same time, to compliment it. Now they also saying that things like churches can now have people coming to services just 30 percent capacity at this point. Sporting events, the same, 30 percent capacity, so really trying to have this jewel effort to make sure that the numbers do stay fairly low. Now just today, we had numbers from yesterday for Monday, they were over 100 into triple digits for the first time in a number of days. But some of those were also imported as well. So, South Korea really trying to hammer down those numbers, and get them lower as we go into the winter. Rosemary?</s>CHURCH: Paula Hancocks, many thanks. Joining us live from Seoul. Well, not every sector of the economy is suffering during this pandemic. Coming up, how big tech is winning while other businesses struggle to stay alive. Back with that in just one moment.

U.K. Failed to Follow Scientists' Advice.

CHURCH: Welcome back, everyone. Well, many businesses are now struggling to survive during this pandemic. But big tech is doing just fine as more people work from home and shop online. Amazon is getting a jump on the holiday shopping season with its prime day and there is a lot of anticipation for Apple's event in the coming hours where a new iPhone is expected to be announced. Let's turn to our John Defterios. He has more on all of this joining us live from Abu Dhabi. Good to see you again, John. So, what's expected to come out of big events for both Amazon and Apple today?</s>JOHN DEFTERIOS, CNN BUSINESS EMERGING MARKETS EDITOR: Well, I think the right context, Rosemary, there is bricks and mortar and then there are the tech giants, right? And I thin Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Tim Cook best reflect of Apple what has been transforming since COVID-19. Just take a look at their stock prices with Amazon up 90 percent and Apple 68 percent year-to-date and even after that crash we saw in March. Why is it the case? Because they're efficient and there's big demand with this shift to work from home. That's the reality. Prime day is Amazon day today. And they hope it puts them in a prime position for even the rest of the year going into the holiday season. Expectations are that the sales will go up for this prime day, 40 percent to $11 billion dollars. It was delayed from July, but it may help them as we get into the second wave and people feel locked down and ready to spend at the same time. Also, in terms of the overall 4th quarter outlook for them, we are looking at a gain of 18 percent over the year. This is a stock that is already highly valued, but it seems to be knocking down barriers to new valuations as a result. We have a case where Apple here is hoping for a major shift in the name of high-speed, Rosemary. It's coming out with the iPhone 12. So, for 5G technology, what I find fascinating here is that the United States and Canada are not quite ready for 5G, but the phones are coming out. And we have users that hold the handsets in North America, which is 1 percent access to 5G. That is expected to surge to 74 percent by 2025, but Apple is not ahead of the game, it's behind players like Motorola, and Google, Huawei and Samsung as well. But it's not hurting them, because there is a loyalty to demand, and the final point really, I think is they see this as a super cycle. Up to 950 million handset holders of Apple are ready to change in and they have been waiting for the 5G experience even though the infrastructure is not there. That's what Apple is hoping for.</s>CHURCH: All right. John Defterios, bringing us up to date. Many thanks. Well breaking news on the U.K.'s coronavirus fight now. It's been revealed that Boris Johnson's government ignored its own scientists. The information about a previous dial warning over increasing cases comes just hours after the prime minister announced a new three tier COVID alert system. And our Nic Robertson is in London. He joins us now to bring us to date on what's been going on. So Nic, what was the warning from scientists exactly and when did they give it?</s>NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, this is a group of scientists known here as SAGE. They collectively get together to give scientific advice to the government. The government says it's been following the scientific advice. It's not always the same group of scientists, but it contains many of the -- many of the country's leading authorities on coronavirus. On the 21st of September, the minutes of their meeting, they recommended that the government should institute a circuit breaker lockdown, a short lockdown of a number of weeks to bring down the infection rates. This was three weeks ago. The government issued new guidelines following that, but it went for lesser and less stringent methods, not a full lockdown which the prime minister says he is opposed to. So after the prime minister's press conference last night, this group, SAGE, released the minutes of those meeting -- minutes of that meeting from three weeks ago. Clearly, an indication that there is a sense of frustration among them or they are sort of wanting to defend their position against what may happen in the future. That they are uncomfortable that more, that tougher measures haven't been taken. And I think we saw this during the press conference when a very senior member of SAGE, Chris Whitty, the England's chief medical officer, was asked a question, do the -- do these latest restrictions by the government -- are they enough? This was his answer.</s>CHRIS WHITTY, CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER TO THE U.K. GOVERNMENT: I am very confident that the measures that are currently in place are helping to slow the virus and these measures will help to slow it further. I am not confident and nor is anybody confident that the tier three proposals for the highest rates, if we did the absolute base case and nothing more, would be enough to get on top of this. The base will not be sufficient. I think that's very clearly the professional view. But there are quite a lot more additional things that could be done within that, with local guidance.</s>ROBERTSON: So, this, the tier three, the very highest here, the highest rate of infection in the countries. One city Liverpool does fall into that category, that pubs casinos are closing down. Gyms are closing also. But the prime minister the difficulty for him also is trying to bring along many of those, sort of local councils and authorities in the north of the country where infections are high, where he wants to work with them to bring down infections. And this is what Chris Whitty was talking about. Those bolt on additional measures need to be added on. Well the prime minister is trying to work with local authorities to do that. But clearly, the country's scientists are not happy with what the government is doing so far. This is what appears to be the case. Rosemary?</s>CHURCH: Right. And of course, then the public aren't happy either if they go too far. It's a very difficult balancing act, isn't it? Nic Robertson, many thanks, bringing us that live report from London. I appreciate it. Well, the U.K. is not alone. We are also seeing a surge in cases in France, Russia, and Latin America. And we will have more on that when CNN Newsroom returns.

Number of Cases of Coronavirus Deaths in the United States; Coronavirus Cases on the Rise in Parts of Europe; Latin America and Caribbean Top 10 Million Coronavirus Cases; Russia Sputnik Vaccine Undergoing Clinical Trials; Schools May Not Be Infection Hotbeds; Tech Industry on High Demand

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR: The U.S. has topped 215,000 coronavirus deaths. And it's closing in on 8 million cases. That's according to Johns Hopkins University. Still, the president is holding crowded rallies where he claims to have immunity. Right now, more than 30 states are seeing a significant rise in cases. And several states are dealing with record high hospitalizations. But Europe is seeing a surge too. France and the Netherlands have recently broken case records. And Johns Hopkins records more than 1.3 million cases in Russia. Where officials claim to be vaccinating thousands already. Meanwhile, Latin America and the Caribbean have now topped 10 million cases. CNN is reporting on this pandemic from around the world. Melissa Bell is in Paris, Scott McLean in Berlin and Fred Pleitgen in Moscow. We will speak to them in just a moment. But let's start with Matt Rivers in Mexico City.</s>MATT RIVERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Over the first signs since this pandemic began, the 33 countries that make up Latin America and the Caribbean are no combined, reporting more than 10 million confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Of all those countries, Brazil leads the way with more than 5 million confirmed cases and counting. Brazil is followed by Columbia, Argentina, Peru and then here in Mexico. But when you look, you know, across the whole region, you look at this chart. It shows you the seven day moving average of newly confirmed cases. You could see that number is still extremely high. It hasn't really gone down below 60,000 cases per day consistently for a while now, and that is why the Pan-American Health Organization says it is still very concerned, not only about the overall number of cases, but also spikes in cases, including in places that have effectively managed outbreaks, places like Cuba and Jamaica. There is a little bit of good news, though. We had heard from the Pan- American Health Organization saying that in terms of the rates of severe COVID illness, they are seeing that begin to fall a little bit. That means fewer hospitalizations, it means less people requiring intensive care, but still obviously, the situation remains quite grim in this part of the world. Matt Rivers, CNN, Mexico City.</s>CHURCH: Thanks, Matt. And now let's turn to Melissa Bell. She joins us live from Paris. So, Melissa, what is driving these cases in France?</s>MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We need only look in places like greater Paris, one of the worst hit parts of France. The incidents rate for younger people, 20 to 29 year olds compared to the general population. It is doubled, Rosemary. And of course this is happening in other European countries. That is driving up sickness rates amongst older people, the younger infecting the older. And that has of course consequences for ICUs. There are now nationally more than 1500 people in ICU. Just to give you an idea of how fast it has risen. On September 1st, Rosemary, that figure was 26. That is how quickly it has gone in the positivity rate. It's 11.8. And that is extremely worrying. And again, it is that question of areas like the greater Paris region, how their ICUs are going to go with the figures on the rise. The ministers here in France are going to be meeting with health officials this morning for an emergency meeting to look at the very latest figures and what could be done to bring these figures back under control. We will hear from the French president on Wednesday. Government sources have been consistent in this. The French want to avoid a second general lockdown at all costs. But there are other measures that could be announced by the French president on Wednesday. And we understand are under discussion. Things like a curfew being installed for instance. Anything at this stage, to try and bring those numbers down, especially in the hardest hit areas, while avoiding the economic difficulty over what a second lockdown would bring. Rosemary?</s>CHURCH: All right. Thanks, Melissa. Now let's bring in Scott McLean, live from Berlin. Scott, what is the latest from there?</s>SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Rosemary. Se, we are actually at the site of the testing center here in Berlin where the lines are quite long. You can see they stretch all the way down this block and these are people who are coming to get a test, because the number of cases has really started explode here in Berlin. In fact the rate of infection that they are seeing here is the highest that they have seen since April. So, not only does the line stretch down that block, well, it also stretches down this block. And some of the people that I have spoken to in the brief time that we have been here say that they have been here for several hours right now. And you can see, it goes all the way down that end as well. And they expect to be here for several hours yet to try to get a test. Obviously these sites are limited in the number of tests that they can do per day. This is also the holiday break. The fall holiday break in Germany. A lot of Germans would normally go abroad on vacation with things looking a little bit dicey, many were hoping to stay within the country and go on vacation, but even that is difficult right now, because many different German states have different rules as to who can come in and actually check into a hotel room. A lot of different German states require even domestic travelers from hotspots like Berlin to have a negative coronavirus test in the last 48 hours. Other places require not only that negative test, but also a quarantine period once they arrive. And so, that is also driving up the demand for these tests. So, tomorrow, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is going to be meeting with the Premiers of the German states and then she is expected to announce a new coronavirus measures tomorrow to try to really start to turn things around in this country. Rosemary?</s>CHURCH: All right. Scott McLean, live from Berlin. Many thanks. And now we want to bring in Frederik Pleitgen. He joins us from Moscow. Good to see you, Fred. So, cases very high in Russia too. What are authorities doing about it and what is the latest on their vaccine?</s>FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Rosemary. You are absolutely right. The cases certainly do remain very high in all of Russia, specifically quite frankly, right here in Moscow. We are actually waiting right now for the Russian authorities, they usually announce the cases for the past 24 hours around this time. So we are keeping an eye on that. We will update that once we get those numbers. But Moscow really remains the epicenter here in Russia. Yesterday they had about 4,400 confirmed cases by the authorities. That is around 13,600 cases for the entire country. As you can see, what a big proportion Moscow is of that. The authorities here yesterday came out, because they were getting questions about that. The spokesman for the Kremlin saying that right now, Russia will not have to go and Moscow probably will not have to go on a full lockdown. The Russians are saying the reason for that is some of the measures that they have taken against the pandemic so far, they are obviously have the physical distancing measures, which they say people really need to adhere to, but the Russians are also saying that they do have an additional amount of hospital beds, ICU beds to make sure that their health care system can cope with an extra influx of patients if that is to be the case with these new numbers, of course getting higher and higher here in the Russian federation. As part of the vaccine is concerned, the Russians obviously are moving forward with that. It's been certified without -- a while ago, without going through those critical phase three trials. The Russians yesterday announcing that they are in phase three trials. That they have given a vaccine to about 12,000 participants so far. Unclear whether it is just one dose or also the second dose that is required in the Russian vaccine. So, that is moving along, but that vaccine is not widely available here in Russia yet. It won't be for a considerable period of time. It was interesting, because the mayor of Moscow said only two days ago that yes, there will be a vaccine he believes on an industrial scale in several months, but for now, the Russians really need to (inaudible) especially really need to adhere to these anti-pandemic measures to make sure that they get through this very difficult time without any losses. Rosemary?</s>CHURCH: Yes. Absolutely. Frederik Pleitgen, live from Moscow. Many thanks to you. Well, in the United States, President Trump is flouting the virus that has killed more than 215,000 of his fellow Americans. He is also contradicting his own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by claiming immunity. Even though the science on that is very unclear.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When you are the president you can't lock yourself in a basement and say I'm not going to bother with the world. You've got to get out. And it is risky. It is risky, but you've got to get out. But it does give you a good feeling when you can beat something and now they say you are immune. I don't know for how long. Some people say for life, some people say for four months.</s>CHURCH: Joining me now is CNN medical analyst, Dr. Leana Wen. She is an emergency room physician at George Washington University. Thank you, doctor for all that you do and for talking with us.</s>LEANA WEN, FORMER HEALTH COMMISSIONER, BALTIMORE: Always glad to join you, Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: So, President Trump's doctor said Monday evening that he has tested negative for COVID-19 on consecutive days using an antigen test. And yet, this is the first we are hearing about any negative tests since his infection. What do you make of this and why wouldn't he take a more reliable PCR test?</s>WEN: That's exactly the right question. It does not make any sense at all that we are relying on the antigen test when that is not with the antigen test is for. And when there is a much more accurate gold standard test, the PCR test. So, it leads you to wonder, did they get a result that they did not like via this more accurate test and then took this other test in order to try to hoodwink the American people?</s>CHURCH: It is a concern, isn't it? And of course, doctor, we saw the president hold a rally in Stanford, Florida Monday night where the COVID infection rate is around 10 percent. And where few of his supporters wore masks or socially distanced. How do you think he looked and what is your medical response to the president holding a rally at this time with more planned this week in three other states?</s>WEN: Look, I am glad that the president feels well enough to be holding these rallies. He wasn't short of breath. He actually looks like he is recovering well, which I am glad about, but I am very worried about the people attending this rally, not because of the president. I don't think there is a high chance that he is going to be infecting them, even if he is infectious, but they're in chance -- their chance of infecting one another. Because large rallies, these gatherings of many people in closed settings where there are in close contact with one another without wearing masks, that is really the last thing that should be happening in the middle of a pandemic. And I sincerely hope that all of these individuals will consider themselves as having gone to a high risk event and will choose to quarantine themselves and get tested after the event.</s>CHURCH: Right. We will see if that happens, of course. But preliminary data from Brown University seems to suggest that schools are not the super spreaders of COVID-19 that was previously thought. I'm interested to get your response to that data, particularly when we know of many schools dealing with infections, having to send students and teachers home. How do you reconcile those results up against the reality we are facing?</s>WEN: To my understanding from the study is that they only looked at these self-reported cases by schools for students and staff who were infected. Not the secondary infections that resulted. And the reason that this is important is, so many children are asymptomatic or have a typical symptoms. For example they might have G.I. symptoms and not your traditional coughing, sneezing respiratory illness, and by the time that illness is detected, it often is not affecting children but in those that they are around. The family members, or even one or (inaudible) from that. And so I think there needs to be a lot more research done to look at correlating for example, community spread with what is happening in the schools. And until then, I completely agree that we should prioritize schools for in-person learning and try to do everything we can to reduce community spread so that we allow schools to come back for in-person learning, but we really need to also safeguard the health of not only the students, but the faculty staff and their families too.</s>CHURCH: Right. Yes. All parents, we want our kids back in school, but it has to be done safely, right? And doctor, the U.S. is averaging about 50,000 new COVID cases a day. And all we really need to do is wear masks. But that message is failing to get through to the American public. We see it at these rallies where the president, and it's failing to get through despite the fact that thousands of lives could be saved if everyone wore masks. How do you get that message across and why is it not being received loud and clear?</s>WEN: It does take a significant cultural change, but we can do this. And part of what has been hampering our response all along is this mixed message. Instead of standing behind our scientists, we had our political elected officials frankly push scientists and science under the bus. We need everybody to be on the same page with this message and I think for all of us as individuals, we can do our part. We could wear masks ourselves and be a role model for those around us. Also in public health, we talk about the trusted messenger. Well, you are trusted messenger to someone. It could be somebody in your family, somebody in your social circles whom may not believe in masks, but you can help to convince them that this is the right thing to do for our country.</s>CHURCH: Yes. We certainly, all have to be role models, don't we? Dr. Leana Wen, you are our role model. Thank you so much for talking with us. We appreciate it.</s>WEN: Thank you very much.</s>CHURCH: In 2016, 50 percent of white women in Pennsylvania voted for Donald Trump according to exit polls.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What drew you to Donald Trump? Why did you vote for Donald Trump then?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For his celebrity. 100 percent.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was the brand?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was. Yes.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The image?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely. Successful. Funny. He was funny. Like, he was funny, I love his show, the celebrity apprentice.</s>CHURCH: So, who are Pennsylvania women voting for this time around? We will take a look. Stay with us.

Some Women in Pennsylvania Question Support for Trump; California Orders Removal of Unofficial Ballot Boxes

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to be out there and be able to share my voice.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So many people had sacrifice before us. SO it is almost as spitting in their face if we don't take the time to show our kids that they have this right.</s>CHURCH: People are turning out in record breaking numbers for early voting here in the U.S. State of Georgia. It has set a new record during its first day of in-person voting on Monday with more than 126,000 people showing up. Add to that, several weeks of mail-in voting and Georgia has more than doubled the number of ballots cast so far this year compared to 2016. And you could see it there. Long lines stretched on for hours in some locations. Recent polls show the reliably Republican state is a statistical toss-up between President Trump and Joe Biden. There are also not one, but two U.S. Senate races on the ballot here with two incumbent Republicans trying to fend off Democratic challenges. Well, President Trump heads to Pennsylvania for a campaign event in the coming hours. (Inaudible) his victory there in 2016, white women voters. So, what do they think of him now? CNN's Kate Bolduan went there to find out.</s>KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Rosemary, we know Pennsylvania is a battleground state. And Donald Trump is facing an uphill battle there right now. One reason? White women. Some of this key demographic that helped Trump win the state back in 2016 are now rejecting him. And the reasons why our fascinating.</s>HOLLIE GEITNER, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: I'm probably a good example of someone who has gotten through a lot of change in four years.</s>BOLDUAN: Hollie Geitner, a registered Republican is a working parent of two kids living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She voted for Donald Trump in 2016. And she wasn't alone. 50 percent of white women in Pennsylvania did the same according to exit polls. What do you feel today about your vote four years ago?</s>GEITNER: I can tell you how I felt four years ago. Shame.</s>BOLDUAN: Do you regret your vote?</s>GEITNER: Where we are today? Yes. I do. I don't think this is the great again that everybody thought it was going to be.</s>BOLDUAN: So, Hollie, is voting for Joe Biden. And so is Nin Bell. What drew you to Donald Trump? Why did you vote for Donald Trump, Nin?</s>NIN BELL, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: For his celebrity. 100 percent.</s>BOLDUAN: It was the brand?</s>N. BELL: It was. Yes.</s>BOLDUAN: The image?</s>N. BELL: Absolutely? Successful. Funny. I love his show the Celebrity Apprentice. Never missed it</s>BOLDUAN: Was there a moment when you decided I cannot support him anymore?</s>N. BELL: It was almost instantly.</s>BOLDUAN: It's not just outside the cities where suburban women are questioning their support for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. It's even out here in Westmoreland County, rural Pennsylvania, consider Trump country. We are about to meet two of them.</s>JOAN SMELTZER, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: She is older.</s>JULIE BRADY, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: I am older.</s>BOLDUAN: Oh you are definitely sisters. Joan Smeltzer, and Julie Brady are registered Democrats. And both voted for Trump in 2016.</s>SMELTZER: I feel like have been duped. I got it wrong. It hurts my heart. I mean, it truly hurts my heart, because the things that I saw I did not take seriously enough.</s>BOLDUAN: Throughout the campaign, he was making sexist, misogynistic remarks. And then there was the Access Hollywood tape. How did you guys process and digest that, being out there and voting for him?</s>SMELTZER: It was not easy. I looked at myself and I think how could I do that?</s>BRADY: I feel like I did a disservice to women by voting for this guy.</s>BOLDUAN: Was there a moment in the last four years when you said I cannot do this again?</s>BRADY: The COVID pandemic. The way he handled it. That was the absolute last straw for me. He did not create the virus, but he kind of left us all in the dark guessing what was going on. And that was not fair to us.</s>BOLDUAN: Among the women we spoke to, the coronavirus, the president's handling of the pandemic, and the racial unrest following the police killing of George Floyd were the overwhelming driving issues.</s>GEITNER: George Floyd's killing was a pivotal moment for me. And when I read that he was begging for his mom, as a mother myself, it just brought me to my knees. And to see what has happened since, I feel like he has added fuel to flames of hatred, and that really bothers me.</s>BOLDUAN: Nin Bell, who registered as a Republican in 2016 just to vote for Trump in the primaries. Now protests weekly in her town just outside Philadelphia. Also met by groups she used to consider herself a part of. Trump supporters, setting up counter demonstrations.</s>N. BELL: I think Trump kind of thrives on that division. I've seen it in my own town.</s>SMLETZER: Integrity. That is what we are lacking.</s>BRADY: And accountability. Being the mom of a nine year old, that is one thing that I push with my son all the time, is you know, you made a bad decision, it's your fault, you learn from it and you move on. We have a president who, nothing that happens is ever his fault. It's always somebody else's fault.</s>BOLDUAN: And there are consequences.</s>BRADY: There are consequences. He's about to find them out.</s>BOLDUAN: The women we talked to of course don't speak for all women voters in Pennsylvania, but what they have to say and why show the uphill battle that Donald Trump is facing in this battleground state. The latest polling shows Donald Trump is trailing Joe Biden by 23 points among women in Pennsylvania. Rosemary?</s>CHURCH: Thank you so much for that, Kate. Well, in California, election officials have ordered Republicans to stop using unofficial drop boxes to collect voter ballots. Several unauthorized boxes were found in at least three counties including one at a church. Republicans leader say they are not doing anything wrong and claim they are simply giving people a chance to drop off ballots with someone they know and trust. But California law does not allow unauthorized vote by mail drop boxes, and officials have warned of legal action if they are not removed. Well, the tropical storm is nearing Hong Kong after shutting down the stock exchange. We will have a live report from the CNN Weather Center after a quick break.

Tropical Storm Nangka Shuts Down Hong Kong Markets

CHURCH: Stock market trading has been shut down in Hong Kong as the city faces a major tropical storm. Our meteorologist, Karen McGinnis is tracking it for us at the CNN Weather Center. She joins us now from that studio in Atlanta. Good to see you, Karen. So, what are you seeing with this? Where is it going and how bad is this going to be?</s>KAREN MCGINNIS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Well, its impact is going to be fairly broad. It's not a very well organized system, but it is tapping a lot of moisture from the Pacific. A lot of deep moisture. So, that is throwing itself all the way into Hong Kong and to Hainan Island. This is where we are expecting the potential for heavy rain falls and gusty winds. There is already a level -- a typhoon warning alert. That is third from the top. Right now winds associated with this is 75 kilometers per hour. Landfall, most likely on Hainan Island will be within the next six to eight hours. And we are looking at a very heavy surf here, we could see mudslides and landslides. It will move over into the Gulf of Tonkin and then across of Vietnam. That's going to be another problem with the flooding that we have already seen there over the past seven to 10 days. This is Hue and we are looking at the Citadel there, in this very historic city and you can see the floodwaters surrounded this very historic building. And people are have been displaced. About 45,000 people have been moved from their homes. About 100,000 homes have been under water due to days and days of flooding. There you can see people trying to cross a swollen river with their humble belongings. It is very treacherous. Already, this has claimed about 20 lives, they are bearing estimates. It is expected that number could go up. Here you see kind of the broad view of this beautiful city with the rivers that are swollen there. And it does not look like this is going to be helped by what happens with our latest tropical system as it pumps in additional moisture. We have already seen some reports of as much as a meter and a half of precipitation here. But not just across Vietnam, also in to Laos and Cambodia. They've been affected as well, Rosemary? Back to you.</s>CHURCH: All right. Karen McGinnis, many thanks for staying on top of that. And thank you for joining us this hour. I'm Rosemary Church. I will be back in just a moment with more news.

Trump Holds First Rally Since COVID-19 Diagnosis; Trump Claims He's Immune, Despite Unclear Science; Trump Tails Nationally and In Key Battleground States; Amy Coney Barrett Spells Out Judicial Philosophy; Biden Makes Health Care Focus of His Opposition to Barrett

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us here in the United States and all around the world. You are watching CNN NEWSROOM, and I'm Rosemary Church. Just ahead --</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I went through it, now they say I'm immune, I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience.</s>CHURCH: A defiant President Trump returns to the campaign trail with a rally in Florida. What he told supporters about his health. Plus, under the microscope, Amy Coney Barrett faces her first day of questioning on Capitol Hill. We will look at what to expect. And just weeks before the presidential election, unofficial ballot boxes pop up and cause confusion in California. Good to have you with us. So, with the U.S. election just three weeks away, President Donald Trump has burst back on to the campaign trail after being sidelined with a COVID-19 infection for 11 days. Mr. Trump tried to make up for lost time with a large rally in Florida. It came just hours after his doctor insisted, he was no longer infectious and claimed the President had tested negative on consecutive days. Mr. Trump told supporters he was feeling fine and once again, claimed, without proof, that he's now immune from COVID-19. He went on to criticize coronavirus lock downs and encourage supporters to go out.</s>TRUMP: The lock downs are doing tremendous damage to these Democrat run states where they're locked down, sealed up, suicide rates, drug rates, alcoholism. Death by so many different forms. You can't do that, and I want to just congratulate the Governor and everybody in Florida, you're open and open for business and doing great. And we got to remember, I said it right at the beginning, the cure cannot be worse than the problem itself can. The cure cannot be worse. But if you don't feel good about it, if you want to stay, stay. Relax, stay. But if you want to get out there, get out.</s>CHURCH: In the coming hours, Mr. Trump is expected to hold another rally in Pennsylvania. CNN's Kaitlan Collins has more on the President's health as he returns to the campaign trail.</s>KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It was only hours before this rally that President Trump's doctor actually announced that he had tested negative for coronavirus. The first time we had been told that since of course the President's diagnosis. And in this memo Dr. Sean Conley said the President had tested negative for consecutive days using a rapid test. Though he didn't say which days it was that the President had actually tested negative and we know that the White House has declined to say when the President last tested negative before his diagnosis, something that Conley made no mention of in his memo. But this memo came out just hours before the President took the stage in Florida. With their spoke for a little over 65 minutes or so and at times, he sounded hoarse, but at others, he talked about his diagnosis with coronavirus. Said that he felt powerful and talked about what his recovery has been like and of course as he's been doing now, claimed that he is immune.</s>TRUMP: One thing with me, the nice part, I went through it, now they say I'm immune, I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience. I'll walk in there and I'll kiss everyone in that audience. I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and everybody, I'll just give you a big fat kiss.</s>COLLINS: Of course, we know science says that what the determination on immunity is how long it lasts is still very much out, despite the way the President is spinning his own health. And though he tried to talk about coronavirus as if it was in his past. We know it's at the top of mind for voters and it even appeared to be so for some of the President's own advisers including his chief of staff who does not typically wear a mask but was seen wearing a mask on this trip yesterday, only hours after he refused to take questions from reporters on Capitol Hill because they asked him to keep his mask on. Kaitlan Collins, CNN, the White House.</s>CHURCH: And President Trump's decision to resume his campaign schedule comes despite warnings from the nation's top expert on infectious diseases. Dr. Anthony Fauci stressed that large gatherings, especially political rallies can often lead to more infections.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: We know that that is asking for trouble when you do that. We have seen that when you have situations of congregant settings where there are a lot of people without masks. The data speaks for itself. It happens.</s>CHURCH: Joining me now is Reid Wilson, he is a national correspondent for The Hill. Thank you so much for being with us.</s>REID WILSON, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE HILL: Thanks for having me.</s>CHURCH: So about three weeks away from the election and just about 10 days or so after testing positive for COVID-19, President Trump is out on the campaign trail holding a rally in Sanford, Florida with more rallies planned in three other states. It's a message of course of business as usual, trying to put this virus behind him. Is that going to work given 60 percent of voters disapproved of the way he's handling this pandemic?</s>WILSON: Well, I don't think that the virus is ever going to be out of voters' minds. It has been front and center in absolutely everything that we've done for the last nine months as a community, as a nation. And it's not simply going to go away because a president wants to will it away. As a matter of fact, infections are rising once again. Hospitalizations are rising in many states around the country. And we are heading into a fall and winter that can be really abysmal. We're going to be stuck back inside again. And those are exactly the conditions under which this virus spreads. So, it's going to be troubling. And President Trump is taking a clear risk every time he hosts one of these forums and one of these big rallies that one of the rallies themselves might become a super spreader event. Which would be a disastrous outcome for his campaign just as it was when his introduction of a new Supreme Court nominee became a super spreader event a few weeks ago.</s>CHURCH: Right, and new polls Monday from "The New York Times" and Sienna College for likely voters in Michigan show Biden support at 48 percent, Trump at 40 percent. And then in Wisconsin, Biden is at 51 percent to Trump's 41 percent. What do those numbers tell you?</s>WILSON: Well, there are two things that should be troubling for President Trump in those two numbers, and in a lot of the surveys that we've seen recently. First of all, he is trailing in some of those blue wall states that he won back in 2016. Michigan and Wisconsin were critical pillars to his taking the White House by such a large margin as he did. The other thing that trouble -- that should be troubling to the President's campaign is that those numbers that you read off for him are so low. It's not as if he's neck and neck with Joe Biden in the high 40's. It's that only 40, or 41 percent of people in these critical swing states say they're going to back him. We're only three weeks out from election day, voters have tuned in, millions of voters have already cast their ballots. You know, if those numbers -- if his numbers aren't 45, 46, 47, he's got zero shot at winning these swing states. He needs to improve dramatically. And the clock is ticking and running out very fast.</s>CHURCH: So, as you point out, all reputable polls show the President trailing his Democratic rival Joe Biden nationally and in some battleground states. But Democrats still fear a repeat of 2016 because of course it's the Electoral College that decides the winner. Do you see any path to victory for Donald Trump? Because he thinks the polls look very good for him.</s>WILSON: Yes, and it's funny that you mention the Democrats. They have this collective feeling of what Biden's own pollster called PTSD about the polls being so wrong from 2016. I'd argue that the polls weren't that far off. The big difference here between 2016 and today is that Hillary Clinton was leading Donald Trump. But she was in the mid-40s and he was in the low 40s. Today, Joe Biden is at or above 50 percent in a lot of these key swing states.</s>CHURCH: And many thanks to Reid Wilson speaking to me a little earlier. Well, Johnson & Johnson is now the second drug maker to pause human trials for the coronavirus vaccine after a volunteer fell ill. 60,000 volunteers are taking part in the human trials and experts say complications are not unexpected. Last month, a volunteer from the AstraZeneca's vaccine developed neurological issues, that trial remains on hold in the United States. Well, in the coming hours, a Republican led Senate panel is set to resume hearings for President Trump's Supreme Court nominee. And it could be a tough day for Amy Coney Barrett who will face questions from Senators for the first time. It comes after a tense first day of hearings as Democrats focused on how her appointment could threaten health care for millions of Americans. And here's how President Trump reacted to that.</s>TRUMP: As America saw earlier today in Amy's opening statement in the Senate, Judge Barrett, a brilliant scholar who will defend our laws, our rights, our freedom and our Constitution like very few people would have the capability of doing. The radical left is hell bent on destroying everything we love and cherish.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): The floor is yours judge.</s>JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Amy Coney Barrett starting out her confirmation hearing, spilling out her judicial philosophy.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The public should not expect courts to do so and courts should not try.</s>SCHNEIDER: The 48-year-old was a clerk for late conservative Justice Anthony Scalia. And while she would step in the spot of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it's Scalia's seat she'll really fill.</s>BARRETT: It was the content of Justice Scalia's reasoning that shape me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward. A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were.</s>SCHNEIDER: Democrats immediately aired their disdain that Republicans are racing to fill Justice Ginsburg seat before the election.</s>SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Senate Republicans have made it crystal clear that rushing a Supreme Court nomination is more important than helping and supporting the American people who are suffering from a deadly pandemic and a devastating economic crisis.</s>SCHNEIDER: Vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris skip the in- person hearing to go virtual and slammed the committee for moving forward without mandatory testing.</s>HARRIS: This committee has ignored common sense requests to keep people safe, including not requiring testing for all members despite a coronavirus outbreak among Senators of this very committee.</s>SCHNEIDER: While Harris stayed in her office, Republican Senator Mike Lee was there in person without a mask despite having tested positive shortly after the White House event announcing Barrett's nomination about two weeks ago. Lee release a letter from the Senate physician today clearing to attend in-person. While six of Barrett's seven children sat behind her, the political posturing played out for hours in front of her. Democrats warned Americans that their access to healthcare is at stake when the Supreme Court hears arguments on the Affordable Care Act November 10th.</s>SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): The President has promised to appoint justices who will vote to dismantle that law.</s>SCHNEIDER: Republicans preemptively made Barrett's Catholic religion the focus, calling out any Democrat who makes Barrett's faith an issue, though no Democrat did.</s>SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): When you tell somebody that they're too Catholic to be on the bench, when you tell them they are going to be a Catholic judge, not an American judge, that's bigotry. The pattern and practice of bigotry from members of this committee must stop.</s>SCHNEIDER: Barrett meanwhile kept the focus on her family and her resume. Noting how she would be the only justice without an Ivy League degree.</s>BARRETT: I would be the first mother of school age children to serve on the court. I would be the only sitting justice who didn't attend school at Harvard or Yale.</s>SCHNEIDER (on camera): Monday's format kept things relatively tame, but it could get a lot more fiery on Tuesday and Wednesday when all members of the committee will ask their questions. Democrats will stay laser-focused on healthcare. And we also know it's on the President's mind on Monday. He tweeted twice before noon saying that Republicans have a better plan, at a lower cost but we have yet to see any concrete plans from the President. Jessica Schneider, CNN, Washington.</s>CHURCH: U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is making his feelings clear about Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination. On Monday in Ohio, he told supporters that Barrett could potentially cast the decisive vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act.</s>JOE BIDEN, U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: What's going on now is this outright effort to do away with health care. That's what it's all about right now. Health care. And they're going to go into court in 28 days, in the Supreme Court and going to try to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. That's 100 million people's preexisting conditions are going to be wiped out. They're not going to be able to have insurance, and you've got 20 million people are going to lose their insurance right away.</s>CHURCH: Joining me is Harry Litman. He is a former U.S. attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general. Good to have you with us.</s>HARRY LITMAN, FORMER CLERK FOR ABNER MIKVA, THURGOOD MARSHALL: Thanks, Rosemary, good to be here.</s>CHURCH: So, what stood out to you on the first day of hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court?</s>LITMAN: I was actually struck by the Democrats' discipline. They're often an unruly lot, and each person wants to be sure to get his or her points in. But all of them had obviously caucused and determined to make a kind of unified presentation about the consequences were the ACA, Obama care to be struck down.</s>CHURCH: Right, and in just a few hours from now, the second day of hearings gets underway with questions from Senators. What do they need to ask the judge about her position on the Affordable Care Act, Roe versus Wade and any possible effort by the President to contest election results and in the end, how much is she likely to reveal to them anyway?</s>LITMAN: The last question is the easiest. Nothing or next to nothing particularly since it really is something of a charade. Everyone's vote is already committed. It's a razor thin margin for the Republicans but they will preserve it and she is going to be confirmed. Si in that sense, they're really not talking to each other or about the nomination but rather to the American people.</s>CHURCH: Right, and Republicans talked on that first day about Democrats attacking Barrett for being Catholic, and for her stand on that very issue, when in fact, they didn't mention it at all Monday. But instead stayed focused on health care. Didn't they? How important is it that they stick with that strategy? You touched on that, but that they stick with that strategy, particularly in the middle of a pandemic, and given this confirmation is clearly going forward no matter what.</s>LITMAN: That's right. And it's obviously quite important. They've thought it through. They're in a position to know how important it is. And as I said at the top, it's striking that they stayed together on it. So, they've obviously decided that this is the horse they're going to ride for the next few days. And they've tried their hardest to put a human face on it today. Starting tomorrow, the Republicans will put a human face on their nominee, that is Amy Coney Barrett, who is a very appealing candidate in human terms in a lot of ways. She has seven children, two are adopted from Haiti. One has down syndrome. She has the attestations of anyone she has worked with at Notre Dame on either side of the aisle. I think she is going to be likable.</s>CHURCH: Right, and the Democrats highlighted the hypocrisy of Republicans pushing for this nomination three weeks before an election when they wouldn't do the same nine months before the last presidential election. But the more powerful political argument seems to come from Joe Biden pointing out that Senators should be approving a stimulus package for Americans who are really hurting right now in the midst of this pandemic. Is that argument gaining any traction, or do you see it will gain some traction?</s>LITMAN: I mean, we'll see. It won't gain it in the sense that it won't displace the nomination, but it's really true. I think the Republicans have even concluded that the President may well go down, but we still want in going down with the ship to be confirming Judge Barrett.</s>CHURCH: Harry Litman, many thanks for your analysis. Appreciate it.</s>LITMAN: Thanks, Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: And still ahead here on CNN NEWSROOM, fears of vote tampering in California after unofficial ballot boxes are discovered. What the state is doing to address the problem. That's next.

California Orders Removal of Unofficial Ballot Boxes.

CHURCH: In California, election officials have ordered Republicans to stop using unofficial drop boxes to collect voter ballots. It comes after several unauthorized boxes were found in at least three counties including one at a church. Republican leaders say they're not doing anything wrong and claim they're simply giving people a chance to drop off ballots with someone they know and trust. But California law does not allow unauthorized vote by mail drop boxes. Officials say they are a disservice to election administrators who have spent months setting up official drop boxes like the ones you see here. And CNN's Pamela Brown has more on the challenges taking place in early voting across the United States.</s>PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Roughly 8 million Americans have already cast their ballots, some standing in line for hours.</s>JULIA VINEYARD, NEVADA VOTER WHO WAITED 5 HOURS IN LINE: I thought maybe one hour at most. I would never have even came out to be honest if I knew it would be five hours.</s>BROWN: While others are putting them in drop boxes like these. But the seemingly simple process has turned quite complicated throughout the country.</s>SHANNON KAEHNY, CALIFORNIA VOTER: It's insane. I just -- I can't imagine in what world you would think that that would be acceptable.</s>BROWN: This California woman alerted local officials after finding an unofficial ballot drop box at a nearby church. In a Facebook post, the church's pastor told followers that the church had a voting drop box, but it wasn't a legal one.</s>MATTHEW JUDGE, CALIFORNIA VOTER: It was up for like four days before I even saw it, before it started to kind of gain traction. So, I'm really worried that someone put their ballot in there.</s>BROWN: In a sermon at the church, the pastor denied tampering with any ballots.</s>PASTOR JERRY COOK, FREEDOM'S WAY BAPTIST CHURCH: Obviously, we have a situation here with the ballot box, and folks are saying things that we're tampering, with it and things of that nature. Of course, we're not tampering with anything.</s>BROWN: Meanwhile, California's secretary of state tells CNN operating unofficial ballot drop boxes, especially those misrepresenting to be official drop boxes, is not just misleading to voters. It's a violation of state law. The box has been removed. The Facebook post also gone. As a Los Angeles County Registrar's Office investigates.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's an attack on democracy. It's not OK.</s>BROWN: And while the President or supporters on a recent peer called to get out and vote for him.</s>TRUMP: ... The poll booths, and I can tell you, we see it, we see it now. They are going to be swamped, get out and vote and make sure your vote counts.</s>BROWN: And Pennsylvania, a Trump-appointed federal judge rejected an argument by the RNC and Trump campaign that drop boxes were unconstitutional. While in Texas, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Republican Governor Greg Abbott's directive for one location per county for ballot drop boxes, after a lower court reversed Abbott's decision last week. And in Georgia, early voting started today at one location with a little hiccup, delays of an hour due to a technical glitch that caused voters cards to be rejected. (on camera): Now in California, the district attorney is investigating these fake drop boxes that popped up in several counties. In fact, in one county, it was the Republicans who bought these drop boxes, according to the spokesman, though the spokesman would not say how many and where they were placed, the GOP says they have done nothing wrong. Pamela Brown, CNN, Washington.</s>CHURCH: Coming up next, President Trump is launching a potential super spreader campaign push in the final weeks of the election. We'll get a doctor's reaction to his latest political moves.

Confirmation Hearing For President Trump's Supreme Court Pick, Amy Coney Barrett.

GRAHAM: And here's why your nomination's so important to me: In my world, to be a young conservative woman is not an easy path to take. We have two women on this committee. They can talk about it better than I. So I want to thank President Trump for choosing you, and I will do everything I can to make sure that you have a seat at the table, and that table is the Supreme Court. And if anybody in the country, in my view, deserves to have a seat at the table based on the way they've lived their life and their capabilities in the law, it is you, Judge. God bless you. Thank you.</s>BARRETT: Thank you, Chairman Graham.</s>GRAHAM: Senator Feinstein?</s>FEINSTEIN: (OFF-MIKE) Mr. Chairman. Judge, it's wonderful to see you here, also with the family that I have been observing. They sit -- sit still, quiet. You've done a very good job.</s>BARRETT: I have eyes in the back of my head, so I'm watching.</s>FEINSTEIN: Aw. I was wondering if you might introduce us to them.</s>BARRETT: Sure. So I have...</s>FEINSTEIN: ... to us.</s>BARRETT: ... my husband, Jesse, my son, J.T., my daughter, Emma, my daughter, Juliet, my daughter, Tess, my daughter, Vivian, and my son, Liam (ph).</s>BARRETT: And then behind them are my six siblings, who are with me today. I'll start the -- the side right behind Vivian. It's my sister Vivian, my sister Eileen, my brother Michael, my sister Megan, and my sister Amanda -- and is Carrie in the room? -- and -- and my sister Carrie is sitting right over there.</s>FEINSTEIN: You don't have a magic formula for how you do it and handle all of the children and your job and your work and your thought process, which is obviously excellent, do you?</s>BARRETT: It's improv.</s>FEINSTEIN: Yes, yes. Well, let me begin with a question that the Chairman touched on, and it's of a great -- it's of great importance, I think, because it goes to a woman's fundamental right to make the most personal decisions about their own body. And as a college student in the 1950s, I saw what happened to young women who became pregnant at a time when abortion was not legal in this country. I went to Stanford, I saw the trips to Mexico, I saw young women try to hurt themselves and it was really deeply, deeply concerning. During her confirmation hearing before this committee in 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was asked several questions about her views on whether the Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion. She unequivocally confirmed her view that the Constitution protects a woman's right to abortion and she explained it like this, and I quote -- "the decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her wellbeing and dignity. It's a decision she must make for herself. When government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choice," end quote. At one point, our former colleague Orrin Hatch, then the Ranking Member of this committee, commended her for her being quote "very forthright in talking about that," end quote. So I hope -- and you have been thus far -- be equally forthright with your answers. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Justice Scalia, as was said earlier, joined the dissent, which took the position, and I quote, "we believe that Roe was wrongly decided and that it can and should be overruled, consistent with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases." Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?</s>BARRETT: So Senator, I do want to be forthright and answer every question so far as I can. I think on that question, I -- you know, I'm going to invoke Justice Kagan's description, which I think is perfectly put. When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down, and I think in an area where precedent continues to be pressed and litigated, as is true of Casey, it would be particularly -- it would actually be wrong and a violation of the Canons for me to do that as a sitting judge. So if -- if I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.</s>FEINSTEIN: So on something that is really a major cause with major effects on over half of the population of this country, who are women, after all, it's -- it's distressing not to get a straight answer. So let me try again -- do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?</s>BARRETT: Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question but again, I can't pre-commit or say "yes, I'm going in with some agenda" because I'm not. I don't have any agenda -- I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey, I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.</s>FEINSTEIN: Well, what I -- as a person -- I don't know if you'll answer this one, either -- do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe can and should be overturned by the Supreme Court?</s>BARRETT: Well, I -- I think my answer is the same because, you know, that's a case that's litigated, it could -- you know, its contours could come up again -- in fact, do come up. You know, they -- they came up last term before the court. So I think, you know, what the Casey standard is and -- that just is a contentious issue, which is, I know, one reason why it would be comforting to you to have an answer, but I can't express views on cases or pre-commit to approaching a case any particular way.</s>FEINSTEIN: Well, that makes it difficult for me, and I think for other women also, on this committee because this is a very important case and it affects a lot of people, millions and millions of women, and you could be a very important vote. And I had hoped you would say as a person -- you've got a lovely family, you understand all of the implications of family life. You should be very proud of that, I'm proud of you for that. But my position is a little different. You're going on the biggest court of this land with a problem out there that all women see one way or another in their life and -- not all, but certainly married women do and others too. And so the question comes "what happens and will this Justice support a law that has substantial precedent now?" Would you commit yourself on whether you would or would not?</s>BARRETT: Senator, what I will commit is that I will obey all of the rules of stare decisis, that if a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law stare decisis, applying it as the court has articulated it, applying all of the factors -- reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts and law, just all of the standard factors -- and I promise to do that for any issue that comes up. Abortion or anything else, I'll follow the law.</s>FEINSTEIN: Well, I -- I think that's expected and -- well, I -- I guess I've gone as far as I can, let me go to another issue. This country is facing great gun violence. There's been a surge in gun sales during the COVID-19 crisis, which has led to more lives being needlessly lost. According to the Gun Violence Arcave -- Archive, excuse me, an independent research organization, there were 60 mass shootings in May alone. These shootings killed 40 people, they hurt 250 more. Also, there's been a troubling spike in gun sales. Americans bought approximately 2 million guns this past March. It's the second highest month ever for gun sales. That figure does not take into account all of the gun sales that could not be completed because the purchaser failed a background test -- a check, excuse me, a number that has also skyrocketed. For example, this past March, the FBI's background check system blocked 23,692 sales, more than double the 9,500 sales blocked in March of 2019. Do you agree that federal, state and local governments have a compelling interest in preventing a rise in gun violence, particularly during a pandemic?</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator, of course the constitutionality of any particular measure that were passed -- that was passed by state or local governments or by this body would be subject to the same judicial process that I described with Senator Graham. What I will say as -- because this is just descriptive of Heller, Heller leaves room for gun regulations and that's why there has been a lot of litigation in the lower courts, which makes me constrained not to comment on the limits of it, but Heller does not make a right absolute by its -- you know, it says so in the opinion.</s>FEINSTEIN: Well, let me ask one more question. In a recent dissenting opinion that you wrote, you said there was quote "no question" end quote that quote "keeping guns out of the hands of those who are likely to misuse them" quote is quote "a very strong governmental interest." Do you stand by that statement?</s>BARRETT: So I don't -- let's see -- I can't remember precisely the words of Kanter, which is the case in which I dissented, which...</s>FEINSTEIN: That's right, Kanter v. Barr.</s>BARRETT: Kanter v. Barr. What I said in that opinion, I stand by, which is that the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment -- and I went through a lot of detailed history in that case -- does support the idea that governments are free to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerous. So for example, the mentally ill, others who would be likely to misuse guns.</s>FEINSTEIN: So where -- where does that leave you on Roe? The Chairman asked, I thought, a very good question. For many people and particularly for women, this is a fundamental question. We all have our moral values, we have our religions, we live by that. I respect you and your family for doing just that. But this is a very real problem out there and if you could be more specific in any way with respect how you would view your place on the court with respect to controlling weapons in this country?</s>BARRETT: I think what I can say is that my opinion in Kanter shows how I approach questions as a matter of judicial philosophy. I mean, I -- I spent a lot of time in that opinion looking at the history of the 2nd Amendment and looking at the Supreme Court's cases. And so the way in which I would approach the review of gun regulation is in that same way, to look very carefully at the text, to look carefully at what the original meeting was. That -- that was the method that both the majority and dissent in Heller took. So I promise that I would come to that with an open mind, applying the law as I could best determine it.</s>FEINSTEIN: OK, let me move on. One of my constituents, Christina Garcia (ph), was able to obtain insurance coverage and have surgery that saved her eyesight, only before the Affordable Care Act. Her experience is not unique. Senator Tammy Baldwin has a constituent, Jimmy Anderson (ph), in her home state of Wisconsin, and she asked that this story be shared -- "Jimmy (ph) is a 34 year old and member of the Wisconsin State Legislature. In 2010, a drunk driver hit the family's car as they were returning home from celebrating Jimmy's (ph) 24th birthday. Jimmy's (ph) mother, father and little brother were killed in the accident. Jimmy (ph) was paralyzed from the waist down. His medical recovery was intense. As Jimmy (ph) has said, quote 'doctors managed to patch me up with dozens of stitches and multiple surgeries and about a pound of steel on my spine,' end quote, but soon after, his insurance company told him he was nearing his lifetime maximums and he would have to pay for the rest of his health care expenses. As Jimmy (ph) explains, quote, 'with hundreds of thousands of dollars still left to go, I don't know what I was going to do. I was scared, I was terrified, I was just a student, I didn't have that kind of money. Fortunately, a few days later, the insurance company sent him another letter. This one informed him that the provisions of the ACA had kicked in, which meant there were no longer lifetime maximums and his care would be covered. In Jimmy's (ph) own words, 'I was able to put my life back together and I credit the Affordable Care Act for that.'" Judge Barrett, how should the loss of ACA's protection against lifetime coverage caps, caps that can be used to end coverage for life-saving care, factor into a court's consideration of the validity of the ACA?</s>BARRETT: Senator, so far as I know, the case next week doesn't present that issue. It's not a challenge to pre-existing -- existing -- pre- existing conditions coverage or to the lifetime maximum, you know, relief from a cap.</s>FEINSTEIN: Well, what -- what is your view?</s>BARRETT: Of how it should factor in? The -- I -- let's see, I think that any issue that would arrive under the Affordable Care Act or any other statute should be determined by the law, by looking at the text of the statute, by looking at precedent, the same way that it would for anyone. And if there were policy differences or policy consequences, those are for this body. For the court, it's really a question of adhering to the law and going where the law leads and leaving the policy decisions up to you.</s>FEINSTEIN: For me, my vote depends a lot on these responses because these are life or death questions for people. It's my understanding that you were critical of Justice Roberts for upholding the ACA, stating that he quote "pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute," end quote. And in what way did Justice -- did the Chief Justice go beyond the ACA's plausible meaning?</s>BARRETT: So I've written about this and that description is consistent with the way the Chief Justice described in his own majority. That was King v. Burwell, where the court had to decide whether the phrase "established by a state" also included exchanges that were established by the federal government, and the majority in that case acknowledged that treating the phrase "established by a state" as including exchanges established by the federal government was not the most natural reading but for other reasons -- other policy reasons, in canons of interpretation, they chose to adopt the less natural reading.</s>FEINSTEIN: You see, for me, the case coming up, California v. Texas, puts a whole new weight on your nomination because the Affordable Care Act is now being so well-accepted. I represent the largest state, as does Senator Harris, that we have, and there are just over 10 million people dependent on the activities under this act, and that they be sustained. And so there is really great concern about what your view is. That case is coming up. Can you give us at least your view?</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator, the issue and the case that's coming up doesn't involve -- it's not the same issue as the ones in NFIB v. Sebelius or King v. Burwell. It's a different issue, so...</s>FEINSTEIN: Well, then give us both.</s>BARRETT: Well, let's see. So what I've said, what you quoted to me, was that I thought that the interpretation of the phrase "established by states" was stretched when the court held that it was established by the federal government. That's not the issue in California v. Texas. The issue in California v. Texas is if whether, now that Congress has just completely, you know, zeroed out the mandate, whether it's still a tax or a penalty. And even if so, is it constitutional? And then even so, is that fatal to the statute? There's a doctrine called severability, which sounds likely to leave (ph), but what it means is, is it OK with the statute? Could you just pluck that part out and let the rest of the statute stand, or is that provision which has been zeroed out so critical to the statute that the whole statute falls? So really, the issue in the case is this doctrine of severability, and that's not something that I've ever talked about with respect to the Affordable Care Act. Honestly, I haven't written anything about severability that I know of at all.</s>FEINSTEIN: So you have no thoughts on the subject?</s>BARRETT: Well, it's a case that's on the court's docket, and the Canons of Judicial Conduct, you know, would prohibit me from expressing a view.</s>FEINSTEIN: OK, I'll move on. On July 30th, 2020, President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election. Does the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? Does federal law?</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process. So you know, if -- if I give off-the-cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit, and I don't think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.</s>FEINSTEIN: OK, let me try something else. In 2017, in a case called EEOC v. AutoZone, the Seventh Circuit is -- your circuit issued an opinion which permitted an employer to intentionally assigned its employees to specific stores due to their race. The dissent in this opinion argued the decision; permitted employers to legally establish separate but equal facilities and argued if upheld, this decision would be, quote, "contrary to the position that the Supreme Court has taken in analogous equal protection cases as far back as Brown v. the Board of Education". The case was appealed to the full panel of the Seventh, and you sided, as I understand it, with the majority to deny a rehearing and let the opinion stand. Is that correct?</s>BARRETT: That is correct, and I think I need to give a little context for what it means to vote to deny to rehear something en banc. Our court, just like the Supreme Court in the (inaudible) process, doesn't take cases just because we think the panel got it wrong. There's a lot of deference to panels, and Rule 35 of the, you know, Rules of Appellate Procedure constrains and limits the times in which we take the resources of the full court to rehear a case. So I was not on that panel and I did not express a view on the merits. A vote to deny to hear something en banc is like a vote not to -- to deny (inaudible), not a vote that expresses a view on the merits.</s>FEINSTEIN: OK.</s>BARRETT: It was a statutory case; it was not an equal protection case.</s>FEINSTEIN: Let me ask you a question as a person.</s>BARRETT: Yes.</s>FEINSTEIN: If an employer can transfer an employee based solely on his or her race and that does not constitute a materially-adverse employment action because it was purely lateral job transfer, please explain what factors must be present for a policy based on race to violate Brown v. the Board's prohibition of separate but equal.</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator, to my knowledge, Brown wasn't at issue in the majority opinion. It turned on statutory language in Title VII. But again, I didn't express a view on the merits, and so I can't comment on whether I think that the panel majority got that right or got that wrong. You know, that's an issue that may well come before me. Even in the Seventh Circuit some may press for its overruling, and I may be on a panel that has to decide whether that precedent was wrong.</s>FEINSTEIN: Well, let me ask you, as a person, do you have a general belief?</s>BARRETT: As a person, I have a general relief (sic) that racism is abhorrent.</s>FEINSTEIN: That racism is what?</s>BARRETT: Abhorrent.</s>FEINSTEIN: Well, I think that's -- I think we would all agree with that. So how should a lower court in the Seventh determine when race- based policies could constitute a materially-adverse employment action?</s>BARRETT: Well, I'm not aware of cases presenting the exact same facts as that (inaudible)...</s>FEINSTEIN: I'm just asking you for your view.</s>BARRETT: You know, I know that the material adverse consequence was the standard at issue in that case. I have to confess that I would need to look at the statute and the precedent to -- well, even if I had a specific hypothetical in front of me, I couldn't really say without looking at the statute and the precedent what factors are involved because I wasn't on that panel and haven't decided a similar case.</s>FEINSTEIN: OK, let me go to another issue. The issue of LGBT equality is very personal for me. I've spent two decades as a county supervisor and mayor of a city. I watched firsthand as the LGBT community fought for legal recognition of their lives, their relationships, their personal dignity. I -- I was there before the law, so I saw in San Francisco what was happening. I want to speak briefly about one couple, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who I met in the 1970s. They were vibrant members of San Francisco's community. I was president of the board of supervisors. They worked with me to pass a citywide ordinance in 1978 that provided critical protection against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. At that time, this was one of the strongest protections for the gay community in the entire nation. We've come a long way since then and I think we should never go back. In June of 2008, 58 years after they met, my two friends were finally able to marry when the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples cannot be denied the fundamental right to marry. Del died two months later. Because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Phyllis was denied Social Security survivor benefits, even though her spouse had paid into this basic safety net for her entire working life. Phyl had to rely on the help of friends and fellow activists. In 2013, as you probably know because you know so much about this, U.S. v. Windsor, the Supreme Court struck DOMA down. Two years later in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court recognized that the fundamental right to marry could not be denied to LGBT Americans. Both decisions were decided by a 5-to-4 margin. Justice Ginsburg was in the majority. Justice Scalia dissented in both cases. Now, you said in your acceptance speech for this nomination that Justice Scalia's philosophy is your philosophy. Do you agree with this particular point of Justice Scalia's view that the U.S. Constitution does not afford gay people the fundamental right to marry?</s>BARRETT: Senator Feinstein -- as I said to Senator Graham at the outset -- if I were confirmed, you would be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia. So I don't think that anybody should assume that just because Justice Scalia decided a decision a certain way that I would too. But I'm not going to express a view on whether I agree or disagree with Justice Scalia for the same reasons that I have been giving. Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness used this -- this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing, no hints, no previews, no forecasts. That had been the practice of nominees before her. But everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely and it's been the practice of every nominee since. So I can't. And I'm sorry to not be able to -- to embrace or disavow Justice Scalia's position. But I really can't do that on any point of law.</s>FEINSTEIN: Well, that's really too bad because it's rather a fundamental point for large numbers of people, I think, in this country. I understand you don't want to answer these questions directly. But the great -- you identify yourself with a justice that you, like him, would be a consistent vote to roll back hard-fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community. And what I was hoping you would say is that this would a point of difference, where those freedoms would be respected. And you haven't said that.</s>BARRETT: Senator, I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent. On the questions of law, however, I just -- because I'm a sitting judge and because you can't answer questions without going through the judicial process -- can't give answers to those very specific questions.</s>FEINSTEIN: OK. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.</s>GRAHAM: Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Senator Grassley?</s>GRASSLEY: Yes. Judge, I welcome you again.

China Testing City of 9 Million After 12 New Cases

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR: CHURCH: Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson is now the second drug maker to pause human trials for a coronavirus vaccine in the U.S. after a volunteer fell ill. Some 60,000 volunteers are said to be taking part in the human trials, and experts say complications are not unexpected. Joining me now is CNN medical analyst, Dr. Leana Wen. She is an emergency room physician at George Washington University. Thank you, doctor, for all that you do and talking with us.</s>DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Always glad to join you, Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: So, President Trump's doctor said Monday evening, that he has tested negative for COVID-19 on consecutive days using an antigen test, and yet this is the first we're hearing about a negative test since his infection. What do you make of this, and why didn't he take a more reliable PCR test?</s>WEN: That's exactly the right question. It does not make any sense at all that we are relying on the antigen test when that's not what the antigen test is for. And when there is a much more accurate gold standard test, the PCR test. So, it leads you to wonder, did they get a result that they did not like via this more accurate test and then took this other test in order to try to hoodwink the American people?</s>CHURCH: It is a concern, isn't it? And of course, doctor, we saw the President hold a rally in Stanford, Florida Monday night where the COVID infection rate is around 10 percent. And where few of his supporters wore masks or socially distanced. How do you think he looked and what is your medical response to the President holding a rally at this time with more planned this week in three other states?</s>WEN: Look, I am glad that the President feels well enough to be holding these rallies. He wasn't short of breath. He actually looks like he is recovering well, which I am glad about. But I am very worried about the people attending this rally, not because of the President. I don't think there is a high chance that he is going to be infecting them, even if he is infectious, but they're in chance -- their chance of infecting one another. Because large rallies, these gatherings of many people in closed settings where there are in close contact with one another without wearing masks, that is really the last thing that should be happening in the middle of a pandemic. And I sincerely hope that all of these individuals will consider themselves as having gone to a high-risk event and will choose to quarantine themselves and get tested after the event.</s>CHURCH: Right. We will see if that happens, of course. But preliminary data from Brown University seems to suggest that schools are not the super spreaders of COVID-19 that was previously thought. I'm interested to get your response to that data, particularly when we know of many schools dealing with infections, having to send students and teachers home. How do you reconcile those results up against the reality we are facing?</s>WEN: To my understanding from the study is that they only looked at these self-reported cases by schools from students and staff who were infected. Not the secondary infections that resulted. And the reason that this is important is, so many children are asymptomatic or have atypical symptoms. For example, they might have G.I. symptoms and not your traditional coughing, sneezing, respiratory illness. And by the time that illness is detected, it often is not in the children but in those that they are around. The family members, or even one or even one removed from that. And so, I think there needs to be a lot more research done to look at correlating for example, community spread with what is happening in the schools. And until then, I completely agree that we should prioritize schools for in-person learning and try to do everything we can to reduce community spread so that we allow schools to come back for in-person learning. But we really need to also safeguard the health of not only the students, but the faculty staff and their families too.</s>CHURCH: Right. Yes, and so do parents, we want our kids back in school, but it has to be done safely, right? And doctor, the U.S. is averaging about 50,000 new COVID cases a day. And all we really need to do is wear masks. But that message is failing to get through to the American public. We see it at these rallies for the President, and it's failing to get through despite the fact that thousands of lives could be saved if everyone wore masks. How do you get that message across and why is it not being received loud and clear?</s>WEN: It does take a significant cultural change, but we can do this. And part of what has been hampering our response all along is this mixed message. Instead of standing behind our scientists, we had our political elected officials frankly push scientists and science under the bus. We need everybody to be on the same page with this message and I think for all of us as individuals, we can do our part. We could wear masks ourselves. Be a role model for those around us. Also, in public health, we talk about the trusted messenger. Well, you are trusted messenger to someone. It could be somebody in your family, somebody in your social circles, who may not believe in masks, but you can help to convince them that this is the right thing to do for our country.</s>CHURCH: Yes, we certainly, all have to be role models, don't we? Dr. Leana Wen, you are our role model. Thank you so much for talking with us. We appreciate it.</s>WEN: Thank you very much.</s>CHURCH: And China is in the process of testing an entire city of 9 million people. This after 12 new coronavirus cases were reported over the weekend. Authorities in the coastal city of Qingdao are taking swift action to find any other new cases. They have set up a city-wide testing program and have screened more than 3 million people so far. CNN's David Culver is in Beijing for us. He joins us now live. Good to see you, David. Some of course, as we mentioned, the aim is to test 9 million people in just a matter of days. How are they even able to pull off such a massive operation and what are the results so far.</s>DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey there, Rosemary, good to see you as well. This is massive. Talking about the scale of this, it's a city larger than New York population wise. And so, they are looking to do this over the course of five days. We know as of now they've screened some 3 million people as you mentioned. Of that, a million test results have come back -- not according to the government there -- with negative results. All together they're saying only just about a handful of confirmed cases, some asymptomatic ones on top of that. But aside from that, it's something we have seen play out before. Wuhan, for example, earlier in the summer, they like wise had city wide testing, 12 million residents there that underwent it. "" Here in Beijing, in June actually, they had a good portion of this city undergo mandatory testing and screening, so as to determine whether or not a cluster outbreak was being contained. I think the real concern overall, though, is what numbers we're getting out of Qingdao in particular, and who was there that potentially was in contact with some of these exposed cases and bringing it back to other cities. That's the worry because of what we saw last week, and that was the end of Golden Week, a massive travel holiday which you had millions of people in this country moving about for vacation. So as of now, with these small numbers, people seem to be a bit more confident. However, I can tell you here in Beijing, even talking to folks who are in education, for example, they're looking at the possibility of maybe shutting down schools. Nothing official has come out from that. But that's the discussion and the planning to react should they need to if this is going to spread a bit farther. As of now though, they seem like they have this under control. The question is going to be, how much can we rely on those numbers. Of course, numbers here in China coming from the government have been met with a lot of skepticism going back to Wuhan. But it does feel as though they're going to push this one as a successful rebound from what was a big travel holiday. All in all, there, you're talking about millions of people who are now undergoing testing, and it's a process that will take just a few days' time. But they've seemed to have gotten that under control. I mean, I've seen how it works here, Rosemary, it's actually quite impressive in Beijing. They had people being bussed into these parking lots that were converted into these large screening centers and it was quite organized and orderly, and they managed to make it work. As of now, no lock downs are even in place in Qingdao.</s>CHURCH: Yes, this swift reaction in China, just a stark contrast to what we see happen here in the United States. Incredible stuff. David Culver, many thanks for that report from Beijing. Appreciate it. And still to come, reports that the British Prime Minister ignored his own government's scientists' advice. What we're learning about which COVID restrictions were recommended and when. Back with that in just a moment.

U.K. Prime Minister Ignored Scientific Advice; Germany Sees Highest Infection Number Since April

CHURCH: In the U.K., we are learning that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government ignored its own scientists about COVID-19. The information about a previous warning comes just hours after the Prime Minister announced a new COVID alert system and stressed that people need to obey restrictions. Take a listen.</s>BORIS JOHNSON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: This is not how we want to live our lives, but this is the narrow path we have to tread between the social and economic trauma of a full lock down and the massive human and indeed economic cost of an uncontained epidemic.</s>CHURCH: Meanwhile, cases are spiking across the English Channel, too, including in Germany. The country had a handle on the first wave, but it's just posted its highest infection numbers since April. And our correspondents are tracking developments across Europe. Nic Robertson is live in London, and Scott McLean is standing by in Berlin. Good to see you both. So Nic, let's start with you. What COVID restrictions did these scientists recommend and when did they do that?</s>NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Well, three weeks ago, this group of scientists known as SAGE, it's not always the same scientists but it's the country's leading authorities on tackling COVID. They meet regularly. They advise the government regularly. And three weeks ago, the minutes of their meeting, they concluded that the country required what they called a circuit breaker, a short, national lockdown. The sort of thing that we had earlier in the year to get around the current rise in coronavirus cases. The government didn't go for that option, we just heard the Prime Minister there laying out why it's a balance between health against the economy. But it was quite surprising to see that that group of scientists who normally keep their deliberations and advice to the government close hold, secret, if you will. After the Prime Minister's press conference Monday, yesterday, where he announced these new three tiers, they decided to release their advice from three weeks ago. Which does indicate a rift on their position compared to that that the Prime Minister is taking. And it was quite significant during that press conference yesterday when England's chief medical officer was asked, do the current restrictions that the government's putting in place go far enough to bring down the rising level of coronavirus cases? This was his answer.</s>CHRIS WHITTY, CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER TO THE U.K. GOVERNMENT: I am very confident that the measures that are currently in place are helping to slow the virus, and these measures will help to slow it further. I am not confident and nor is anybody confident that the tier 3 proposals for the highest rates, if we did the absolute base case and nothing more, would be enough to get on top of it. The base will not be sufficient. I think that's very clearly the professional view, but there are quite a lot more additional things that could be done within that with local guidance.</s>ROBERTSON: So his additional things he's talking about are details, both on if you will, that the Prime Minister is currently trying to work out with many of the councils and local authorities in the north of the country where the infection rates are at their highest level. So, it's also a balance of bringing the local populations and those councils along with the central government. And you get this sense that there's this rift in the country between science and the politics, and also different parts of the country, the north at the moment, where those infection rates are higher. People generally feel that the south is getting away with less restrictions. It's unbalanced and this is, again, the difficulty of the Prime Minister's position.</s>CHURCH: Absolutely. Nic Robertson, many thanks to you, joining us there live from 10 Downing Street, appreciate it. And Scott, let's go to you now in Berlin. What's behind the spike in infections across Germany, and what's the government doing about it?</s>SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Rosemary, yes, so this spike in infections is quite concerning for this country, which has done a pretty good job of handling the coronavirus early on, seeing less than one quarter of the deaths that they saw for instance in the U.K. And this spike is leading to long lines at testing sites. I'll take you to the front of the line right here at one of the sites in Berlin. Some of the people that we spoke to earlier today said that they had waited about, you know, an hour and a half, two hours to get to the front of the line, to get to the tests. A lot of people that we spoke to as well said that it was one of their colleagues, one of their family members, or one of their friends, who had informed them they may have been exposed to the virus. And so, that led to them obviously coming here to these windows to getting a test just on this street corner. They're trying to be as efficient as they can in getting people through the line so they can get through as many people as they can. But even still, there's sort of a limited numbers of tests they can do at any given site. So, this place in particular isn't open in the afternoons, for instance. There is also -- I should also mention, Rosemary, that this is the fall break here in Berlin, and so a lot of Germans would normally be looking to go on vacation but with international travel looking dicey right now, many Germans looking to go even within the country. But even that's proving quite difficult in some cases because many German states actually require people from virus hot spots like here in Berlin where they a seeing really high rates of infection to have a negative test within 48 hours. Other states are requiring not only that negative test but also a quarantine period of up to two weeks in some cases when they enter the state and when they check into a hotel. So, it's making things quite difficult. It's also increasing the demand for testing sites like this one. There are members of the military, about 1,400 of them across the country, helping out with the contact tracing efforts. So, the government says that they have the capacity to do about ten times that. And quickly, Chancellor Angela Merkel is going to be meeting with the premiers of the states, tomorrow, and she's expected to announce new coronavirus measures then.</s>CHURCH: All right, and Germany did so well in the beginning. We'll keep an eye on this. Scott McLean joining us from Berlin. Many thanks. And still to come, we meet female voters who supported Donald Trump in 2016, but are changing their minds this time around.</s>KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Is there a moment in the last four years when you said I can't do this again?</s>JULIE BRADY, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: The COVID pandemic, the way he handled it, that was the absolute last straw for me.</s>CHURCH: A full report from the key state of Pennsylvania, next.

Doctor: Trump Posted Consecutive Negative Tests; Trump Holds First Rally Since COVID-19 Diagnosis; Some Pennsylvania Women Turning Away from Trump.

CHURCH: President Trump heads to Pennsylvania for a campaign event in the coming hours. Key to his victory there in 2016, white women voters. So, what do they think of him now? CNN's Kate Bolduan traveled there to find out.</s>HOLLIE GEITNER, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: I'm probably a good example of someone who has gotten through a lot of change in four years.</s>BOLDUAN (voice-over): Hollie Geitner, a registered Republican is a working parent of two kids living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and she wasn't alone. 50 percent of white women in Pennsylvania did the same according to exit polls. (on camera): What do you feel today about your vote four years ago?</s>GEITNER: I can tell you how I felt four years ago. Shame.</s>BOLDUAN: Do you regret your vote?</s>GEITNER: Where we are today? Yes. I do. I don't think this is the great again that everybody thought it was going to be.</s>BOLDUAN (voice-over): So, Hollie, is voting for Joe Biden. And so is Nin Bell. What drew you to Donald Trump? Why did you vote for Donald Trump, Nin?</s>NIN BELL, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: For his celebrity. 100 percent.</s>BOLDUAN: It was the brand?</s>BELL: It was. Yes.</s>BOLDUAN: The image?</s>BELL: Absolutely? Successful. Funny. Like he was funny, I loved his show the "Celebrity Apprentice." Never missed it</s>BOLDUAN: Was there a moment when you decided I cannot support him anymore?</s>BELL: It was almost instantly.</s>BOLDUAN: It's not just outside the cities where suburban women are questioning their support for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. It's even out here in Westmoreland County, rural Pennsylvania, consider Trump country. We are about to meet two of them.</s>JOAN SMELTZER, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: She is older.</s>JULIE BRADY, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: And I am older.</s>BOLDUAN: Oh, you are definitely sisters. (voice-over): Joan Smeltzer, and Julie Brady are registered Democrats. And both voted for Trump in 2016.</s>SMELTZER: I feel like have been duped. I got it wrong and it hurts my heart. I mean, it truly hurts my heart, because the things that I saw I didn't take seriously enough.</s>BOLDUAN (on camera): Throughout the campaign, he was making sexist, misogynistic remarks. And then there was the "Access Hollywood" tape. How did you guys process and digest that, being out there and voting for him?</s>SMELTZER: It was not easy. I looked at myself and I think how could I do that?</s>BRADY: I feel like I did a disservice to women by voting for this guy.</s>BOLDUAN: Was there a moment in the last four years when you said I can't do this again?</s>BRADY: Because of the COVID pandemic. The way he handled it. It was the absolute last straw for me. He didn't create the virus, but he kind of left us all in the dark guessing what was going on. And that was not fair to us.</s>BOLDUAN (voice-over): Among the women we spoke to, the coronavirus, the President's handling of the pandemic, and the racial unrest following the police killing of George Floyd were the overwhelming driving issues.</s>GEITNER: George Floyd's killing was a pivotal moment for me. And when I read that he was begging for his mom. As a mother myself, it just brought me to my knees. And to see what's happened since, I feel like he has added fuel to flames of hatred, and that really bothers me.</s>BOLDUAN: Nin Bell, who registered as a Republican in 2016 just to vote for Trump in the primaries. Now protests weekly in her town just outside Philadelphia. Often met by groups she used to consider herself a part of. Trump supporters, setting up counter demonstrations.</s>BELL: I think Trump kind of thrives on that, on that division. I've seen it in my own town.</s>SMELTZER: Integrity, that's what we are lacking.</s>BRADY: And accountability. And being the mom of a nine year old, that's one thing that I push with my son all the time, is you know, you made a bad decision, it's your fault, you learn from it and you move on. We have a President who, nothing that happens is ever his fault. It's always somebody else's fault.</s>BOLDUAN (on camera): And there are consequences.</s>BRADY: There are consequences. He's about to find them out.</s>CHURCH: And thank you so much for your company. I'm Rosemary Church. "EARLY START" is up next. You're watching CNN. Have yourselves a great day.

Trump Holds First Rally since COVID-19 Diagnosis; Democrats: Barrett Nomination Threatens Health Care; Fauci Asks Trump Campaign to Pull Misleading Ad; Millions to Be Tested after China's New Outbreak; Fauci: Trump Campaign Should Take Down Ad Featuring Him; Partisan Lines Drawn for Barrett Nomination Fight.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Hello and welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm John Vause. Coming up on CNN NEWSROOM, make America great again, no mask required, no social distancing needed. North versus South, Liverpool under harsh new restrictions while life in London goes on. It's not voting day in the U.S. but voting season.</s>VAUSE: Donald Trump is again holding campaign rallies. Dr. Anthony Fauci says they're asking for trouble. Trump held his first campaign event since being diagnosed with COVID-19 11 days ago. Florida is one state where new infections have risen and over the weekend nine states reported record high hospitalizations. CNN's Kaitlan Collins begins our coverage.</s>KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It was only hours before this rally that President Trump's doctor actually announced he had tested negative for the coronavirus, the first time we've been told that since of course the president's diagnosis. And in this memo Dr. Sean Conley said the president had tested negative for consecutive days using a rapid test, though he didn't say which days it was that the president had actually tested negative. And we know that the White House has declined to say when the president last tested in a detective for his diagnosis. Something that Conley made no mention of in his memo. But this memo came out just hours before the president took the stage in Florida. He was there and spoke for little over 65 minutes or so. And at times he sounded hoarse. But at others he talked about his diagnosis with coronavirus and said that he felt powerful. And talked about what his recovery has been like. And of course, as he's been doing now, claimed that he is immune.</s>TRUMP: One thing with me, the nice part, I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I can fell -- I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience. I'll walk in there I'll kiss everyone in that audience. I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and the -- everybody. I'll just give you a big, fat kiss.</s>COLLINS: Of course, we know science says that what the determination on immunity is and how long it lasts is still very much out despite the way the president is spinning his own health. And though he tried to talk about coronavirus as if it was in his past, we know it's at the top of mind for voters. And it even appeared to be so for some of the president's own advisers, including his chief of staff who doesn't typically wear a mask but was seen wearing a mask on this trip yesterday. Only hours after he refused to take questions from reporters on Capitol Hill because they asked him to keep his mask on -- Kaitlan Collins, CNN, the White House.</s>VAUSE: Well, U.S. senators will have their chance to either grill or gush over the president's nominee to the Supreme Court. On Monday, Amy Coney Barrett gave her opening address, her opening statement in the confirmation process. Democrats have all but conceded that they will not be able to stop the confirmation to the Supreme Court and replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And so the strategy now seems to focus on America's health care in the middle of a pandemic, arguing that her employment will threaten millions of Americans who don't have insurance.</s>SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This hearing has brought together more than 50 people to sit inside of a closed door room for hours while our nation is facing a deadly airborne virus. This committee has ignored common sense requests to keep people safe, including not requiring testing for all members, despite a coronavirus outbreak among senators of this very committee.</s>VAUSE: Joining me now in New York, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and in Washington CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner. Thank you bought. It's good to see you. Dr. Reiner, we'll start with you. In the last few hours, the president held a rally in Florida. He wants apparently a rally to be held like that for every day for the next 21 days, which means that no one will be wearing a face mask, no social distancing. So if Trump gets his way, what are the chances by the end of that 21- day period, someone will be dead as a direct result?</s>DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: One hundred percent. If you look at where the president held his rally today, in Florida, they have a 10 percent positivity rate, about twice the national rate right now. About 10 percent higher than New York state, for instance. Virus is very active in Florida. If you use some online tools from Georgia Tech, which can estimate the likelihood that a gathering of a given size will have at least one positive person in the crowd, it's 100 percent where the president had his rally tonight. And it'll be the same wherever he goes. When he goes to Iowa, their positivity is 18 percent. So I'm not sure the president has heard this but we are in the middle of the pandemic.</s>VAUSE: Anyone who attends a Trump rally signs a liability waiver. If they get sick, they don't hold Trump responsible. But waivers don't apply in cases of gross negligence.</s>JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: I would not be surprised if lawsuits were filed as a result of these rallies if people do get sick. I frankly doubt any of these cases will result in liability. These waivers are binding, by and large, and people do assume the risk. Most people are assumed to know that there is a pandemic going on. I think this is really a moral question rather than a legal question about whether the president is morally correct to expose people to these kinds of risks. But as a technical legal matter, I think he is very unlikely to be sued successfully if somebody does get sick.</s>VAUSE: Apparently he needs the free airtime from these rallies because his campaign has pulled ads recently. "Politico" reports Trump's TV spending problems stem from his fund-raising woes. In August Biden had more money to spend than Trump, first time this happened during the 2020 campaign. Democrats smashed fund-raising records with $365 million haul that month, beating Trump by over $150 million. These rallies it seems, in many ways they are reminder that how Trump has not taking the pandemic seriously. There's also the closing argument, one of depraved indifference to coronavirus.</s>TOOBIN: It's very difficult to imagine that this is even going to help him politically because the people who he has lost are mostly college educated people in the suburbs. These people, by and large according to polls, are offended by the idea of exposing people to the virus. They actually understand how dangerous these rallies are. I'm not even sure that it is correct to say that these are substitutes for television commercials. I think it's more psychological than that. It's that the president needs the affirmation of these crowds. This is what he lives for. This is why he likes being out in the world, is because he gets the adulation from these crowds. That, I think, is what is driving this more than any sort of strategic thinking because the just strategic thinking doesn't seem to make any sense to me.</s>VAUSE: Dr. Fauci has warned the Trump campaign to pull an ad where he's quoted out of context. Here's the offending part of the ad let's listen.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): President Trump tackled the virus head-on as leaders should.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more.</s>VAUSE: And here is the original interview. This is for context, from back in March. Listen to this.</s>FAUCI: I'm down at the White House virtually every day with the task force.</s>FAUCI: I'm connected by phone throughout the day and into the night. And when I say the night I'm talking 12, 1, 2 in the morning. I'm not the only one. There's a whole group of us that are doing that. It's every single day. So I can't imagine that, under any circumstances, that anybody could be doing more.</s>VAUSE: So, Jonathan, clearly the Trump campaign and Donald Trump who approved those ads, knew that they were twisting Dr. Fauci's. Words how many other red flags does that raise for you?</s>REINER: First, it's disrespectful to Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci is apolitical. He's been at NIH for 40 years. And he has worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations. And he has tried very hard through this cycle to stay out of politics. This is like a thumb in his eye. They have muzzled him over the last several months. I thought recently that he should just speak out, he should just do the media, whatever he's asked regardless of whatever the administration. Says because I don't think they can fire him. At least I think it would be politically disastrous to fire Tony Fauci 3 weeks before the election. And I think if they continue to provoke him, they'll leave him no choice but to speak out even in a more forceful way.</s>VAUSE: Listen to the Mark Meadows on Capitol Hill Monday during a break.</s>MARK MEADOWS, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Let me do this. Let me pull this away.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, pull away.</s>MEADOWS: And then that way I can take this. Off</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.</s>MEADOWS: Well, I'm more than 10 feet away. Well, I'm not going to talk through a mask.</s>VAUSE: Republican Senator Mike Lee recently tested positive. He was there in person. He addressed the committee notably without a mask. So was the reporter right to have concerns about the chief of staff? When you look at this hearing, were you concerned that the chairman, Lindsey Graham, who refused to have the test for COVID-19, carrying it out, saying everything is fine, don't worry.</s>REINER: Well, he didn't want to know what the test was going to show. Except not knowing what the test is going to show can kill your neighbor or the senator sitting next to you. It's irresponsible behavior. The lack of wearing a mask is maybe the most unforgivable sin in this whole pandemic disaster. It has been the fact that the administration knew exactly how this virus was transmitted, that it was airborne, that it was lethal and yet they discouraged the wearing of masks. In April, the Postal Service, in conjunction with HHS, was going to send off three quarters of a billion masks around the country. And the administration stopped that. They didn't like the look. It makes me angry. It makes me really angry. Everyone I work within the hospital wears a mask all day long. Now because we do this, just not just for ourselves, we do it for each other, we come home with marks on our face, wearing N-95 masks all day. And he can't get the president's chief of staff to keep his mask on to answer couple of questions? I replaced an aortic valve wearing a mask, and do it all day long and I somehow to make my voice heard to the people in the room. The least he could do, is man up and wear a mask and set a standard for the country.</s>VAUSE: And Jeff, just finally, when we look at this nomination process, Republicans saying, all of this is historical precedent, nothing to see here. Democrats say it's an egregious grab of power. Which is it and does it matter?</s>TOOBIN: Well, we're talking about the irrational behavior of the president in connection with the pandemic. It's important to remember that he's still the president. And he still wields tremendous power and it looks like Amy Coney Barrett is going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court at 48 years old and will serve for decades after Donald Trump is gone from the White House. There has never been anything like this sort of jammed confirmation hearing at the end of a presidency. But it is also true that, under the rules of the Senate, what the Republicans are doing here is legally permissible. It is outside the norms of behavior but it is permissible. And it looks like it's going to get through and the consequences of that will be enormous, as I say, long after this presidency is over.</s>VAUSE: We are out of time. Thanks to you both. Great being with you. Johnson & Johnson is now the second drugmaker to pause coronavirus vaccine trials after a volunteer fell ill. The test included 60,000 volunteers. It says complications are not unexpected. Plus the AstraZeneca trial remains on hold in the U.S. Still to come, in a city of 9 million people, just a dozen new cases. And that means everyone must be tested. How China is dealing with the resurgence of the virus. Last call for alcohol in the pubs of Liverpool. Boris Johnson's latest efforts to fight the pandemic.

U.K. Prime Minister Announces New Coronavirus Restrictions

VAUSE: A secret remedy known to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, wearing face masks, social distancing, washing hands. Experts have been telling us this for months. Despite, that the number of global infections is exploding. Out of control. That is despite a rosy assessment from a number of leaders about the worst being over. New records have been set in just the past few days. The world is still in serious trouble.</s>DR. TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: We are now seeing an increase in the number of reported cases of COVID-19. Especially in Europe and the Americas. Each of the last 4 days have been the highest numbers of cases reported so far. Many cities and countries are also reporting an increase in hospitalizations and intensive care occupancy.</s>VAUSE: Some local leaders as well as business groups in England are pushing back against restrictions being imposed by the government. On Sunday, the U.K. reported more than 12,000 new COVID-19 cases and 65 dead. But only some parts of England are facing new shutdowns. CNN's Nic Robertson reports now from London.</s>NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: The prime minister is saying these new measures are essential, because infection rates in the country continue to go up. For the past 3 weeks, he said the R number currently between 1.2 and 1.5. He is designated these 3 tiers, medium, high and very high. It's designed to simplify people's understanding of what measures they have to take in their local areas and. The prime minister said that Liverpool will now fall into the very high category there. Gyms, pubs, casinos will all close. He laid out that this was going to be a very tough path ahead.</s>BORIS JOHNSON, U.K. PRIME MINISTER: This is not how we want to live our lives but this is the narrow path we have to tread between the social and economic trauma of a full lockdown.</s>JOHNSON: And the massive human and indeed, economic cost of an uncontained epidemic. With local and regional and national government coming together in a shared responsibility and a shared effort to deliver ever better testing and tracing , ever more efficient enforcement of the rules and with ever improving therapies with the mountains of PPE and the ventilators that we have stockpiled, with all the lessons we have learned in the last few months. We are becoming better and better at fighting this virus. Though I must warn the house again, that the weeks and months ahead will continue to be difficult and will test the mettle of this country. I have no doubt at all, that together, we will succeed.</s>ROBERTSON: One of the difficulties the prime minister has been facing is criticism from many of the regional and local councils in the north of the country where infection rates are highest. They believe that the prime minister has not been firm enough on their advice on test and trace, for example, and that some of the measures the government has put in place have not been working. The prime minister indicated it is still talking to the some of those regional authorities in the northwest, the northeast, Yorkshire, Humberside, all in the north of the country. This is far from a done deal yet but the prime minister said, however bad it gets, he intends to keep retail, schools and universities open -- Nic Robertson, CNN, London.</s>VAUSE: Much the same in France where health officials have declared maximum alert in two more cities. That means infection rates are on the up or more than 30 percent of ICU beds are being used for COVID-19 patients. Toulouse and Montpellier join Paris, Marseille and beyond. Some critics have suggested a better solution would be to provide more ICU beds. China is moving quickly to contain the country's first new cases of coronavirus in nearly 2 months. Qingdao plan to test 9 million people in the coming 5 days. After a dozen new cases were reported. South Korea is easing social distancing measures but face masks are required in crowded, public transport and protests as well. We have Paula Hancocks in Seoul, Kristie Lu Stout standing by in Hong Kong. First you, Paula. Mandatory face masks. Is this something they are willing to enforce in any major way or is something the population are happy to do?</s>PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, it's something that most of the population have been doing since, really, the beginning of the year. It's not something you really have to enforce too carefully here in South Korea, although there are some exceptions to that rule. What this is doing is it's making what was mandatory already in places like Seoul, the greater area and other cities and provinces, nationwide. It's saying if you're in a situation like a medical facility, nursing facility, public transport, protest rallies, you have to wear a mask. It also specifies that you have to wear it correctly. We all know and have seen people who wear it under the nose so they could breathe easier or even as a chin strap. The government says that is simply not good enough. From a month's time, there is a grace period of 30 days. You could be fined here in South Korea for even not wearing a mask correctly. It would be just under $90 for that fine. This comes at the same time as the social distancing rules have been lessened. We are now on level 1, which is the lowest level it could be, which effectively means that all restrictions of gatherings inside and outside have been lifted. Churches from now on will have 30 percent capacity. They will be allowed sporting facilities, sporting events. They will have a similar 30 percent. National parks will have half capacity. What the government says they are doing is they are putting in place the framework going forward over the next few months. Of course, people fear the numbers could rise. To make sure that those who aren't wearing masks properly or not following the rules can be fined and can be brought to justice quicker.</s>VAUSE: Paula, thank you. Let's go to Kristie Lu Stout. The city of Qingdao, 9 million people, everyone is getting a test. It's going quickly. It will be done over 5 days. What do you say about the Chinese bureaucrats and party officials, once they get their marching orders, there will be no virus and no outbreak again, they take that seriously?</s>KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN ANCHOR: They take it very seriously. China is literally on another level here. We've seen it happen before. These orders for masks, rapid fire testing on just a small cluster of cases. As you mentioned, Qingdao reported just a few cases over the weekend. It has ordered a city of 9 million people to be tested. We learned from authorities that 3 million people have tested negative for COVID- 19.</s>STOUT: The virus is still very much active in China and all across Asia. Despite that there are some other surreal scenes across the region that recall life well before the pandemic. Take a look.</s>STOUT (voice-over): Test rugby is back in New Zealand. To the fans, some 30,000 of them, cheering. Sitting shoulder to shoulder with no masks in sight unless you count the face paint. COVID-19 restrictions in Wellington where the matches were held, were lifted just last month. But with so many sports events around the world being played with fewer or no spectators, some wonder if a large gathering like this could set the country back. After being a model for coronavirus containment, the prime minister encouraged fans to be vigilant.</s>JACINDA ARDERN, NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER: We want people washing their hands. We definitely do not want you to attend if you are unwell. These are your acts of public service now.</s>STOUT (voice-over): The reality across Asia for countries that have successfully contained the virus in the past is that they will have to do it again. China, which has been largely virus free since mid August, is facing a new cluster. It will test the entire population in the city of Qingdao, some 9 million residents over the next few days. It is a mass response that has worked before. One that may be need to be used again. Especially since the country just wrapped up Golden Week, a holiday where the government says 600 million people traveled. Some crowding into tourist sites. In densely populated parts of India, which now has more than 7 million infections, officials worry about its upcoming festival season, which begins in less than one week. They say many people are tired of social distancing.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): People have become very negligent. They're stepping outside on roads without wearing masks. They are crowding markets. Only 40 percent of the people are using masks.</s>STOUT (voice-over): Australia, which still has one of its largest cities, Melbourne, under lockdown, says it is in talks with nations like South Korea and Japan to reopen travel, as infections in these places level off. While there are signs of progress around the region, confirmed cases in Myanmar have shot up from just a few hundred two months ago to nearly 30,000 today, an example of how fast things can change.</s>STOUT: From Myanmar to China, India to New Zealand, Asia has been offering the full spectrum of the pandemic response. There is one common denominator: even for countries that have the outbreak this pandemic under control, this virus is a beast. It just keeps coming back -- John.</s>VAUSE: It's a bit like the terminator. More like terminator 2. Nothing you could do to stop it. Kristie, thank you for being with us. Paula Hancocks, thank you.</s>VAUSE (voice-over): Still to come, after Donald Trump talked up the fake

Voting Underway with Some Voters Seeing Long Delays

JOHN VAUSE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Welcome back, everybody. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm John Vause. The headlines this hour, the U.S. president has held his first campaign rally since being diagnosed with the coronavirus. There was no social distancing at the event near Orlando in Florida. President Trump said he felt powerful. He also joked about giving everyone in the crowd a big, fat kiss. Most were not wearing masks. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced new coronavirus restrictions for England on Monday. As infections rise, bars, restaurants and other businesses in areas with high COVID-19 case counts could close again. Some leaders in the north of the country critical of measures so far, claiming they just have not been working. And Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court will face her first questions from senators in the coming day. Amy Coney Barrett outlined her judicial philosophy on Monday, saying courts are not designed to solve every problem. Democrats claim she would threaten America's healthcare system. Now, in-person voting is already underway in almost 20 states in the U.S. And in places like Republican-controlled Georgia, right now casting a ballot could mean a six-hour wait or more. Civil rights groups say it's all about voter suppression to deter those who would traditionally support the Democratic nominee. And then there are the Republican objections to the use of drop boxes for absentee ballot -- votes, I should say. Now filing some legal action in some states but now, Republicans are being caught out using fake illegal drop boxes in California. For more, here's CNN's Pamela Brown.</s>PAMELA BROWN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Roughly eight million Americans have already cast their ballots, some standing in line for hours.</s>JULIE VINEYARD, NEVADA VOTER: I thought maybe one hour, most. I would never have even came out. To be honest, if I knew it would be five hours, while others are putting them in drop boxes like these.</s>BROWN: But the seemingly simple process has turned quite complicated throughout the country.</s>SHANNON KAEHNY, CALIFORNIA VOTER: Insane. I just -- I can't imagine in what world you would think that that would be acceptable.</s>BROWN: This California woman alerted local officials after finding an unofficial ballot drop box at a nearby church. In a Facebook post, the church's pastor told followers that the church had a voting drop box, but it wasn't a legal one.</s>MATTHEW JUDGE, CALIFORNIA VOTER: It was up for, like, four days before I even saw it, before it started to kind of gain traction. So I'm really worried that -- that someone put their ballot in there.</s>BROWN: In a sermon at the church, the pastor denied tampering with any ballots.</s>PASTOR JERRY COOK, FREEDOM'S WAY BAPTIST CHURCH: Obviously, we have a situation here with the ballot box, and folks are saying things that -- that we're tampering with it and things of that nature. Of course, we're not tampering with anything.</s>BROWN: Meanwhile, California's secretary of state tells CNN "Operating unofficial ballot drop boxes -- especially those misrepresenting to be official drop boxes -- is not just misleading to voters, it's a violation of state law." The box has been removed. The Facebook post also gone, as the Los Angeles County registrar's office investigates.</s>KAEHNY: It's an attack on democracy. It's not OK.</s>BROWN: And while the president urged supporters on a recent prayer call to get out and vote for him.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The poll booths, and I can tell you, we see it, we see it now, they're going to be swamped. Get out and vote and make sure your vote counts.</s>BROWN: In Pennsylvania, a Trump-appointed federal judge rejected an argument by the RNC and Trump campaign that drop boxes were unconstitutional. While in Texas, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Republican Governor Greg Abbott's directive for one location per county for ballot drop boxes, after a lower court reversed Abbott's decision last week. And in Georgia, early voting started at one location with a little hiccup. Delays of an hour due to a technical glitch that caused voters' cards to be rejected. (on camera): Now in California, the district attorney investigating these fake drop boxes that popped up in several counties. In fact, in one county, it was the Republicans who bought these drop boxes, according to the spokesman, though the spokesman would not say how many and where they were placed. The GOP says they have done nothing wrong. Pamela Brown, CNN, Washington.</s>VAUSE: CNN election analyst Franita Tolson joins me now from Los Angeles. Welcome to the show. First time. Good to see you.</s>FRANITA TOLSON, CNN ELECTION ANALYST: Good to see you two, John. Thanks for having me.</s>VAUSE: That's a pleasure. Now, we'll start with the drop box issue in California. Here's a statement posted on the official Twitter account of the Republican state party; "If a congregation, business or other group provides the option to its parishioners/associates or colleagues to drop off their ballot in a safe location, with people they trust, rather than handing it over to a stranger who knocks on their door -- what's wrong with that?" OK? What's wrong with that? By the way, address the gross hypocrisy here, as well.</s>TOLSON: Right. It is potentially misleading for voters who mistake that for a box that is established by the state. And it's also notable that the GOP's position of having drop boxes is at odds with their general suspicion of drop boxes, which they have challenged the litigation across the country.</s>VAUSE: Now, they've challenged them. Has that litigation been sort of lodged in mostly Democrat-controlled areas, where these boxes would be used the most?</s>TOLSON: It has been. It has been. And notably, in Texas, they went down to one drop box per county, which is really terrible, given that some counties have millions of people. And so, essentially, what you have is the Republicans here taking a different position that is at odds with their usual suspicion, right? Because the argument has been that drop boxes can be a source of voter fraud. They have challenged them. They have challenged them as ways to make it easier for people to cast their ballots. But here, you have them using them predominantly in conservative areas in order to encourage their own voters to use them. But the problem is that a voter may not know that the drop box was established by the local Republican Party, as opposed to the state itself. And that's a problem.</s>VAUSE: Hypocrisy in politics. My goodness, there's gambling going on. You know, there was a report out last year by civil -- a leading civil rights group, and they found that since this 2013 court decision which essentially gutted the Voter [SIC] Rights Act, almost 1,700 polling sites in 13 states have been closed. And that meant, for many people, in particular for voters of color, all the voters, rural voters and voters and voters with disabilities, these burdens make it harder and sometimes impossible to vote. So in that context, how's that now all coming to a head in this particular election amidst a pandemic?</s>TOLSON: I do think we have to look that everything happened in this broader context of what has occurred since the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County. So jurisdictions that were formerly covered under the Voting Rights Act, these jurisdictions closed 20 percent more voting places on average than non-coverage jurisdictions. And so some of the lines that we saw in Georgia today, yes, people were excited, right? It's the first day of early voting. People want to turn out. They want to cast their ballots. This is a high-interest election. But at the same time, some of the lines were, you know, people were in line eight, nine, ten hours. And that is a form of voter suppression. I think we have to be clear, in looking at this broader context of that is not OK, especially if we're holding ourselves out as a democracy.</s>VAUSE: Yes. There seems to be something especially cruel or cynical about exposing the most vulnerable during a pandemic, to make this choice between their health and their right to vote.</s>TOLSON: It's awful, especially since we talk about the right to vote as fundamental. Which suggests that they should try to make it easier for people to vote, particularly in a global, once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. But we're just not seeing that. You know, we've seen a lot of efforts to deter voter turnout. And what occurred in Jordan today was no exception to that.</s>VAUSE: During the first unpresidential debate, Donald Trump made a statement, which was -- essentially, it amounted to a threat. Listen to this.</s>CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You go first.</s>TRUMP: I'm urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully, because that's what has to happen. I am urging my people. I hope it's going to be a fair election.</s>WALLACE: You're urging them what?</s>TRUMP: If it's a fair election, I am 100 percent on board. But if I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated, I can't go along with that.</s>VAUSE: And what he could not go along with, just for clarity here, was urging calm among his supporters if the result was close or didn't go his way. And this issue of poll watchers comes with a lot of historical baggage, especially in the south, right?</s>TOLSON: Yes, so poll watchers are not new, right? But Donald Trump's statement seemed to -- it seemed like a broad call to his supporters to just come out and watch the polls. When in fact, poll workers are pretty closely regulated by the state. In many cases, they have to go through training. They have to wear identification that -- it tells, you know, voters who they are. And it's also important to note that there's no room for voter interference. Being a poll watcher does not mean you get to go to the polls and intimidate lawful voters. And so the danger of Donald Trump's statement is that he's not making this distinction. And it's entirely possible that his supporters believe that they can just go to the polls to, quote unquote, watch when, in fact, it could quick devolve into voter suppression and voter interference.</s>VAUSE: Yes. Voter intimidation and a whole bunch of other things.</s>TOLSON: Voter intimidation, yes.</s>VAUSE: Which, you know, which is the kind of stuff which this country has worked so hard over the years, over the generations, to move away from. And you know, there's always this danger looking back. Franita, thank you so much. We really appreciate you being with us.</s>TOLSON: Yes, thank you for having me.</s>VAUSE: Well, Microsoft says it has disrupted a massive hacking operation which may have impacted U.S. election systems. The company says it took down a service behind Trickbot, a huge malware network. Microsoft officials said hackers can use ransomware to infect computer systems that maintain voter rolls or report on election night results. Microsoft admits the hackers will probably adapt and try to revive their operations eventually. A short break. A lot more news in just a moment. You're watching CNN.

Trump schedules rallies every day till election; In-person voting begins in many states; Fauci Calls Out Trump Campaign; Second Day of Coney Barrett Hearings Today

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm John Vause. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from CNN's world headquarters in Atlanta. Ahead this hour. Make America great again. No masks required, no social distancing needed, it seems. And allegedly no longer contagious Donald Trump hoping daily super spreader events until the election will do the trick and save what appears to be a doomed campaign. North versus south. Millions of residents of Liverpool now under harsh new restrictions while life in London goes on. All part of renewed efforts to try and control a second wave of the coronavirus. And it's not voting day anymore in the U.S. but rather voting season. In-person voting now under way in many parts of the country. So too say civil rights groups extreme efforts by Republican states to suppress voter turnout.</s>VAUSE: While falling way behind in the polls especially crucial battleground states and being outspent massively by his rival, Donald Trump is again holding campaign rallies. In defiance of his own government's health guidelines, ignoring the warning from the country's leading expert on infectious disease. Dr. Anthony Fauci says the rallies are just asking for trouble. A few hours ago in Florida, the president held his first campaign event since being diagnosed with the coronavirus. That was eleven days ago. Some supporters towards the front of the crowd were wearing MAGA face masks but it seems the vast majority were not. Social distancing also seemed non-existent. Florida is one of 31 states where new infections have been rising in the past week compared to a week earlier. And over the weekend nine of those states reported record high hospitalizations. But at his rally, the president talked about feeling great and also he falsely claimed he was now immune.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: One thing with me, the nice part. I went through it now they say I'm immune. I can -- I feel so powerful, I'll walk into that audience. I'll walk in there, I'll kiss everyone in that audience. I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and the -- everyone. I'll just give you a big, fat kiss. No, but there is something nice. I don't have to be locked up in my basement and I wouldn't allow that to happen anyway. I wouldn't allow it to happen. When you're the president, you can't lock yourself in a basement and say I'm not going to bother with the world. You got to get out. And it's risky, it's risky but you got to get out. But it does give you a good -- a good feeling when you can beat something. And now they say you're immune, I don't know for how long; some people say for life, some people say for four months. I mean, every time I think about it, every time I hear it, it gets shorter and shorter and shorter. Because they wanted to be as bad as possible. But it is a great feeling.</s>VAUSE: In the coming hours, U.S. senators will have their chance to either grill or gush over Donald Trump's nominee to the supreme court. Democrats have conceded that Amy Coney Barrett is almost certain to be confirmed and replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And so the strategy appears to be to focus on how her appointment could threaten the healthcare for millions of Americans. Here's CNN's Jessica Schneider.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.), HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIR: The floor is yours, judge.</s>JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Amy Coney Barrett starting off her confirmation hearing this afternoon spelling out her judicial philosophy.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The public should not expect courts to do so and courts should not try.</s>SCHNEIDER: The 48-year-old was a clerk for late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and while she would step into the spot of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it's Scalia's seat she'll really fill.</s>CONEY BARRETT: It was the content of Justice Scalia's reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward. A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were.</s>SCHNEIDER: Democrats immediately aired their disdain that Republicans are racing to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat before the election.</s>SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Senate Republicans have made it crystal clear. That rushing a supreme court nomination is more important than helping and supporting the American people who are suffering from a deadly pandemic and a devastating economic crisis.</s>SCHNEIDER: Vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris skipped the in- person hearing to go virtual and slammed the committee for moving forward without mandatory testing.</s>HARRIS: This committee has ignored common sense requests to keep people safe including not requiring testing for all members. Despite a coronavirus outbreak among senators of this very committee.</s>SCHNEIDER: While Harris stayed in her office, Republican Senator Mike Lee was there in person without a mask. Despite having tested positive shortly after the White House event announcing Barrett's nomination about two weeks ago. Lee released a letter from the Senate physician today clearing him to attend in person. While six of Barrett's seven children sat behind her, the political posturing played out for hours in front of her. Democrats warned Americans that their access to healthcare is at stake when the supreme court hears arguments on the Affordable Care Act November 10th.</s>SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CALIF), U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: The president has promised to appoint justices who will vote to dismantle that law.</s>SCHNEIDER: Republicans preemptively made Barrett's Catholic religion the focus calling out any Democrat who makes Barrett's faith an issue. But no Democrat did.</s>SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MISS), U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: When you tell somebody that they're too Catholic to be on the bench, when you tell them they're going to be a Catholic judge not an American judge, that's bigotry. The pattern and practice of bigotry from members of this committee must stop.</s>SCHNEIDER: Barrett, meanwhile, kept the focus on her family and her resume, noting how she would be the only justice without an Ivy League degree.</s>CONEY BARRETT: I would be the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the court. I would be the only sitting justice who didn't attend school at Harvard or Yale.</s>SCHNEIDER: Monday's format kept things relatively tame but it could get a lot more fiery on Tuesday and Wednesday when all members of the committee will ask their questions. Democrats will stay laser focused on healthcare. And we also know it was on the president's mind on Monday. He tweeted twice before noon saying that Republicans have a better plan at a lower cost. But we have yet to see any concrete plans from the president. Jessica Schneider. CNN, Washington.</s>VAUSE: Joining me now in New York, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and in Washington, CNN medical analyst, Dr. Jonathan Reiner. Thank you both for taking time to be with us. It's good to see you. And Dr. Reiner, I'll start off with you. In the last few hours, the president held a rally in Florida. According to a number of reports, he wants a rally like that one to be held every day for the next 21 days. Which most likely means no one or very few people will be wearing a face mask, no social distancing. So if Trump gets his way, what are the chances that by the end of that 21-day period, someone will be dead as a direct result?</s>DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: One hundred percent. If you look at where the president held his rally today in Florida, Florida has a 10 percent positivity rate which is about twice the national rate right now, about 10 percent higher than New York State, for instance. So the virus is very active in Florida. And if you use some online tools from Georgia Tech which enables you to estimate the likelihood that a gathering of a given size will have at least one positive person in the crowd, it's 100 percent where the president had his rally tonight. And it'll be the same everywhere he goes. When he goes to Iowa, their positivity rate is 18 percent. So I'm not sure the president has heard this but we're in the middle of the pandemic.</s>VAUSE: So Jeffrey, just sort of a quick legal answer here. Anyone who attends a Trump rally signs a liability waiver. If they get sick, they won't hold Trump responsible. But waivers don't apply in cases of gross negligence -- usually. Are these rallies an example of gross negligence?</s>JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I would not be surprised if lawsuits were filed as a result of these rallies if people do get sick. I frankly doubt any of these cases will result in liability. These waivers are -- they are binding by and large and people do assume the risk. Most people are assumed to know that there is a pandemic going on. I think this is really a moral question more than a legal question about whether the president is morally correct to expose people to these kinds of risks. But as a technical legal matter, I think he's very unlikely to be sued successfully if someone does get sick.</s>VAUSE: Well, apparently he needs the free airtime for these rallies because his campaign has pulled out in a few key states recently. "Politico" reports: "Trump's TV spending problems stem from his fund- raising woes. At the end of August, Biden had more money to spend than Trump, the first time that's happened during the 2020 campaign. The Democrats smashed fund-raising records with a $365 million haul that month beating Trump's total by over $150 million." But Jeffrey, these rallies it seems in many ways they're a reminder of how Trump hasn't taken the pandemic seriously. And there's always the closing argument which is one of sort of depraved indifference to the coronavirus.</s>TOOBIN: And it's very difficult to imagine that this is even going to help him politically because the people who he's lost are mostly college educated people in the suburbs. And these people, by and large, according to polls are offended by the idea of exposing people to the virus. They actually understanding how dangerous these rallies are. And I'm not even sure it's correct to say these are sort of substitutes for television commercials. I think it's more psychological than that. It's that the president needs the affirmation of these crowds. This is what he lives for. This is why he likes being out in the world is because he gets the adulation from these crowds. That, I think, is what's driving this more than any sort of strategic thinking because the strategic thinking doesn't seem to make any sense to me.</s>VAUSE: Yes. Dr. Fauci has warned the rallies are asking for trouble. He's also warned the Trump campaign they should pull an ad where he is quoted out of context. Now here's the offending part of the ad. Listen to this.</s>UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: President Trump tackled the virus head on. As leaders should.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more.</s>VAUSE: And here is the original interview. This is for context from back in March. Listen to this.</s>FAUCI: I'm down at the White House virtually every day with the task force. I'm connected by phone throughout the day and into the night -- when I say night, I'm talking twelve, one, two in the morning. I'm not the only one. There's a whole group of us that are doing that, it's every single day. So I can't imagine that under any circumstances that anybody could be doing more.</s>VAUSE: So Jonathan, to you clearly the Trump Campaign and ultimately Donald Trump who approves those ads knew that they were twisting Dr. Fauci's words. How many other red flags does that raise for you from just a public health point of view?</s>REINER: Well, first of all, it's so disrespectful to Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci is apolitical. He's been at NIH for -- what is it, 40 years and has worked in both Republican and Democrat administrations. And he has tried very hard through this cycle to stay out of politics. This is like a thumb in his eye. They've muzzled him over the last really several months. And I thought recently the he should just speak out, he should just do the media bits whenever he is asked regardless of what the administration says. Because I don't think they could fire him. At least it would be politically disastrous to fire Tony Fauci three weeks before the election. And I think if they continue to provoke him like this, they'll leave him no choice but to speak out in even a more forceful way.</s>VAUSE: I want you also to listen to the White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Capitol Hill Monday during a break in the senate judiciary committee for the supreme court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. Here he is.</s>MARK MEADOWS, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Let me do this. Let me pull this.</s>UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, yes. Pull away.</s>MEADOWS: And then that way I can take this off to talk.</s>UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.</s>MEADOWS: Well, I'm more than 10 feet away. I'm not -- well, I'm not going to talk through a mask.</s>VAUSE: Republican Senator Mike Lee recently tested positive, he was there in person. He addressed the committee, notably, without wearing a mask. So again, Jonathan, to you. Was the reporter right to have concerns about the chief of staff? And was this -- when you look at this hearing, were you concerned that the chairman of the committee, Lindsey Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham, refused to have the test for COVID-19 carried out saying don't worry, everything's fine?</s>REINER: Well, he didn't want to know what the test was going to show except not knowing what the test was going to show can kill your neighbor. Or the senator sitting next to you on the dais. It's irresponsible behavior. The lack of wearing a mask -- maybe the most unforgivable sin this whole pandemic disaster has been the fact that the administration knew exactly how this virus was transmitted, that it was airborne, that it was lethal. And yet they discouraged the wearing of masks. In April, the postal service in conjunction with HHS was going to send like three quarters of a billion masks out around the country. And the administration stopped that, they didn't like the look. It makes me angry, it makes me really angry. Everyone I work with within the hospital wears a mask all day long. Because we do this, not just for ourselves, we do it for each other. We come home with marks on our face from wearing an N95 mask all day. And you can't get the president's chief of staff to keep his mask on to answer couple of questions? I replace an aortic valve wearing a mask and do it all day long. And I somehow manage to make my voice heard to the people in the room. The least he could do is man up , wear a mask and set a standard for country. And Jeff, just finally to you. When we look at this confirmation process, the Republicans are saying all of this follows historical precedent, nothing to see here; Democrats say it's an egregious grab for power. Which is it and does it matter?</s>TOOBIN: Well, we're talking about the irrational behavior of the president in connection with the pandemic. It's important to remember he's still the president and he still wields tremendous power. And it looks like Amy Coney Barrett is going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court at 48 years old and will serve for decades after Donald Trump is gone from the White House. There has never been anything like this sort of jammed confirmation hearing at the end of a presidency. But it is also true under the rules of the senate what the republicans are doing here is legally permissible. It is outside the norms of behavior in the senate but it is permissible and it looks like it's going to get through and the consequences of that will be enormous. As I say, long after this presidency is over.</s>VAUSE: With that, we're out of time. Jeffrey Toobin and Jonathan Reiner, thanks to you both. It's great having you with us. We appreciate it.</s>REINER: Thank you.</s>TOOBIN: Thank you.</s>VAUSE: Johnson & Johnson is now the second drug maker to pause human trials for the coronavirus vaccine after a volunteer fell ill. 16,000 volunteers are taking part in human trials and experts say complications are not unexpected. Last month, a volunteer for AstraZeneca's vaccine developed neurological issues and that trial remains on hold in the U.S. Well, still to come. The World Health Organization has a warning for Europe. Daily coronavirus infections are on track to match global hotspots like the U.S. and Brazil. And for Europe, the challenge is trying to balance saving lives and saving jobs. While in China, the heavy hand of the Communist government is being felt with full force in the city of Qingdao --just a dozen cases and the entire city being tested. All nine million residents.

Europe and coronavirus second wave; New outbreak in China sparks immediate testing; Growing Rates of New COVID-19 Cases in 31 U.S. States

VAUSE: With many European countries staring down a second wave of the pandemic, officials are once again facing difficult choices. Public health and safety and saving lives while minimizing the cost to already battered economies. CNN's Cyril Vanier reports.</s>UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Last order, folks.</s>CYRIL VANIER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Last call in Edinburgh. Emergency measures in Paris. Police controls in Madrid. Europe is now firmly in the grip of a second wave of coronavirus. With the World Health Organization warning that daily infections are topping the U.S., Brazil or India, restrictions are being tightened across most of the continent.</s>BORIS JOHNSON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The number of cases has quadrupled in the last three weeks. There are now more people in hospital with COVID than when we went into lockdown on March 23rd. And deaths are already rising.</s>VANIER: England moving to a three-tiered system with parts of the north already in red, the highest level of alert. In Liverpool and surrounding areas, households can no longer mix. Gyms, pubs, bars, casinos and betting shops will shut down on Wednesday for at least four weeks. But universities, schools and retail will remain open. It's a similar picture in France. In the Paris region, more than 40 percent of intensive care beds are occupied by COVID patients threatening the health system. The country recorded almost 27,000 new cases on Saturday alone. A record.</s>UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (Through Translator): Just like with high tide, sometimes you think you've got time but in the end you're in a race against time and that's the stage we're at. We're in a race against time.</s>VANIER: Most major French cities have also been put on maximum alert with bars and gyms closed among other restrictions. Many European leaders hoping they can avoid blanket national lockdowns by adopting targeted measures. Like in the Spanish capital Madrid. Areas which have seen the highest infection rates there are under tight restrictions, residents only allowed to leave for work, school or for special circumstances. Emergency measures which also limit restaurants, shops and theaters to half their capacity. Elsewhere in Europe, Belgium, the Netherlands and Poland are seeing record numbers of infections. In Germany, which health experts have said handled the pandemic better than many of its neighbors earlier this year, the largest cities have now become hotspots. Until recently, this second wave appeared to come with a silver lining. It seemed less dangerous than the first; more asymptomatic cases, fewer patients in intensive care and fewer deaths. But that could be changing. In several European countries, the rate of hospitalizations is now trending up. Cyril Vanier. CNN, London.</s>VAUSE: China is moving quickly and decisively to contain new cases of the coronavirus. The coastal city of Qingdao plans to test about nine million people in the coming five days. That's after a dozen new cases were reported. South Korea easing some social distancing measures but face masks are mandatory at crowded facilities, public transport as well as protests. For more, we have Paula Hancocks in Seoul, Kristie Lu Stout in Hong Kong. But Kristie, first to you. I guess what we're looking at here in China, it's just this incredible way the Chinese government reacts when they have these small numbers of cases. We saw this first in Wuhan, essentially, what a city of 11 million people, everyone tested. It's being played out yet again in Qingdao.</s>KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is incredible because it's hard to imagine a city like New York, a city of over eight million people, being tested in a similar way. But what we're seeing in Qingdao, China, this north eastern coastal city of nine million people -- it's known for its tourism as well as its namesake beer -- is that the entire city is being tested within a span of five days after detecting only twelve new local cases of the coronavirus over the weekend. Now we got an update from local authorities earlier this morning. They said that three million people had tested negative for COVID-19. The authorities there also add that no additional positive cases have been detected. As you mentioned, John, this has happened before. It's before in Beijing, in Dalian, in Xinjiang as well in Wuhan. This is part of China's pandemic strategy. Massive rapid testing in place, no matter how small the outbreak. And it appears to be working. China has managed to keep a lid on new cases to contain the rate of infection. That being said, there is a lot of concern this time around in the situation Qingdao because of the timing. China is just coming out of its Golden Week holiday, a one-week holiday where about 600 million Chinese tourists traveled across the country. You saw the videos of the tourists cramming into popular tourist sites like the Great Wall of China, like the Bund in Shanghai. And, of course, as we know with this virus if there is just one infection, that can lead to exponentially more. Back to you.</s>VAUSE: Also, Kristie, this is a country which is very compliant. When the government issues an order, the vast majority of people follow that order. Is there any concern about what happens to those people who do test positive, what happens to them? And this is not a place where people will gather on the steps of Qingdao Province government buildings to protest, right?</s>STOUT: No. If you are tested positive for the coronavirus, you would be taken into the medical system. You'd be tested, you would also be quarantined, you'd be isolated. It's also on your QR code as well. And we've also seen these anecdotal reports that we've heard from our colleagues in Beijing, that even in Beijing there's been an increase of mask wearing. Also looking at those QR codes just to see if you recently returned from a trip from Qingdao. This is the surveillance state during a pandemic that is China. It's proved to be remarkably effective in containing the virus but also keeping track of the whereabouts, the movements, the health history of the people inside the country. John.</s>VAUSE: Kristie, thank you. We appreciate you being with us. To Paula Hancocks in Seoul. A similar situation there. We have this Asian society where people have been wearing masks for a very long time and now it's mandatory. And again, this is a place where people are very compliant, they're happy what the government suggests because there's a belief it's in their own best interests and the country's interest, right?</s>PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right. There's a social understanding, John, that you're not only wearing a mask here to protect yourself but also to protect others. There hasn't been an issue with trying to convince South Koreans to keep their masks on from the beginning of the year. But there have been some small number of cases where people haven't been wearing masks. And this is really what the government's trying to crack down on now. So they have this mandatory mask policy that's in place from today, from Tuesday, nationwide. It's something we've already seen in Seoul and other cities but they're taking it around the country, that all public transport now, you have to wear a mask. Things like rallies, medical facilities, nursing facilities, cafes and restaurants when you're not eating or drinking, you have to wear your mask as well. And also what they've introduced or will be introducing after a 30-day grace period is a fining system. So if you're see not wearing a mask or even wearing it incorrectly under your nose or under your chin as we've all seen some people do then you will be fined. The equivalent of around $87. But this is also coming at the same time that the social distancing rules are being relaxed. So they're down at level one now, the lowest level they can be which means that there's no restriction on the amount of people that can gather inside or outside. It also means that churches can now have in-person services, 30 percent capacity is what is being mandated at this point. The same with sporting events, 30 percent capacity. So it's really the government's efforts to not make sure that social distancing earn relaxed so that people can go about their business more easily and, of course, the economy can recover a little quicker but also to make sure that there is across the board compliance when it comes to wearing a mask. John.</s>VAUSE: Paula, thank you. Paula Hancocks there live in Seoul. Thank you. Well, nearly a quarter of all coronavirus cases worldwide are in Latin America and the Caribbean. CNN's Matt Rivers is in Mexico City with the latest on a region that's been hit hard since the start of the outbreak.</s>MATT RIVERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, for the first time since this pandemic began, the 33 countries that make up Latin America and the Caribbean are now combined reporting more than 10 million confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Of all those countries, Brazil leads the way with more than five million confirmed cases and counting. Brazil is followed by Columbia, Argentina, Peru and then here in Mexico. But when you look across the whole region and you look at this chart which shows you the seven-day moving average of newly confirmed cases, you can see that that number is still extremely high. It hasn't really gone down below 60,000 cases per day consistently for a while now. And that is why the Pan-American Health Organization says it is still very concerned. Not only about the overall number of cases but also spikes in cases including in places that had effectively managed outbreaks, places like Cuba and Jamaica. There's a little bit of good news though. We had heard from the Pan- American Health Organization saying that in terms of the rates of severe COVID illness, they are seeing that begin to fall a little bit. That means fewer hospitalizations, it means less people requiring intensive care. But still obviously, the situation remains quite grave in this part of the world. Matt Rivers. CNN, Mexico City.</s>VAUSE: One man's economic disaster is another's pandemic bonanza. With the new reality of life stuck at home with almost nothing to do, Amazon and Apple have been making huge coin. After the break, how they plan to keep the profits soaring.

Big Tech Grows While Other Sectors Struggle; England Takes Cautious Approach to Enforcing COVID rules

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM. Thanks for staying with us. I'm John Vause. The U.S. president held his first campaign rally since being diagnosed with the coronavirus. There was no social distancing at the event near Orlando, Florida. President Trump said he felt powerful. Also made a joke about giving everyone in the crowd a big fat kiss. Many were -- or most were not wearing face masks. President Trump held that rally, essentially a super spreader even while much of the U.S. is seeing an alarming increase in new infections. More now from CNN's Erica Hill.</s>ERIC HILL, CNN HOST: The numbers are not good. Nationwide we're adding an average of more than 49,000 new cases a day, up 41 percent from just last month.</s>DR. PETER HOTEZ, PROFESSOR AND DEAN OF TROPICAL MEDICINE, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: We're predicting a pretty worrisome fall and winter.</s>HILL: New cases are surging in 31 states, more than a dozen posting their highly weekly averages for new daily cases. Seven states reporting their highest daily new case count since the pandemic began.</s>DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: These are extremely alarming trends and there should be warning bells going off around the country.</s>HILL: Texas now sending extra resources to El Paso as hospitalizations rise. Rural areas across the country also bracing.</s>DR. GEORGE MORRIS, PHYSICIAN, VP, CENTRACARE: We have the beds. We have the people but as we get more of these exposures, what's going to happen to our availability?</s>HILL: North Dakota, which leads the nation in cases per capita has fewer than 20 ICU beds available.</s>RENAE MOCH, DIRECTOR, BISMARCK BURLEIGH PUBLIC HEALTH: People are continuing to operate kind of as they had before COVID even was here and that's leading to a lot of our numbers increasing.</s>HILL: New research in "The Journal of the American Medical Association" finds a 20 percent increase in U.S. deaths from March to August adding to the evidence that our current COVID death toll is likely an undercount.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you die from COVID and you also have diabetes, you died from</s>COVID. HILL: As an influential model now projects nearly 400,000 COVID- related deaths by February 1st. But if more Americans wore masks, that could change dramatically.</s>DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR, VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: If 95 percent of Americans wear a masks, we will prevent roughly 80,000 deaths over the next few months. I mean it's a remarkable statistic. Those are people. I mean if you saw those people, you would try and do something to prevent their deaths. But somehow we just -- just ignore it all.</s>HLL: The human toll is growing, both in lives lost and in lives forever changed.</s>DR. DEEPAK CHOPRA, CLINICAL PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH, UCSD: People are going through different stages of grief. Some feel victimized, some are angry, some are hostile, some are resentful, some are helpless.</s>HILL: Researchers at NYU warning of a second wave of devastation. This one tied to mental health and substance abuse. "The magnitude," they write, "is likely to overwhelm the already frayed mental health system. Of particular concern, essential workers including those on the front lines.</s>HILL: Here in New York, the crackdown on hot zones continues. The city announcing they issued more than 60 tickets and $150,000 in fines to individuals, business and houses of worship. Strict new guidelines for face covering, social distancing and limits on gatherings went into effect for those hot zones late last week. In New York -- I'm Erica Hill, CNN.</s>VAUSE: The pandemic means many businesses are facing economic oblivion but not so big tech. These are golden days, profits have been in soaring as more people opt to stay at home and avoid large crowds and shop for almost everything and then some online. CNN's John Defterios has more from Abu Dhabi. And you know, journalism school teaches us there are never an absolute when it comes to good news or bad news, you know. One man's good news is another man's bad news. And in this case, the good news is for the tech giants like Amazon and Apple -- they're making money hand over fist.</s>JOHN DEFTERIOS, CNN EMERGING MARKETS, EDITOR: Yes. So John, you made come out and kick out the cobwebs here from journalism school, quite good on your part. Yes, there is bricks and mortar if you will, right. And then there's Jeff and Tim, Jeff Bezos and Tim Cook for Amazon and Apple, CEOs that are highly linked to the brand. They have had at a very good COVID-19. And I think this is reflected in the stock price as we take a look here. For Apple it's been about 68 percent year to date only, right. And that was after that fall in March and then that V-shape going back up. And for Amazon a 90 percent. So let's start with Amazon. This is Prime Day. As it says on the label here, it's for the prime users, and then adding subscriptions, and offering discounts for those who use the platform. And what are they expecting John? Compared to 2019 when they held it in July, got delayed due to the pandemic through October, this is marking the start of holiday season, now. That's how it's being seen and they're expecting a 40 percent jump to $11 billion according to Chelsea advisory services which track those sales. A couple of interesting trends here. The prime users are wealthier, they weren't traveling a lot so they have more to spend. Also small business owners are expected to tap into the prime day because they want cost savings due to the squeeze from the pandemic. And as we talked about bricks and mortar at the top of this. If you look at retail sales in the United States, for example, July and August after that spike we saw in the spring are hovering around one to 2 percent. Forced to research John is suggesting that the that the queue 4, for Amazon should see sales surge, by 40 percent as a result of this trend with prime day now in October and then finishing at the end of Christmas and the end of the year.</s>VAUSE: So in this environment, you know, we always have these big events with Apple and they're always sort of a bit of a bonanza or we want the anticipation and excitement. How does that now play out in the midst of this pandemic especially when we're looking at the 5G network and the speed and what we're looking at there.</s>DEFTERIOS: Yes, in fact their event is built around speed, called high-speed (ph). What I find fascinating about this and you know this because you live in the United States. 5G is not ubiquitous in the United States. In fact the users today have subscriptions with only 1 percent tied into 5G capabilities. But that is expected to soar by 25 to 75 percent by just 2025. It's more likely on the high end of that number, we're talking about here. Apple is late to the trend when it comes to high speed. Samsung, Huawei, Google, Motorola led but because 5G networks are not built out around the world, they think they can ride this wave as well. And this is a loyalty by the users to the Apple design. And this is what they call a super cycle, John. They're expecting 350 million to 950 million of their owners of iPhones to shift over to the high speed network because they've been holding on for a long time waiting for this which is quite ironic that the infrastructure is not keeping pace with the sales of the handsets.</s>VAUSE: Yes. That's the interesting thing about the U.S. when it comes to their take of technology. It always seems to be a little bit slower than many parts of the world. John, good to see you though. John Defterios in Abu Dhabi.</s>DEFTERIOS: Thanks John.</s>VAUSE: Cheers, mate. The British government has announced a raft of new pandemic restrictions during the past few weeks. The reality is though enforcement ranges from lax to non-existent. CNN's Scott McLean reports from London.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Next slide. Please</s>SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Almost every work week it seems there's a new government slideshow in Britain. Charts, Graphs and bullet points change but the warning is the same. Coronavirus is making a comeback. And response have come or stricter ones. With social gatherings are limited to six, masks made mandatory in stores and on public transit, and now pubs, gyms and casinos in the city of Liverpool will have to shut down. But in the east London borough of Barking, local council leader Darren Rodwell noticed not everyone was following the rules. Local bylaw officers don't have the power to do much about it.</s>DARREN RODWELL, BARKING AND DAGENHAM COUNCILOR: I can fine somebody for finding their mask on the floor but I can't fine somebody for not wearing a mask in an enclosed space.</s>MCLEAN: The government's making the rules but they're not actually expecting anyone to enforce them.</s>RODWELL: And that is the problem.</s>MCLEAN: Rodwell has used his office to try to force big grocery chains to comply with coronavirus rules.</s>RODWELL: There's two ways you can beat this epidemic. First is education --</s>MCLEAN: Yes.</s>RODWELL: -- second is enforcement.</s>MCLEAN: Yes.</s>RODWELL: And it's a mixture of the two.</s>MCLEAN: Carrot and stick.</s>RODWELL: Carrot and stick.</s>MCLEAN: But if people don't take the carrot, don't expect the stick from police. Across all of England and Wales, police have only 89 fines for not wearing a mask, only 15 fines for violating the rule of six, and 38 fines to people who failed to quarantine. A recent study also found less than one in every five people legally required to self isolate actually did. And as the number of new cases has sky rocketed, the prime minister has repeatedly promised stricter enforcement offering police forces more money law, even military health. But their approach has stayed largely the same.</s>STEPHEN CLAYMAN, DETECTIVE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, METROPOLITAN FORCE: -- which IS effectively engage, explain, encourage and as our last option enforce.</s>MCLEAN: But at this point, it seems like enforcement is so rare, that the rules really seem optional.</s>CLAYMAN: No I disagree with that. I mean the rules are the rules. It's how you apply the legislation is another matter. If it changes, they are all out there and they are asking people to comply and they do. That's all we need. We don't need to then ticket them.</s>MCLEAN: Yet that's not the message we heard on the street. Do you think police are being strict enough on coronavirus rules?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, mate. They're not.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Never. You never see a police officer on the bus.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I haven't really seen any policing of the rules to be honest.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think we need more enforcement BUT they need to recruit more people.</s>MCLEAN: The town of Oldham (ph) near Manchester is a virus hot spot with harsher restrictions than the rest of the country but no stricter enforcement. HOWARD SYKES, OLDHAM COUNCILORI think they are taking quite a softly- softly approach to it. I just think if we made some examples of prolific offenders that would give some reassurance to the rest of the community.</s>MCLEAN: You think the kid gloves approach is not working?</s>SYKES: I see no evidence it's working. There needs to be consequences, We'd like to go one, everybody will ignore the rules. And then we'll have care. On the net result is, it's that simple.</s>MCLEAN: Police in Oldham say they're working with businesses to get them to do their own enforcement but --</s>COLETTE ROSE, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT, GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE: It was hard, police saw a way out of this. It's absolutely wrong for the police for just giving out fines isn't the answer to this.</s>MCLEAN: And ultimately, she says there's another reason police aren't more strict.</s>ROSE: We don't want to damage the relationship with the public by being overly authoritarian in our approach.</s>MCLEAN: So far it seems there is little risk of that. Scott McLean, CNN -- London.</s>VAUSE: We should note, last week the U.K. government promised almost $80 million in new funding for increased police patrols to enforce the restrictions. Part of the funding has been allocated to local councils as well to hire coronavirus marshals who will remind the public about the new guidelines. Well, in person voting now on the way across the United states but long lines and ballot box issues could mean voter suppression is already happening. Details on that when we come back.

Long Lines, Ballot Box Issues as Voting Begins

VAUSE: Well, in person voting is already underway in almost 20 states in the U.S. and in places like Republican controlled Georgia right now casting a ballot can mean a six-hour wait or more. A civil rights group says it's all about voter suppression to deter those who would traditionally support the Democratic candidate. And then there are Republican objections to the use of drop boxes for absentee votes, filing legal actions in some states but now caught out using fake illegal drop boxes in California. CNN election analyst Franita Tolson joins me now from Los Angeles. Welcome to the show -- first time, good to see you.</s>FRANITA TOLSON, CNN ELECTION ANALYST: Good to see you too, John. Thanks for having me.</s>VAUSE: Yes, it's a pleasure. Now we'll start with drop box issue in California. Here's a statement posted on the official Twitter account of the Republican state party. "If a congregation business or other group provides the option to its parishioners, associates or colleagues, to drop off their ballot in a safe location with people they trust, rather than handing it over to a stranger who knocks on the door, what's wrong with that?" Ok, what's wrong with that? All the way -- gross hypocrisy here as well.</s>TOLSON: Right, it is potentially misleading for voters who mistake that for a box that is established by the state. And it's also notable that the GOP's position of having drop boxes is at odds with their general suspicion of drop boxes which they have challenged in litigation across the country.</s>VAUSE: Have they -- have they -- is that location being sort of lodge in mostly Democrat controlled areas where these boxes --</s>TOLSON: Yes.</s>VAUSE: -- would be used the most? TOLSON. It has been. It has been and notably in Texas, they went down to one drop box per county which is really terrible given that some counties have millions of people and, so essentially, what you have is the Republicans here taking a different position that is at odds with their usual suspicion, right. Because the argument has been that drop boxes can be a source of voter fraud. They have challenged them. They have challenged them as ways to make it easier for people to cast their ballots. But here you have them using them predominantly in conservative areas in order to encourage their own voters to use them. But the problem is that a voter may not know that the drop box was established by the local Republican Party as opposed to the state itself and that's a problem.</s>VAUSE: Hypocrisy in politics. My goodness, there's gambling going on. You know, there was a report out last year by a leading civil rights group and they found that since this 2013 court decision which essentially gutted the Voter Rights Act. Almost 1,700 polling sites in 13 states have been closed. And that meant to many people, in particular for voters of color, older voters, rural voters, and voters with disabilities. These burdens make it harder and sometimes impossible to vote. So in that context how is that now all coming to a head in this particular election amidst a pandemic?</s>TOLSON: I do think we have to look at everything happening in this broader context of what has occurred since the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County. So jurisdictions that were formally covered under the Voting Rights Act -- these jurisdictions closed 20 percent more polling places on average than non-covered jurisdictions. And so some of the lines that we saw in Georgia today, yes, people were excited, right. This is the first day or early voting, people want to turn out. They want to cast their ballots. This is a high- interest election. But at the same time, some of the lines were, you know, people who are in line eight, nine, ten hours and that is a form of voter suppression. I think we have to be clear in looking at this broader context that that is not ok especially for holding ourselves out as a democracy.</s>VAUSE: Yes. You know, they say there's something especially cruel or cynical that exposing the most vulnerable during a pandemic seems to make this choice between their health and their right to vote?</s>TOLSON: It's awful especially since we talk about the right to voters fundamental which suggest that they should try to make it easier for people to vote, particularly ins a global once in a lifetime pandemic. But we're just not seeing that. You know, we've seen a lot of efforts to deter voter turnout. And what occurred in Georgia today was no exception to that.</s>VAUSE: You know during the first, you know, unpresidential debate, Donald Trump made a statement which was, essentially it amounted to a threat. Listen to this.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I am urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully because that's what has to happen. I am urging my people, I hope it's going to be a fair election. If it's a fair election --</s>JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: You're urging them what?</s>TRUMP: I am 100 percent on board. But if I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated, I can't go along with that.</s>VAUSE: And what he could not go along with, just some clarity here was urging calm among his supporters if the result was close or didn't go his way. And this as your poll watchers comes with a lot of historical baggage especially in the south? Right.</s>TOLSON: Yes. So, poll watchers are not new, right. But Donald Trump's statements seem to -- it seemed like a broad call to his supporters to just come out and watch the polls when in fact poll workers are pretty closely regulated by the state. In many cases, they have to go through training, they have to wear identification that tells, you know, voters who they are. It's also important to note that there's no room for voter interference. Being a poll watcher does not mean you get to go to the polls and intimidate lawful voters. And so -- but the danger of Donald Trump's statement is that he's not making this distinction. And it's entirely possible that his supporters believe that they can just go to the polls to quote-unquote "watch" when in fact, it could quickly devolve into voter suppression, and voter interference.</s>VAUSE: Yes. And voter intimidation and a whole bunch of other --</s>TOLSON: There's voter intimidation, yes.</s>VAUSE: This is the kind of stuff which this country has worked so hard over the years, over generations to move away from and, you know, there's always this danger of slipping back. But Franita, thank you so much. We really appreciate you being with us.</s>TOLSON: Yes, thank you for having me.</s>VAUSE: When we come back, why some women who voted for President Trump in 2016 are regretting that decision. We head to one key battleground state in just a moment to find out why they plan to change their vote this time.

Some Women in Battleground State Sour on Trump.

VAUSE: Well four years ago, Donald Trump won about half of the white female vote in the state of Pennsylvania. This year though it's looking to be a very different story. CNN anchor Kate Bolduan went to this battleground state to find out why women there of change their minds. I wonder why. Here she is.</s>HOLLIE GEITNER, REGISTERED REPUBLICAN: I'm probably a good example of someone who's gone through a lot of change in four years.</s>KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: Hollie Geitner, a registered Republican is a working parent of two kids living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and she wasn't alone. 50 percent of white women in Pennsylvania did the same according to exit polls. What do you feel today about your vote four years ago?</s>GEITNER: I can tell you how I felt four years ago. Shame.</s>BOLDUAN: Do you regret your vote?</s>GEITNER: Where we are today, yes. I do. I don't think this is the great again that everyone thought it was going to be.</s>BOLDUAN: So Hollie is voting for Joe Biden, and so is Nin Bell. What drew you to Donald Trump? Why did you vote for Donald Trump then?</s>NIN BELL, TRUMP VOTER 2016: For his celebrity 100 percent.</s>BOLDUAN: It was the brand.</s>BELL: It was.</s>BOLDUAN: The image.</s>BELL: Absolutely. Successful, funny -- like he was funny I loved his show, "The Celebrity Apprentice". Never missed it.</s>BOLDUAN: Was there a moment when you decided I cannot support him anymore?</s>BELL: It was almost instantly.</s>BOLDUAN: It's not just outside the city's where suburban women are questioning their support for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. It's even out here in Westmoreland County, rural Pennsylvania, considered Trump country. We're about to meet two of them. BOLDUAN; Oh you're definitely sisters? Joan Smeltzer and Julie Brady are registered Democrats and both voted for Trump in 2016.</s>JOAN SMELTZER, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: I feel like I've been duped. I got it wrong and it hurts my heart. I mean it truly hurts my heart because the things that I saw I didn't take seriously enough.</s>BOLDUAN: Throughout the campaign, he was making sexist, misogynistic remarks. And then there was the Access Hollywood tape. How did you guys process and digest that? Being out there and voting for him?</s>SMELTZER: It was not easy. I looked at myself and I think how I could I do that?</s>JULIE BRADY, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: I feel like a did a disservice to women by voting for this guy.</s>BOLDUAN: Was there a moment in the last four years when you said, I can't do this again?</s>BRADY: The COVID pandemic, the way he handled it. It was the absolute last straw for me. He didn't create the virus but he kind of left us all in the dark guessing what was going on and that wasn't fair to us.</s>BOLDUAN: Among the women we spoke to, the coronavirus, the president's handling of the pandemic, and the racial unrest following the police killing of George Floyd were the overwhelming driving issues.</s>GEITNER: George Floyd's killing was a pivotal moment for me. When I read that he was begging for his mom, as a mother myself, it just brought me to my knees. And to see what's happened since, I feel like he's added fuel to flames of hatred and that really bothers me.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No Justice.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No peace.</s>BOLDUAN: Nin Bell, who registered as a Republican in 2016 just to vote for Trump in the primaries, now protests weekly in her town just outside Philadelphia, in her town, just outside by Philadelphia. Often met by groups, she used to consider her self a part of -- Trump supporters, setting up counter demonstrations.</s>BELL: I think Trump kind of thrives on that, on that division. I see it in my own town.</s>SMELTZER: Integrity, that's what we're lacking and accountability.</s>BRADY: Yes, being the mom of a nine-year-old that's one thing that I pushed with my son all the time is, you know, you made a bad decision, it's your fault. You learn from it and you move on. We have a president who nothing that happens is ever his fall, it's always somebody else's fault.</s>BOLDUAN: And there are consequences?</s>BRADY: There are consequences. He's about to find them out.</s>BOLDUAN: The women we talked to don't speak for every woman in Pennsylvania, of course. But what they have to say and why shows the uphill battle that Donald Trump is facing right now in this battleground state. The latest polling shows Trump trailing Joe Biden by 23 points among women in Pennsylvania. Kate Bolduan, CNN -- New York.</s>VAUSE: Thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm John Vause. Stay with us. After a break, Rosemary Church takes over for me. Thanks for watching.

Trump Holds First Rally since COVID-19 Diagnosis; J&J Pauses Vaccine Trial; New Research: U.S. Schools Not Major Source of Spread; Millions to Be Tested after China's New Outbreak; Big Tech Grows, Other Sectors Struggle.

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Rosemary Church. Ahead this hour:</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I can feel -- I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience. I'll walk in there. I'll kiss everyone in that audience.</s>CHURCH: A maskless Trump back on the campaign trail on a 3-week sprint to save his presidency, all despite a surge in cases and warnings from one of America's top doctors. Plus China is seeing a cluster of new COVID-19 cases. Now part of the country is preparing for mass testing. We are live from the region. Later, it's a big day for Amazon and what markets are saying ahead of Prime Day.</s>CHURCH: The U.S. presidential election is now just 3 weeks away. Donald Trump, who is behind in the polls, is making a return to the campaign trail just 11 days after testing positive for COVID-19. In the coming hours, he will hit the battleground state of Pennsylvania. On Monday, he reached out to supporters in Florida with this message.</s>TRUMP: We are hitting record stock market numbers. Record stocks. Record job numbers. Don't blow it. Don't blow it.</s>CHURCH: The White House doctor says President Trump tested negative for COVID-19 on consecutive days but did not reveal which days those were. At his rally, the president talked about feeling great and made the unproven claim that he is now immune to a packed and largely maskless crowd.</s>TRUMP: One thing with me, I went through it. Now they say I am immune. I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience. I will walk in there and I'll kiss everyone in that audience. I will kiss the guys and the beautiful women. I will give you a big fat kiss. When you are the president you cannot lock yourself in a basement and say I will not bother with the world. You've got to get out. It's risky. It's risky but you got to get out. It does give you a good feeling when you can beat something. And now they say you are immune. I don't know for how long. Some people say for life, some people say for four months.</s>CHURCH: The leading U.S. expert on infectious disease says political rallies in the time of COVID are a very bad idea.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: We know that that is asking for trouble when you do that. We have seen that when you have situations of congregant settings, where there are a lot of people without masks. The data speak for themselves. It happens.</s>CHURCH: CNN's Gary Tuchman spoke with some Trump supporters before the rally. They seem to be on the same page as the U.S. president.</s>GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You saw what happened at the White House recently where so many people that were outside at the event got coronavirus, including the president. That doesn't concern you?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.</s>TUCHMAN: Why not?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm healthy. I have no underlying health issues. That seems to be the people that are most prone to getting the disease.</s>TUCHMAN: The president was healthy too, that. And he had to take a helicopter to the hospital. Right, he had good medical care, right?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, well, and -</s>TUCHMAN: Do you have care that good?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, but I have -- I take care of myself.</s>TUCHMAN: Why not just put on a mask? What is the difference?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A mask can actually do more harm than good to individuals.</s>TUCHMAN: It can do more harm?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It can, because people can faint because there's too much carbon dioxide going back into their system.</s>TUCHMAN: You think people are fainting all over the country from masks and dropping dead?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, just enough. Enough people are getting ill because they're wearing a mask. So, yes.</s>TUCHMAN: Where'd that come from?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Common sense.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've also seen the numbers drop every single day.</s>TUCHMAN: The numbers are going up now though.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here?</s>TUCHMAN: And Mr. Trump says it's disappearing, but it's not. That's not the truth.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I'm debating on what the truth is for that because of what I can see. It's -- all the numbers that I've read have been down and I'm seeing that the flu is taking more people.</s>TUCHMAN: So, that's what you believe?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.</s>TUCHMAN: Let me ask you this. If President Trump at the rally said everyone put on their masks --</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would put it on.</s>CHURCH: Joining me now is Reid Wilson, he is a national correspondent for "The Hill." Thank you so much for being with us.</s>REID WILSON, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, "THE HILL": Thanks for having me.</s>CHURCH: So about three weeks away from the election and just about 10 days or so after testing positive for COVID-19, President Trump was out on the campaign trail holding a rally in Sanford, Florida with more rallies planned in three other states. It's a message of course of business as usual, trying to put this virus behind him. Is that going to work given 60 percent of voters disapproved of the way he's handling this pandemic?</s>WILSON: Well, I don't think that the virus is ever going to be out of voters' minds. It has been front and center in absolutely everything that we've done for the last nine months as a community, as a nation. And it's not simply going to go away because a president wants to will it away. As a matter of fact, infections are rising once again. Hospitalizations are rising in many states around the country. And we are heading into a fall and winter that can be really abysmal. We're going to be stuck back inside again. And those are exactly the conditions under which this virus spreads. So, it's going to be troubling. And President Trump is taking a clear risk every time he hosts one of these forums, one of these big rallies. That one of the rallies themselves might become a super spreader event which would be a disastrous outcome for his campaign just as it was when his introduction of a new Supreme Court nominee became a super spreader event a few weeks ago.</s>CHURCH: Right. And new polls on Monday from the New York Times and Sienna College for likely voters in Michigan show Biden support at 48 percent, Trump at 40 percent. And then in Wisconsin, Biden is at 51 percent to Trump's 41 percent. What are those numbers tell you?</s>WILSON: Well, there are two things that should be troubling for President Trump in those two numbers and in a lot of the surveys that we've seen recently. First of all, he is trailing in some of those blue wall states that he won back in 2016. Michigan and Wisconsin were critical pillars to his taking the White House why it's such a large margin as he did. The other thing that trouble -- that should be troubling to the president's campaign is that those numbers that you read off for him are so low. It's not as if he's neck and neck with Joe Biden in the high 40's. It's that only 40, or 41 percent of people in these critical swing states say they're going to back him. We're only three weeks out from election day, voters have tuned in, millions of voters have already cast their ballots. You know, if those numbers, if his numbers aren't 45, 46, 47, he's got zero shot at winning these swing states. He needs to improve dramatically. And the clock is ticking and running out very fast.</s>CHURCH: So, as you point out, all reputable polls show the president trailing his Democratic rival Joe Biden nationally and in some battleground states. But Democrats still fear a repeat of 2016 because of course it's the Electoral College that decides the winner. Do you see any path to victory for Donald Trump? Because he thinks the polls look very good for him.</s>WILSON: Yes and it's funny that you mention the Democrats. They have this collective feeling of what Biden's own pollster called PTSD about the polls being so wrong from 2016. I'd argue that the polls weren't that far off. The big difference here between 2016 and today is that Hillary Clinton was leading Donald Trump. But she was in the mid-40s and he was in the low 40s. Today, Joe Biden is at or above 50 percent in a lot of these key swing states. Trump does have a path. There are millions, tens of millions of votes still to be counted. And there are a lot of people who support the president to the very end. There's nobody in America who doesn't need a wealth or hate Donald Trump. There's not a lot of people in the middle there. But the fact is his coalition is shrinking by the day, it seems. And Joe Biden is doing substantially better than Hillary Clinton did among some key demographic groups, among women, among suburbanites, among moderates, especially among college educated white people that she struggled to win over. Joe Biden is winning. So that tells me that President Trump's path is difficult geographically and it's difficult demographically too.</s>CHURCH: And so, overall, how big a role has President Trump's handling of the pandemic played into Biden's lead over him in the polls? Because of course he has been struggling to make law and order the big issue. But apparently, voters doesn't care about that as much.</s>WILSON: Well it's funny you mention that. As we look at the surveys, on questions of law and order, more Americans actually trust Joe Biden to handle law and order issues than they do President Trump. Now, Biden's advantage on law and order issues is narrower than his advantage on coronavirus handling which is substantially larger than President Trump's margins. But the fact is, I mean, it's as if the president has picked two losing issues. Everybody is focusing everything through the lens of the coronavirus pandemic, whether it's the discussion of healthcare, discussion of the economy, even discussion of law and order. You know, a lot of these protests that are happening, people are talking about it in the context of the potential to spread the virus.</s>WILSON: Fortunately, we haven't seen virus -- the virus spreading through a lot of these protests. But the fact is, I mean, this election is going to be a referendum on President Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Unless there's some miracle in the next three weeks which spoiler alert, there won't be, then his handling of it is going to determine the outcome of this election. And that clearly does not work in his favor.</s>CHURCH: Reid Wilson, great to talk with you. Thanks so much.</s>WILSON: Thank you, Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: About 8 million Americans have already cast their ballots and the state of Georgia set a new record during its first day of in- person voting on Monday. Look at this. Long lines stretched on for hours in some locations. Recent polls show the reliably Republican state is a statistical toss- up between President Trump and Joe Biden. Voting at State Farm Arena, home to the Atlanta Hawks basketball team, was delayed for about an hour after a technical problem. In California, election officials are warning Republicans to stop using unofficial drop boxes to collect ballots. Voters reported the unauthorized boxes in at least three counties, one at a church. Some Republican Party leaders say they're not doing anything wrong, just providing a place for people to drop off their ballots with someone they know and trust. But California law does not allow unauthorized vote by mail drop boxes. You can expect fireworks on Capitol Hill as senators will begin questioning Donald Trump's pick for the U.S. Supreme Court in the day ahead. Conservative favorite Amy Coney Barrett outlined her judicial philosophy on Monday. CNN's Phil Mattingly reports.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Let's remember, the world is watching.</s>PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A potential generational shift for the highest court in the land, playing out amid a once in a century pandemic and a presidential election.</s>SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This hearing should have been postponed. The decision to hold this hearing now is reckless and places facilities workers, janitorial staff and congressional aides and Capitol police at risk.</s>MATTINGLY (voice-over): Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, spending most of the day watching.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge Barrett brings impeccable credentials, judicial temperament and a faithfulist (ph) to the law.</s>MATTINGLY (voice-over): Waiting.</s>SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Health care coverage, for millions of Americans is at stake with this nomination.</s>MATTINGLY (voice-over): Making her own case for her confirmation.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CANDIDATE: The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches, elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so and courts should not try.</s>MATTINGLY (voice-over): As senators laid out the battle lines for her nomination in the days ahead all while they grappled with a health crisis in their own chamber, likely caused by Barrett's nomination event.</s>SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): We should not be holding this hearings when it's plainly unsafe to do so. Two members of this committee are just now emerging from quarantine after testing positive.</s>MATTINGLY (voice-over): Two GOP senators at the Rose Garden event tested positive for COVID-19. Senator Mike Lee, back on the dais less than 2 weeks later.</s>SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): Even in those circumstances --</s>MATTINGLY (voice-over): For much of the time without a mask. Lee posted a letter from the Capitol's attending physician saying he, quote, met the criteria to end COVID-19 isolation.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was an inspirational model and role model.</s>MATTINGLY (voice-over): Senator Thom Tillis, who also tested positive, started the hearing remotely with plans to return in person later in the week.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can't demand that all your colleagues be tested before you go to work if there is no reason.</s>MATTINGLY (voice-over): Senator Lindsey Graham rejecting Democratic calls for each committee member to test negative before the hearings got underway.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So we are running this hearing safely. It has been set up with CDC compliance. We will move forward.</s>MATTINGLY (voice-over): Even as for some, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who has been by President Trump's side throughout his battle with COVID-19, staying masked is a bridge too far.</s>MARK MEADOWS, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Let me do this. Let me pull this away.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, pull away.</s>MEADOWS: And then that way I can take this. Off</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.</s>MEADOWS: Well, I'm more than 10 feet away. Well, I'm not going to talk through a mask.</s>MATTINGLY (voice-over): Phil Mattingly, CNN, Capitol Hill.</s>CHURCH: The race for a COVID-19 vaccine has hit another roadblock in the United States.</s>CHURCH: Drugmaker Johnson & Johnson says it's pausing an advanced clinical trial after an unexplained illness in one of its volunteers. This is the second phase 3 coronavirus vaccine trial to be paused in the U.S. AstraZeneca paused last month because of neurological issue in one of its volunteers. The trial resumed in Britain and other countries but remains paused here in the United States. Top expert Dr. Anthony Fauci says the U.S. is on a trajectory of getting worse and "we've got to turn this around," his words, there; 31 states have recorded more new cases last week than the week before. According to Johns Hopkins University and 9 of those states reported record higher hospitalizations over the weekend. Dr. Fauci says he hopes these figures jolt the American public into reality. Brian Todd has that report.</s>BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A new warning from America's top voice on the coronavirus pandemic as new cases nationally are up 40 percent from a month ago.</s>FAUCI: We should be doubling down in implementing the public health measures that we have been talking about for so long, which are keeping a distance, no crowds, wearing masks, washing hands, doing things outside, as opposed to inside, in order to get those numbers down. We're entering into the cool months of the fall and ultimately the cold months of the winter. And that's just a recipe of a real problem.</s>TODD: There are new worries that Florida could return to previous crisis levels. Some top experts say Florida Governor Ron DeSantis wasn't tough enough regarding distancing and mask-wearing rules and opened too many places back up too soon.</s>DR. MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH: Florida is ripe for another large outbreak. What they have done is opened up everything as if nothing had ever happened there. And you and I could be talking probably in eight to 10 weeks and I will likely bet that Florida will be a house on fire.</s>TODD: Florida now joins more than 30 American states with new coronavirus cases trending upward. Many hot spots in the Upper Midwest and Plains states, rural areas where hospitals are overwhelmed. One public health director in North Dakota told CNN today they had less than 20 hospital beds available in the entire state.</s>RENAE MOCH, DIRECTOR, BISMARCK-BURLEIGH PUBLIC HEALTH: We have some hospitals in very rural areas that are having difficulty meeting the demand and having to send patients to different areas across the state of North Dakota and even had to send out of state at some point to Sioux Falls and also Billings, Montana.</s>TODD: In New York, positivity rates in hot spot neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and suburban counties outside New York City continue to be way above the rest of the state. And officials say law enforcement will step up measures to enforce shutdown and distancing rules in those communities. Not all of the news is bad. A Brown University survey of more than 200,000 students in 47 states shows that, at least early in the school year, schools do not appear to be the super-spreaders they were feared to be, with infection rates among students and staff often lower than they were in their broader communities.</s>EMILY OSTER, ECONOMICS PROFESSOR, BROWN UNIVERSITY: A lot of the schools in our data are doing masking. Some of them are doing distancing. Some of them are doing smaller pods.</s>TODD: But growing concerns over mental health impacts. A new article published today in "The Journal of the American Medical Association" warns, quote, "A second wave of devastation is imminent," a mental health crisis, with increased deaths from suicide and drug overdoses.</s>DR. CELINE GOUNDER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: This is not just about isolation. This is about people losing their jobs, feeling socially and economically insecure. And that is what is driving many of these mental health issues and substance use issues.</s>TODD: All of which is taxing America's resources and finances. According to an article just published in the "Journal of the American Medical Association," the estimated cost of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States is more than $16 trillion. The authors of the report called this the greatest threat to the U.S. economy since the Great Depression -- Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.</s>CHURCH: As we just mentioned, a new Brown University study shows that U.S. schools are not the major spreaders of COVID-19 that experts feared. Data gathered for more than 200,000 students across 47 states found only a minuscule infection rate during the last two weeks of September. I spoke earlier to CNN medical analyst, Dr. Leana Wen, who sent a note of caution about the new findings.</s>DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: I think there needs to be a lot more research done to look at correlating for example, community spread with what is happening in the schools. And until then, I completely agree that we should prioritize schools for in-person learning and try to do everything we can to reduce community spread.</s>WEN: So that we allow schools to come back for in-person learning but we really need to also safeguard the health of not only the students but the faculty staff and their families too.</s>CHURCH: Right. Yes. All parents, we want our kids back in school but it has to be done safely, right? And Doctor, the U.S. is averaging about 50,000 new COVID cases a day. And all we really need to do is wear masks. But that message is failing to get through to the American public. We see it at these rallies where the president and it's failing to get through despite the fact that thousands of lives could be saved if everyone wore masks. How do you get that message across and why is it not being received loud and clear?</s>WEN: It does take a significant cultural change but we can do this. And part of what has been hampering our response all along is this mixed message. Instead of standing behind our scientists, we had our political elected officials frankly push scientists and science under the bus. We need everybody to be on the same page with this message and I think for all of us as individuals, we can do our part. We could wear masks ourselves and be a role model for those around us. Also in public health, we talk about the trusted messenger. Well, you are trusted messenger to someone. It could be somebody in your family, somebody in your social circles whom may not believe in masks but you can help to convince them that this is the right thing to do for our country.</s>CHURCH: That was CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen. European governments are cracking down against a second wave of the coronavirus. We will get a live report on the latest restrictions in England and France. What it could mean for their already struggling economy. We will be back with that in just a moment.

France Adds More Cities to Maximum Alert Category

CHURCH: With many European countries staring down a second wave of the pandemic, officials are walking a fine line, trying to fight the virus while still protecting their economies. But this is the reality, according to Johns Hopkins University. Cases in Europe are soaring. Here is a look at new cases in the past week versus the previous week. All that red you see is where cases are up at least 50 percent. British prime minister Boris Johnson is clamping down on parts of England and some local leaders and business owners are pushing back. Mr. Johnson announced new restrictions on some bars, restaurants and other businesses in areas where infection rates are very high. And in France, officials are adding more cities to the country's maximum alert level. That means closures are likely coming. Joining me now from Paris with more about this is CNN's Melissa Bell. Good to see you, Melissa. What is the main factor behind the surge in cases across France?</s>MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It has been a surge over the course -- we've seen several records set in terms of cases. Still, what we are seeing in terms of numbers, the young are driving the second wave. When you look at the incidence rate amongst younger people, they are double from the general population. What we are seeing now as a result of those record rises in the number of new cases of the number of people in ICUs growing as well. More than 1,500 in ICUs nationally. Without particular concern without how some of the hardest areas are going to be able to cope. Here is what the head of the French Parisian regional authorities had to say about the situation here.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We have the measures. We are trying to get them fully in place. That is why I'm calling that a race against time, because I think there is still an effort that could be made by citizens. We are preparing for all hypotheses, all of them. Since the beginning, we have put everything on the table. This crisis has taught us all to know our place. I'm not a minister, I'm not a prime minister. But I am saying that we have to be prepared for every scenario.</s>BELL: This morning, those ministers will be meeting in a special emergency meeting to decide what more measures need to be taken to protect places like the greater Paris region that are under such stress in terms of their ICUs, their hospitals. And the president will speak on Wednesday. We expect him to stay shy of announcing the second lockdown, maybe looking at things like curfews. A lot of speculation in the French about what he might have to announce that could help.</s>CHURCH: Melissa, new restrictions have been put in place in England and response to increased cases there. What is the latest on that?</s>BELL: That's right. For the time being, the system that has been put in place in England looks very much like the system we have here already, with a very high alert category, seeing things like pubs closing, leaving restaurants open but pubs closed. Very much like we have in the Paris region. The only area in England that is in a very high category is Merseyside and in the U.K. a lot of pushback from businesses, you can imagine. They're worried about what those restrictions could mean for the economy, for their businesses in particular. Here's what the British prime minister had to say about the new measures yesterday.</s>BORIS JOHNSON, U.K. PRIME MINISTER: We are entering a new and crucial phase in the fight against coronavirus, because the number of cases have gone up 4 times in 4 weeks. It is once again spreading among the elderly and vulnerable. There are already more COVID patients in U.K. hospitals today than there were on the 23rd of March, when the whole country went into lockdown. Deaths, alas, are also rising once again. These figures flashing at us like dashboard warnings in a passenger jet and we must act now.</s>BELL: Again, a similar story in England as what we've seen in France. The young, who have been pushing those numbers up, now infecting the elderly with all of the consequences that it has on hospitals.</s>CHURCH: Melissa Bell, many thanks. Bringing us a live report from Paris. Coming up on CNN NEWSROOM, how China is trying to contain its first new coronavirus cases in nearly two months. One city hopes to test all 9 million people who live there. And the mask mandate is now nationwide in South Korea. The penalties violators could face, that's next.

South Korea Eases Some Social Distancing Measures

CHURCH: China is in the process of testing an entire city of 9 million people. This after 12 new coronavirus cases were reported over the weekend. Authorities in the coastal city of Qingdao are taking swift action to find any other new cases. They have set up a citywide testing program and have screened more than 3 million people. CNN's Kristie Lu Stout is in Hong Kong. She joins us now. Good to see you, Kristie. A third of the 9 million residents have already been tested. So far, zero new cases have been found. That is a pretty impressive progress report. How have they've been able to test on such a massive scale?</s>KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN ANCHOR: Rosemary, they're able to do this because China has done this before. This is not the first time we have seen a rapid massive testing scale to take place in a city in China. This time it's taking place in the northeastern coastal city of Qingdao, a city of 9 million people. It's known for its tourism, as well as its namesake beer, as you mention, over the weekend. Ten to 12 individuals were detected for testing positive as a result of 9 million people being tested for COVID-19 over a span of 5 days. Early results are in. Government authorities this morning announced at 3 million people have tested positive. We've also added that may not detected additional positive cases. This has happened before. We've seen it in Beijing and Xinxiang, in Wuhan and on the back of other small clusters there. This is a crucial part of China's pandemic strategy. These rapid mass testing programs taking place, no matter how small the outbreak is. And it has proven to be very effective in lowering the rate of infection. In fact, on Monday, we heard from the health department in China that said only 13 new COVID-19 cases were reported, 7 of them imported, 6 of them domestic, where Qingdao is located. Back to you, Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: Kristie Lu Stout, many thanks. Joining us live from Hong Kong. Appreciate it. South Korea's mandating face masks in crowded areas. Starting in about a month, people who don't wear one will be fined about $90. Authorities say facilities that fail to take precautions could be closed. The mask mandate also applies to public transit. This move comes as the country eases some social distancing measures. But bars and clubs will still limit the number of people allowed inside. South Korea reported about 100 new cases of the coronavirus in the past 24 hours. Let's turn to Paula Hancocks. She joins us live from Seoul. Good to see you, Paula. For the most part, weren't people across South Korea wearing masks anyway?</s>PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They were absolutely. The vast majority of people was wearing masks. The fact is, many cities including the capital of Seoul already had mandatory face mask rules in place for certain areas, where you simply cannot socially distance. So what this is today is the government is trying to make this nationwide. As you say, it's public transport rallies, gatherings and things like that. And wanted to make sure that everybody is wearing a mask. This is really the first step, because after this there's going to be a 30 day grace period and from November 13th, you will be fined if you are not wearing a mask. In fact, if you're not wearing it correctly, health officials pointing out you should not be wearing it under your nose or under your chin as some people have done. Making sure that the mandatory mask rules are across the board and across the country at the same time as lowering the social distancing rules. What this level one now means for social distancing.</s>HANCOCKS: It's the lowest level for South Korea, is that there is now not a restriction on the amount of people that can gather indoors or outdoors. There were other things for example. Churches now can have some in-person services but that counts as a 30 percent capacity. The same for sporting events. It can be 30 percent of the stands being filled. Certainly, the social distancing rules are being relaxed, showing that the government does feel that they are getting a good handle on recent clusters. Again, there were many caveats to these rules that they're giving, saying if there are certain hotspot areas, then the local government officials should be able to make the rules and make sure that the sensible rules are in place. As you said, Rosemary, it is true; most people, the vast majority of people in South Korea, do wear masks and, frankly, have done since February-March.</s>CHURCH: Has been absolutely extraordinary comparing how different nations respond to this, certainly South Korea compared to what we are seeing here in the United States. Paula Hancocks, many thanks to you for that live report. Not every sector of the economy suffering through the pandemic. Big events for Amazon and Apple in the coming hours will push profits even higher. We will take a look.

Trump's Supreme Court Pick, Amy Coney Barrett, Faces Senators' Questions; Sen. Leahy: Would You Commit To Recuse Yourself From Any Dispute That Arises Out of the 2020 Presidential Election?

LEAHY: Two weeks ago, the Senate voted on whether to side with President Trump in Texas v. California. 11 of the 12 senators on this committee sided with the Trump administration and asked to kill the ACA. Now I understand that you will not share your views on Texas v. California. I know you look at judicial candidate 386 and you're concerned that commenting may give future (inaudible) appear before you an indication of which way you'll go. Is that correct?</s>BARRETT: Yes, that is correct.</s>LEAHY: OK. My concern -- my concern is that you've already given us every indication. Every time you've weighed in, it hasn't even been close. You repeatedly disagree with Chief Justice Roberts for what you've said you clearly read the statute is unconstitutional. The president has been very clear he expects you to side with him. And let me tell you another area he'll expect you to side with him. He expects you to side with him in an election dispute. He says he needs a ninth justice because he has -- he's counting on the court to look at the ballots, and he says the election will be rigged. The recusal statute, 28 USC 455, requires recusal where impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Now, when the president declares he needs this nominee to secure his reelection and then the nominee is ran through the Senate in record time during the middle of an election, some are going to question that nominee's impartiality. Would you -- to protect confidence in both you and the court, would you commit to recuse yourself from any dispute that arises out of the 2020 presidential election?</s>BARRETT: Senator Leahy, I want to begin by making two very important points, and they have to do with the ACA and with any election dispute that may or may not arise. I have had no conversation with the president or any of this staff on how I might rule in that case. It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case and how I would rule. I also think it would be a complete violation of the independence of the judiciary for anyone to put a justice on the court as a means of obtaining a particular result, and that's why as I was mentioning I think to Senator Grassley that the questionnaire that I filled out for this committee makes clear that I have made no pre- commitments to anyone about how I would decide a case. That's out of respect for Article III and its designation of the judiciary as a coequal and independent branch of government. On the recusal question...</s>LEAHY: Well, I must say that you gave a similar answer when I talked to you and Mr. Supaione (ph). I had a question, of course, because one of the numbers of our -- in the Judiciary Committee said they would not support you unless we had a commitment that you would vote that way?</s>BARRETT: Vote on the election?</s>LEAHY: On another case, Roe v. Wade. And I understand what you're saying is not (inaudible). I remember this committee said you have not made that commitment to anybody. Is that correct?</s>BARRETT: Senator Leahy, let me be clear I have made no commitment to anyone, not in this Senate, not over at the White House about how I would decide any case.</s>LEAHY: Well, that -- and the reason I ask is we also have a question of appearance. Now Judge Joan Larsen of the Sixth Circuit said this to you during your 2017 hearing. She asked confronted with this issue as a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court in 2016. Then President Elect Trump challenged a ballot recount. Judge Larsen was on the short list for the Supreme Court at the time. She found that being on the short list was a conflict and required her recusal. You are absolutely -- you are also on the short list, and then you were actually chosen. Now he's not the president elect. He's the president. And then the president makes his similar thing as he did and Judge Larsen looked at (ph). He's counting on you to deliver him (ph) in the election. Judge Larsen said that was a conflict for her, OK, and would have to recuse. You do not find his comments a conflict to you. Is that correct?</s>BARRETT: Senator Leahy, I'm not familiar with Judge Larsen's decision, but she clearly made it once it was presented to her in the context of an actual case where she had to waive her obligations under 28 USC 455. If presented to me, I would, like Judge -- like Judge Larsen, apply that statute. And I recently read a description by Justice Ginsburg of the process that Supreme Court justices go through in deciding whether to recuse, and it involves not only reading the statute, looking at the precedent, consulting counsel, if -- if -- if necessary, but the crucial last step is that while it is always the decision of an individual justice, it always happens after consultation with the full court. So I can't offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting that entire process.</s>LEAHY: Well, I think that what I worry about, and I've said over and over again, that if the courts are politicized, from the Supreme Court down through other courts, and I've (inaudible) cases in (inaudible) our -- our federal courts, I've always assumed the judges are totally impartial, no matter what president had nominated them. But this president has not been subtle, and he expects his nominee to side with him in an election dispute. I'm thinking of the credibility of our federal courts, and I would hope you would at least consider that. The president said he needs a ninth justice because he's counting on the court to look at the ballots in case he loses because that would -- if he lost, and that the Democrats have rigged the election. The recusal statute, as you know as well as anyone in 28 USC 455 requires a justice recuse herself in any proceeding in which impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Now, whether you like it or not, and I suspect you probably do not, the president's placed both you and the Supreme Court in the worst of positions. And so let me ask you a -- a different type of question. I assume you agree with me that it's critical for Americans to have confidence in the Supreme Court. Is that true?</s>BARRETT: That is true, and I agree with your earlier statement that the courts should not be politicized.</s>LEAHY: Thank you. And I voted for an awful lot of Republican and -- and Democratic-nominated justices, as I did, of course, for Chief Justice Roberts, because I wanted to keep the Supreme Court and other courts out of politics. But when the president repeatedly declares his -- he needs his nominee as a way of securing his reelection, and that nominee has been rammed through the Senate in the -- in the middle of that election, well, you can see where the nominee's impartiality might be questioned. So my -- my request is in that -- in protecting confidence in both you and the court, are you able to commit to recuse yourself from disputes arise out of the 2020 presidential election?</s>BARRETT: Senator Leahy, I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal, and part of that law is to consider any appearance questions, and I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.</s>LEAHY: Which is sort of boilerplate response on -- on recusal. So let me ask you another question. You laid out the case for blocking President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, for 10 months during an election year. You have (inaudible) prior that Justice Scalia was the staunchest conservative on the court, and Justice Scalia and I were personal friends. I voted for him, and I agree with you on that. You claim that the moderate and eminently-qualified Judge Garland would dramatically flip the balance of the court. You said it was not a quick (ph) lateral move, but that's your -- your quote. It was not a lateral move. So now you're -- you're nominated to replace Justice Ginsburg, perhaps the staunchest champion for civil rights of the court. You claim that the philosophy of Justice Scalia is your own. Of course, he was the opposite side of Justice Ginsburg in countless civil rights cases. Would you say that replacing Justice Ginsburg by yourself is not a lateral move, like you encouraged when you supported the blocking of President Obama's nominee, Judge Garland?</s>BARRETT: Senator Leahy, I want to be very clear. I think that's not quite what I said in the interview. It was an interview that I gave shortly after Justice Scalia's death, and at that time both sides of the aisle were arguing that precedent supported their decision, and I said while I'd not done the research myself, my understanding of this -- of the statistics was that there -- neither side could claim precedent; that this was a decision that was the political branch's to make. And I didn't say which way they should go; I simply said it was the Senate's call. I didn't advocate or publicly support the blockade of Justice -- Judge Garland's nomination, as you're suggesting.</s>LEAHY: You -- that's not what I'm suggesting. You said it was a lateral. It would not be a lateral move.</s>BARRETT: I -- what I was suggesting is that it was unsurprising that there was resistance as a political matter to that nomination because it would change the balance of the court. That's (inaudible)...</s>LEAHY: Well, I -- I -- I was surprised -- I was surprised there was resistance and surprised there's so many, at that time, Republican members of the Judiciary Committee who would say publicly before the vacancy that they thought Merrick Garland would be a good person to have on the court, and somebody who could appeal to both conservatives, liberals and moderates. But (inaudible)...</s>BARRETT: I have full respect for Judge Garland.</s>LEAHY: I beg your pardon?</s>BARRETT: I'm sorry. I missed the first part. Are they right to say -- could you repeat the question?</s>LEAHY: No, it's not a question. I was just saying that we had many members of our committee, a number of Republicans who, prior to the vacancy, had been saying Merrick Garland would be a good person for President Obama to nominate because he -- he could appeal to moderates, conservatives and liberals. And then their -- of course, their response was, "Well, we can't have a -- we can't have a nominee confirmed by one party that's in control of the Senate and nominated by the president of another party." (Inaudible) I pointed out, I was here when Democrats controlled the Senate and President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy, and in an election year, Democrats confirmed him. But let me go to another area. A three judge panel of the 7th Circuit has struck down three provisions of an Indiana law restricting reproductive rights. The state of Indiana requested en banc review of just one of the provisions, the fetal tissue disposition provision. The question was whether to review the case, leaving intact the panel decision to strike down the law. You joined Judge Easterbrook in his dissent but then the dissent went out of its way to address a separate provision not before the court, the so-called reason ban, that your dissent called a eugenics statute. Judge Barrett, the issue before your court was a narrow one. Why didn't you limit your dissent to the one issue the state of Indiana was asking you to review?</s>BARRETT: So we dissenters from that denial of hearing en banc -- first of all, dissented, as you say, on the fetal remains disposition portion, which the Supreme Court wound up summarily reversing the panel. On the eugenics portion of the bill, it is true that the state of Indiana did not seek en banc rehearing on that but we had many other states enter the case as amici, urging us to take that claim up, and what Judge Easterbrook's dissent did is explain why he actually thought it was an open question but one best left to the Supreme Court, and we didn't reach any conclusion with respect to it.</s>LEAHY: Well, in -- in your -- whatever position you took would not have changed the final decision of the -- of the court. Now, in 2006, you -- you signed an open letter that is published in the South Bend Tribune. You -- on one side, the advertisement describes the legacy of Roe v. Wade as barbaric. On the other side, which you signed, it's stated that you oppose abortion and the ban, defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death -- and I have certainly voted for some judges who take that position -- (inaudible) not mentioned in the letter, the organization that led the effort believes that in vitro fertilization, or IVF, is equivalent to manslaughter and should be prosecuted. Do you agree with them that IVF is tantamount to manslaughter?</s>BARRETT: Senator, the statement that I signed, as you said, simply said "we" -- I signed it on the way out of church, it was consistent with the views of my church and it simply said "we support the right to life, from conception to natural death." It took no position on</s>IVF. LEAHY: No, I -- I -- I understand that and I -- as I said, I voted for judges who take the same position you do, but I'm asking do you agree with the St. Joseph County Right to Life that sponsored the ad, that IVF is tantamount to manslaughter?</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator, I signed the statement that you and I have just discussed, and you're right that the St. Joseph County Right to Life ran an ad on the next page but I didn't -- I don't even think the IVF view that you're expressing was on that page, but regardless, I've never expressed a view on it, and for the reasons that I've already stated, I can't take policy positions or express my personal views before the committee...</s>LEAHY: OK.</s>BARRETT: ... because my personal views don't have anything to do with how I would decide cases and I don't want anybody to be unclear about that.</s>LEAHY: Well, let me talk about some of the positions you have taken. Before you became a judge, you were paid by the Alliance Defending Freedom, ADF, for five lectures. You gave them on originalism at the Blackstone Legal Fellowship. Now, I recall some -- being asked about some of their controversies. Were you aware of ADF's decades long efforts to recriminalize homosexuality?</s>BARRETT: I am not aware of those efforts, no.</s>LEAHY: OK. One of the reading materials they had for the program that you lectured to five -- several times -- (inaudible). In fact, they had filed a brief on Lawrence v. Texas, supporting -- in support of state laws punishing private homosexual activity. They celebrated when India restored a law punishing sodomy to 10 years in prison. Now, I don't -- whether you believe that being gay is right or wrong is irrelevant to me but my concern is what you -- you work with an organization working to criminalize people for loving a person that they are in love with. So that -- that's what -- that's what worried me.</s>BARRETT: Did -- did you -- I wasn't sure if you wanted me to answer that. You know, my...</s>LEAHY: ... no, go ahead.</s>BARRETT: My experience with the Blackstone program, which I spoke, was a wonderful one. It gathers, you know, best and brightest Christian lawsuits from around -- law students from around the country. And as you said, I gave a one hour lecture on originalism. I didn't read all of the material that the students were given to read. That had nothing to do with my lecture. I enjoyed teaching the students about what my speciality was, which is constitutional law, and nothing about any of my interactions with anyone involved in the Blackstone program were ever indicative of any kind of discrimination on the basis of anything.</s>LEAHY: Well, as you know, same-sex marriage, for example -- and Senator Feinstein mentioned this at the beginning -- is legal -- certainly legal in my state, it has been for some time. Do you feel that should be a crime?</s>BARRETT: Same-sex marriage?</s>LEAHY: Yes.</s>BARRETT: Obergefell clearly says that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.</s>LEAHY: And do you agree with that stare decisis?</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator, for the reasons that I've already said, I'm not going to, as Justice Kagan put it, give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to any particular precedent. It's precedent of the Supreme Court that gives same-sex couples the right to marry.</s>LEAHY: Well, you mentioned Justice Kagan. She once wrote an opinion "It's not enough that five justices believe a precedent is wrong. Reversing course demands a special justification over and above the belief that the precedent was wrong that (ph) decided it." Do you agree with that?</s>BARRETT: I do agree with that. The doctrine of stare decisis itself requires that.</s>LEAHY: Thank you. Having relied on stare decisis in many of my arguments before courts of appeals, I thank you for your answer. Chief Justice Roberts...</s>GRAHAM: Senator Leahy, I don't mean to interrupt. I know you don't have a clock in front of you, but we're about a little more than a minute over, so if you...</s>LEAHY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do not have a clock in front of me, but...</s>GRAHAM: No I understand, I totally understand.</s>LEAHY: I appreciate it and I look forward to the next round of questioning.</s>GRAHAM: Thank you, we'll make sure that happens. Very briefly before I go to Senator Cornyn, Senator Leahy mentioned my time with the president. I think probably all of us on this side were consulted by the president regarding how to fill the opening. He gave me a list of -- a small list of names, all women, you were on it, I was enthusiastic about everybody and very enthusiastic about your nomination by the president. Play a lot of golf with the president I guess. I've enjoyed it. We talk about a lot on the golf course, some policy, killing Soleimani, we talked about that, that was an interesting discussion. I promise you I've never talked about severability (ph) with the president. Senator Cornyn?</s>CORNYN: Good morning, Your Honor.</s>BARRETT: Good morning, Senator Cornyn.</s>CORNYN: You know, most of us have multiple notebooks and notes and books and things like that in front of us. Can you hold up what you've been referring to in answering our questions? Is there anything on it?</s>BARRETT: Letterhead that says "United States Senate."</s>CORNYN: That's impressive. Well, Judge, the best I can understand the objections to your nomination are not to your qualifications, your experience or training, but it's that you have -- or you will -- violate your oath of office. I find that terribly insulting. They suggest that you can't be unbiased in deciding a case you haven't even participated in yet. I find that insulting as well. You know, almost as -- maybe almost as pernicious as attacking somebody for their faith and suggesting that that disqualifies them from holding public office, is the attack that's being made on judicial independence, something that Chief Justice Rehnquist, among others, observed the crown jewels of the American Constitution and the American system. But I want to just take a little walk down memory lane here. You know, there are a lot of people who guessed how judges would actually rule on cases, and almost always they've been spectacularly wrong. I was struck by just a couple. Harry Truman said, "Whenever you put a man" -- and that -- he's talking about a man, but man or woman -- "on the Supreme Court, he ceases to be your friend." He said some more colorful things too. But Theodore Roosevelt said about Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., he said, "I could carve out -- out of a banana, a judge with more backbone than that." And as I think about people like Harry Blackmun, nominated by Richard Nixon, who wrote Roe v. Wade, as I think about Warren Burger -- you know, they were called the Minnesota Twins, and obviously over time they became sort of polar opposites on the court. I think about the attacks on Neil Gorsuch for his unwillingness to make a prior commitment on LGBT issues. He wrote the Bostock case, extending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to gay or transgender individuals. Obviously, those predictions were wrong. And then since we're talking about the ACA -- it's the ACA v. ACB, I guess -- Chief Justice Roberts was the one who wrote the opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act, as you know. So I would just say that all of these predictions about how judges under our independent judiciary will make decisions are just pure speculation. But I think they're worse than speculation, I think they're propaganda in order to try to make a political point. So, Judge, you're not willing to make a deal?</s>BARRETT: No, Senator Cornyn, I'm not willing to make a deal. Not with the committee, not with the president, not with anyone. I'm independent.</s>CORNYN: I just would like to hear maybe some of your thoughts on -- in the Obergefell case, which established, as you said, a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, part of that decision struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, correct?</s>BARRETT: Yes, I believe so.</s>CORNYN: That was a bill that Joe Biden voted for?</s>BARRETT: I don't know about that.</s>CORNYN: Well, I do.</s>BARRETT: OK.</s>CORNYN: Joe Biden voted for it, Pat Leahy and Bill Clinton signed it into law. Can you just -- I'm not asking you to get into the details, but just sort of differentiate for everybody listening, what the approach of a legislator is in voting for a piece of legislation as opposed to the role of a judge interpreting the constitutionality of a piece of legislation? Are they the same or are they different?</s>BARRETT: They're quite different. A judge isn't expressing a policy view. You know, I tell my students in Constitutional Law that newspapers do courts a disservice when, you know, they say things like, you know, "Court favors same-sex marriage" or -- you know, just giving the headline without showing any of the reasoning that goes into it. Because courts are not just expressing a policy preference, they're digging in, they're looking at the precedent, they're looking at the Constitution and even when the results cuts against policy preferences, judges are obliged to follow them. I suspect that this body doesn't cast votes that conflict with their policy preferences.</s>CORNYN: Well, that's right. And the difference between us and you is, you don't run for election.</s>BARRETT: That's right.</s>CORNYN: You don't run on a platform. You don't say, "If I'm confirmed, I'm going to do this or that." You don't do that, do you?</s>BARRETT: It would be wholly, wildly inappropriate for me to do so.</s>CORNYN: Well, your mentor, Justice Scalia, said something back in 2005 that I find intriguing but reassuring. He said, "If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong." Do you agree with that? And if you do, would you explain what you mean?</s>BARRETT: I do agree with that. And that, you know, has been by experience on the 7th Circuit so far. It's your job to pass the statues. It's your job to choose policy. And then, it's my job to interpret those laws and apply them to facts of particular cases. And they don't always lead me to results that I would reach if I were, you know, queen of the world and I could say you win, you lose or this is how I want it to be.

Trump's Supreme Court Pick Faces Senator's Questions; Barrett: "No One Ever Talked About any Case with Me" Before Nomination; Barrett Won't Say if She Would Recuse from Obamacare Decision; Supreme Court Nominee Faces Questions on Affordable Care Act; Barrett Asked About George Floyd Case; Supreme Court Nominee Faces Questions on Gun Rights.

AMY CONEY BARRETT, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: And then, it's my job to interpret those laws and apply them to facts of particular cases. And they don't always lead me to results that I would reach if I were, you know, queen of the world and I could say you win, you lose or this is how I want it to be. Because I just don't have the power by fiat to impose my policy preferences or choose the result I prefer. That's just not my role. I've got to go with what you guys have chosen.</s>SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Well, why in the world would the American people surrender their right to govern themselves through their elected representatives and through the Constitution to nine people who don't even run for election and who serve for life? Why in the world would -- should the American people do that?</s>BARRETT: Well, I think part of the rationale for courts adhering to the rule of law and for judges taking great care to avoid imposing their policy preferences is that it's inconsistent with democracy. Nobody wants to live in accord with the law of Amy -- I assure you, my children don't even want to do that. So I can't, as a judge, get up on the bench and say you're going to live by my policy preferences because I have life tenure and you can't kick me out if you don't like them.</s>CORNYN: Well, thankfully, under the Constitution, even if the Supreme Court strikes down a statute, Congress can come back and revisit that topic and do so in a way that doesn't violate the Constitution as determined by the court. And ultimately -- it doesn't happen very often in our history, but ultimately we can amend the Constitution itself. Correct?</s>BARRETT: That is correct.</s>CORNYN: So the basis of legitimacy of governmental power is consent of the governed. Do you agree with that?</s>BARRETT: I do agree with that.</s>CORNYN: Not what nine people in black robes -- the high nine on the Potomac, I think they're sometimes called -- the decisions they make, those are -- that's not the final word in our form of government. Correct?</s>BARRETT: We are a law -- a government of laws, not of men.</s>CORNYN: Well, Judge Barrett, I'm almost through but I can't pass up the opportunity to ask you a question about the Establishment Clause. I did with Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch as well. It's borne out of my frustration. One of the couple of times I had a chance as attorney general of Texas to argue before the Supreme Court, I argued in a case called Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. This was about a commonplace practice where, before football games in Texas, students would volunteer to offer an invocation or an inspirational poem or saying or something like that. The ACLU sued the school district. And obviously, it made its way all the way -- all the way to the Supreme Court. And I'm not going to ask your opinion on the outcome of the case. But what troubles me the most -- what troubled me the most about that experience is when the Supreme Court struck down or held that practice unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause. Chief Justice Rehnquist said the Constitution requires neutrality toward religion. But the court's approach speaks of hostility toward religion. Could you just talk a little bit about the Establishment Clause generally with -- not in regard to any particular set of facts but, sort of, what the courts over time have tried to do to -- to enforce the mandate of the Constitution?</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator Cornyn, when I interviewed for my job with Justice Scalia, he asked what area of the court's precedent that I thought, you know, needed to be better organized or that sort of thing. And off-the-cuff I said, well, gosh, the First Amendment. And he said, well, what do you mean? And I fell down a rabbit hole of trying to explain without success -- because it is a very complicated area of the law -- how one might see one's way through the thicket of balancing the Establishment Clause against the Free Exercise Clause. It's a notoriously different -- difficult area of the law. And to that, you know, there is tension in the court's cases -- and I'm giving you no better an answer, I assure you, than I did to Justice Scalia that day -- it's been something that the court has struggled with, you know, for decades to try to come to a sensible way to apply both of those clauses.</s>CORNYN: Well, I wish you well.</s>BARRETT: Thank you, senator.</s>CORNYN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to reserve the rest of my time. Thank you.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Thank you, Senator Cornyn. For planning purposes, if it's OK with the committee, we'll have Senator Durbin and Senator Lee. We'll break for about a half hour for lunch. Then come back with Senator Whitehouse. Is that OK? Senator Durbin? Are you OK with that? Do you need a break?</s>BARRETT: No, that's fine.</s>GRAHAM: OK.</s>SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Judge Barrett and your family, for being here with us today for this marathon of--</s>BARRETT: Thank you, Senator Durbin.</s>DURBIN: Appreciate it. I would like to respond to two of my colleagues quickly before I ask a few questions of you. How -- who came up with this notion -- this insulting notion that you might violate your oath? Where could have this idea have come from? Could it have come from the White House? Could it have come from the president's tweets of what he expects a Supreme Court nominee to do politically for him? That's where it comes from. That's where it originated. And you have said very clearly today, without equivocation, you are not going to be influenced by President Trump's importuning or the importuning of this committee or anyone else, which is what we expect you to say. But this notion that this whole idea of you're being used for political purposes as a Democratic creation, read the tweets and you have plenty to work with. Read the tweets. The second thing I would like to say is I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending the Affordable Care Act -- although I think it's the most important single vote I've cast as a member of Congress, period -- but I will say that when the chairman opened up on it and said what he did, I was puzzled. Three states get 35 percent of the money, how can that possibly be true? Well, it turns out because those states decided to extend Medicaid coverage to the people who lived in the states and his did not. And as a consequence, fewer people in South Carolina have the protection of health insurance -- and those that do are paying for their services and those that don't are not -- which imperils hospitals and others in the process. So I would say there is an explanation as to why some states are spending more. And incidentally, there is a Republican governor of your state, Indiana, by the name of Mike Pence who decided to break with other Republican governors and extend Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act. I think it was the right thing to do for Indiana, as it was for Illinois. But that's part of the reasoning. Let me just say that the Affordable Care Act really is a part of this, as you can tell, on the Democratic side. We really believe the Supreme Court's consideration of that case is going -- could literally change America for millions of people. I have with me today another group I'd like you to at least be aware of because they're pretty amazing people. But this is the Williams family. They live in Naperville not too far from Chicago.</s>BARRETT: Yes.</s>DURBIN: Cathy (ph) and Les (ph) Williams have four sons from left to right; Matt (ph), Joey (ph), Tommy (ph) and Mikey (ph). Matt (ph) who is 27 was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes when he was 13, the other three Williams' boys were all born with Cystic Fibrosis. Joey (ph) is 24, Mikey (ph) is 21. Sadly Mikey's (ph) twin Tommy (ph), after this picture was taken, passed away in January 2019 from complications. This is the last photo that was ever taken of their full family. Here's what they wrote me, "We can not imagine having to go through losing another child. People with Cystic Fibrosis require daily medication, regular doctor visits, access to high quality specialized care. That means people with pre-existing conditions like Cystic Fibrosis can not be discriminated against. The ACA's protections ensure a ban on annual on lifetime caps and enforce the requirement that ensures cover essential health benefits such as hospitalization and mental health services. People with CF and other pre-existing conditions needs adequate affordable health care to live longer, healthier lives." That's why we keep bringing this up. Real people that we run into all the time. There's a chart here I'm not sure (inaudible) while we're at it. On the republican side there's some obviously controversy as to whether we're right or wrong. There are an awful lot of people in each of the states represented by our republican senators who have their health care and literally in some cases their lives hanging in the balance. South Carolina, 242,000 people would lose their insurance coverage is the Affordable Care Act were eliminated. Two million living in that state are pre-existing conditions. You can imagine the list goes on. Thank you. Here's what it comes down to, you have been unequivocal in being critical in decisions both in NFIB Sebelius and the King Burwell. And we naturally draw the conclusion there's going to be a third strike when it comes to Texas and California. You said it won't affect pre-existing conditions if the petitioners have their way there will not be an Affordable Care Act to protect pre-existing conditions on the severability question. So give us an insight of how you can be so unequivocal in opposing the majority decisions in NFIB Sebelius and in King Burwell but have an open mind when it comes to the future of the Affordable Care Act?</s>BARRETT: Sure. Thank you for that question, Senator Durbin, because it gives me an opportunity to make my position clear. When I wrote and this was as a law professor about those decisions I did critique the statutory interpretation of the majority opinion. And, as I mentioned before, my description of them was consistent with the way that Chief Justice Roberts described the statutory question. But I think that your concern is that because I critiqued the statutory reasoning that I'm hostile to the ACA and that because I'm hostile to the ACA that I would decide a case a particular way. And I assure you that I am not. I am not hostile to the ACA, I'm not hostile to any statute that you have. And the cases on which I commented and we can talk at another time, I guess, about the context, the distinctions between academic writing and judicial decision making. But those were on an entirely different issues. So to assume that because the critiqued the interpretation of the mandate or the phrase established by a state means that on the entirely different legal question of severability I would reach a particular results just assumes that I'm hostile, and that's not the case. I apply the law. I follow the law. You make the policy.</s>DURBIN: So let's talk about that for a moment from a different issue perspective. Bear with me for a couple questions. Have you seen the George Floyd video?</s>BARRETT: I have.</s>DURBIN: What impact did it have on you?</s>BARRETT: Senator, as you might imagine given that I have two black children, that was very, very personal for my family. Jesse was with the boys on a camping trip out in South Dakota, so I was there and my 17-year-old daughter, Vivian, who's adopted from Haiti, all of this was erupting. It was very difficult for her. We wept together in my room, and then it was also difficult for my daughter, Juliet, who's 10. I had to try to explain some of this to them. I mean, my children to this point in their lives have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence, and for Vivian, you know, to understand that there would be a risk to her brother or a son she might have one day of that kind of brutality has been an ongoing conversation. It's a difficult for one for us like it is for Americans all over the country.</s>DURBIN: And so, I'd like to ask you as an originalist but obviously has a passion for history I can't imagine you could separate the two. To reflect on the history of this country, where are we today when it comes to the issue of race. Some argue it's fine. Everything's fine and you don't even have to teach children about the history of slavery or discrimination. Others say there's an implicit bias in so many aspects of American life that we have to be very candid about and address. Others go further and say, no. It's systemic racism. It's built into America, and we have to be much more pointed in our addressing. How do you feel?</s>BARRETT: So I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement given as we just talked about the George Floyd video that racism persists in our country. As to putting my finger on the nature of the problem, you know, whether as you say it's just outright or systemic racism or how to tackle the issue of making it better, those things, you know, are policy questions. They're hotly contested policy questions that have been in the news and discussed all summer. So while as I did share my personal experience, I'm very, you know, happy to discuss the reaction our family had to the George Floyd video giving broader statements or making, you know, broader diagnoses about the problem of racism is kind of beyond what I'm capable of doing as a judge.</s>DURBIN: Well I would doubt that -- just don't believe you can be as passionate about originalism and the history behind language that we've had for decades if not centuries without having some thought about where we stand today, but I'm not going to pressure on that. I'm going to take you to a case which I have read and reread, Kanter versus Barr. You know the case well because it's already been referred to. And it clearly is a case where you had your day in court. You wrote the sole dissent, a 64-page case. 37 pages were your dissent, so you gave to the court I assume a pretty full accounting of your thoughts on the subject, and here's the way I understand the case. A fellow named -- a fellow named Rickey Kanter from Mequon, Wisconsin, invested in some pads to put in a shoe to be sold to particularly older Americans under Medicare to relieve foot pain. And he designed them and submitted them to Medicare and didn't get the approval that he was looking for, but instead sold them and represented to many customers that they had been approved by Medicare. And so, he was charged with fraud. Now, this wasn't a matter of a casual misapplication of the law. When it was all said and done, Rickey Kanter of Mequon, Wisconsin ended up spending over a year -- a year and a day in federal prison, paying somewhere near $300,000 in penalties and fines and $27 million in civil. So -- on this issue. So this was not a casual wrongdoing. This man was a swindler and he was taking the federal government for a ride as well as other customers and misleading senior citizens about his product and paid a heavy price for it. Then he decided having left prison that it's just fundamentally unfair that the law says that if you've been convicted of a felony you can't own a firearm. Now, I don't know what his appetite is when it comes to firearms whether it's a revolver or AK-47 with a banana clip. I have no idea, but he went to court and said this is unfair. It was just mail fraud, and you're taking away my second amendment rights. So two out of three of your colleagues then basically said sorry, Rickey. You have forfeited your right to own a firearm because of your conviction of a felony. You took a different approach, exactly the opposite approach and went deep into history. I think the earliest citation I see here was 1662 to figure out just what was going on here and whether or not he had to have committed a violent felony to have forfeited this right to own a firearm. Have I stated the facts close to what you remember?</s>BARRETT: I don't remember the amount of the law, some of those details, but yes. Rickey Kanter was convicted of selling fraudulent shoe inserts and it was a felony.</s>DURBIN: Yes. $27 million settlement along the way. So I'd like to take you into your thinking on this. When the Heller decision was handed down, Justice Scalia expressly said I'm not taking away the authority of government to impose limitations based on felonies, not violent felonies, felonies and mental illness. He said as much in the Heller decision. And yet, this man who was your inspiration as you've told us all, you decided he was wrong and that it had to be a violent felony. Can you explain why?</s>BARRETT: I can. So, we've talked about precedence, and in my court, the Seventh Circuit, there is precedence saying that that phrase doesn't control as, you know, my colleague, Judge Frank Easterbrook, has said a number of times that judicial opinions aren't statutes and shouldn't be read as if they were. So Heller obviously wasn't about the scope of the right; you know, it's application to felons or those who are mentally ill, et cetera. And so, that passage was dicta. It didn't fully dive down into it, but what I did was apply Heller's methodology, both Justice Scalia's majority opinion and Justice Stevens dissent, used an originalist methodology to answer that question, and I concluded that based on that history one couldn't take the right of way simply because one was a felon, that there had to be a showing of dangerousness. And I didn't rule out the possibility that the government might be able to make that showing of about Rickey Kanter, but I think we could all agree that we ought to be careful of saying that because someone's a felon, that they lose any of their individual rights.</s>DURBIN: I want to get to that point but I'd like to stick with this for just a moment more. I'm honored to represent the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois. It's a great city but it has great problems, too, and one of them is gun violence. On the average, we know in America, 100 Americans are killed every day by gunfire, 40,000 per year. In the city of Chicago, more than 3,200 people have been shot just this year -- 3,200. According to the city's gun trace report in 2017, the majority of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered in Chicago are traced back to states with less regulation over firearms, such as Indiana and Mississippi. The 2017 report found that Indiana alone was the source of 21 percent of all Chicago's recovered crime guns. We know how it works where you live, you know how it works -- there's a traffic between Chicago and northern Indiana and Michigan going on constantly, gun shows are held in Gary, Indiana and other places, and when they are selling these firearms without background checks, unfortunately these gangbangers and thugs fill up the trunks of their cars with firearms and head into the city of Chicago and kill everyone, from infants to older people. It just -- it's a horrific situation. Law enforcement is fighting it, trying to get Indiana to at least do background checks at these gun shows with limited success, and we are trying to apply the standards that you disqualify yourself by buying a firearm to felonies and mental illness, and you want to take away part of that protection with your decision in this case, because it -- if you eliminate felonies and just confine it to violent felonies, you're opening up more opportunities for people to buy firearms, are you not?</s>BARRETT: Well Senator, you referred to gang members and thugs buying guns in Indiana and taking them across the border, and certainly that -- if the -- if they had felony convictions for doing the kinds of things that members of gangs and thugs do, nothing in Kanter says that the government can't deprive them of firearms and nothing says, in my opinion, that the government can't deprive Rickey Kanter of having firearms. They simply had to make a showing of dangerousness before they did so and nothing in the opinion opines at all on the legality of background checks and gun licensing. Those are all separate issues.</s>DURBIN: But the majority zeros in and says what you've just said is totally impractical, that we are going to go case by case and decide well what kind of felonies and what kind of person? And then they go on to produce evidence -- I can read the numbers here but you know them well because you wrote the dissent -- where the likelihood of committing a violent felony after being convicted of a felony is pretty dramatic, and they're saying to us "don't let us -- don't force us to make it case by case, we want to make it by category. It's the only practical way to deal with the thousands, if not millions, of people who are buying firearms." You are aware of the fact that even those who are so-called not violent felons, quote "only felons," like Rickey Kanter, have a propensity to -- to commit violent felonies in the future, are you not?</s>BARRETT: There was no evidence of that in the case. And we, of course (ph) -- for example, the Armed Career Criminal Act, that's a federal statute, has to make judgments categorically all of the time about what count is crimes of violence. So I don't think that's beyond the ten (ph) of courts in any area to identify which felonies are violent and, you know, which felonies are not but ...</s>DURBIN: Excuse me but I -- I won't address that issue. Let's go to Page 21 of the opinion and what the court said -- the majority in the court -- "most felon" -- they quoted Yancy -- "most felons are non- violent but someone with a felony conviction on his record is more likely than a non-felon to engage in illegal and violent gun use." "For example, one study" -- this goes on to say -- "210,886 non- violent offenders found that one out of five were re-arrested for a violent crime within three years." So the evidence is there -- it -- it is there for the court to consider and you ignored it.</s>BARRETT: Senator, I didn't ignore it. As I recall, that evidence in the studies were unclear. It -- and -- let's see -- I can't remember, as I'm sitting here, the details of all of the statistics but I did consider it and I recall saying something in the opinions about the reliability of those studies because they didn't say whether someone had been convicted of a non-violent crime but had later been convicted of a violent crime, as well. I mean, felonies cover a broad range of things, including selling pigs without a license, in some states, redeeming too many bottle caps in Michigan. I mean, so felonies now cover broad swathes of conduct, not all of which seems indicative of whether someone's likely to abuse a firearm.</s>DURBIN: So let's -- let me take you -- I'm not going to go so far back in history but I'm -- I'm going to take you back in history for a moment, and note that when that Second Amendment was written and you did the analysis of it, we were talking about the likelihood that a person could purchase a muzzle-loading musket. We are now talking about virtual military weapons that can kill hundreds of innocent people. It is a much different circumstance. Maybe an originalist pins all of their thinking to that musket but I've got to bring it to the 21st century. And the 21st century has people being killed on the streets of Chicago because of the proliferation of deadly firearms. But let me bring it closer to home and -- and tie up the George Floyd question with where I'm headed. There's also a question as to whether the commission of a felony disqualifies you from voting in America, and the history on that is pretty clear. In an article, the American Journalists Sociology (sic) found that many felony voting bans were passed in the late 1860s and 1870s, when implementation of the 15th Amendment and its extension of voting rights to African Americans were ardently contested. It still goes on today with voter suppression but we know that in reconstruction, in the Jim Crow era, in black COVID era, that was used -- a felony conviction was used to disqualify African Americans from voting in the south and -- and many other places. The Sentencing Project today has found that more than six million Americans can't vote because of a felony conviction and one out of every 13 black Americans have lost their voting rights. The reason I raise that is that in your dissent, you said disqualifying a person -- person from voting because of a simple -- simple -- because of a felony is OK but when it comes to the possession of firearms, wait a minute, we're talking about the individual right of a Second Amendment. What we're talking about in voting is a civic right, a community right, however you defined it. I don't get it. So you're saying that a felony should not disqualify Rickey from buying an AK-47 but using a felony conviction in someone's past to deny them the right to vote is all right?</s>BARRETT: Senator, what I said was that the Constitution contemplates that states have the freedom to deprive felons of their right to vote, it's expressed in the constitutional text, but I expressed no view on whether that was a good idea, whether states should do that, and I didn't explore in that opinion because it was completely irrelevant to it, what limits, if any, there might be on a state's ability to curtail felon voting rights.</s>DURBIN: Did you not distinguish the Second Amendment right from the right to vote, calling one an individual right under the Constitution and the other a civic right?</s>BARRETT: That's consistent with the language and the historical context, the way the briefs (ph) describe it, and it was part of the dispute in Heller of whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a civic one that was possessed collectively for the sake of the common good. And everybody was treating voting as one of the civic rights.</s>DURBIN: Well I will just tell you that the conclusion of this is hard to swallow. The notion that Mr. Kanter, after all that he did, should not be even slowed down, he's on his way to buy a firearm. My goodness, it's just a felony. It's not a violent felony that he committed. And then to turn around on the other hand and say, "Well, but when it comes to taking away a person's right to vote, that's a civic duty, it's something that we could countenance." That is -- really goes back to the original George Floyd question. That was thinking in the 19th century that resulted in voter suppression and taking away the right to vote from millions of African-Americans across this country, and it still continues to this day. I just don't see it. I think the right to vote should be given at least as much respect as any Second Amendment right. Do you?</s>BARRETT: Senator, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that voting is a fundamental right, and I fear that you might be taking my statement in Kanter out of context. What I said in that opinion was distinguishing between -- it was a descriptive statement of the state of the court's case law comparing it to felon -- stripping felons of Second Amendment rights. I expressed no view about whether -- what the constitutional limits of that might be or whether the law should change with respect to felon voting rights. And obviously, that's a contested issue in some states that are considering it right now. And I have no view on that, and it wasn't the subject of Kanter.</s>DURBIN: It may not have been -- it wasn't the subject of the case, that's for sure. But in your writings, you raised this. It was part of your dissent, discussing the right to vote and a felony conviction eliminating it. I'm afraid it's inescapable, you've got to be prepared to answer this kind of question. I read it and thought, I can't imagine that she's saying this. But I'm afraid I was left with the suggestion you might. Which brings me to the conclusion here. We hear over and over from the other side of the aisle, We don't want any activist judges. We want judges that are going to go back to the original document, literally take it word for word, put it in historical context and don't get in the way of making laws. We make the laws, you're a judge, you stay away from them.

Trump's Supreme Court Pick Faces Senator's Questions; Supreme Court Nominee Faces Questions on Gun Rights; Supreme Court Nominee Faces Questions on Affordable Care Act; Barrett Won't Say if She Would Recuse from Obamacare Decision; Supreme Court Nominee Faces Questions on Abortion Rights; Barrett Asked About "Court Packing," Adding Seats to Supreme Court.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): We want judges that are going to go back to the original document, literally take it word for word, put it in historical context and don't get in the way of making laws. We make the laws, you're a judge, you stay away from them. And yet when we look at this case, the notion of what disqualifies you from buying a firearm was being rewritten by the dissenting judge, and saying, "When we say 'felony,' we just mean 'violent felony.'" Well, the word "violent" isn't in there, but you found it -- or at least found reference to it. It's not the only time this has happened. In Citizens United and its progeny, Republican-appointed justices struck down bipartisan campaign finance reform to unleash a flood of dark money into our political system. Part of that flood is paying for the ad campaign promoting your nomination for the Supreme Court. I know you said you've gone radio silent in following the media? I don't blame you, I do the same thing politically. But I can just tell you, I've seen them. They are beautiful, expensive ads boosting your nomination for the Supreme Court from organizations we've never heard of, spending millions of dollars to make sure you get on the Supreme Court. Citizens United opened the door for that. And in Shelby County, conservative justices gutted the Voting Rights Act to unleash a wave of voter suppression across the country going back to the George Floyd moment. Unfortunately a lot of it is for racial purposes. And this is an example -- two or three examples -- that I've given here of activist judges rewriting the law, abolishing the law. People have to get real. As I said to you on our phone conversation, "I don't think you put the facts here and the law here and nine justices come to the same conclusion." Cases of 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, unanimous, people see things differently based on their backgrounds, their values, their experience. And I think it's simplistic to think this is a robotic performance once we put a judge on the bench. They just go back, read the Constitution and rule. It's not that simple, and I think you've acknowledged that by saying even originalists disagree with one another. Is that true?</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes. Law is hard and it's complicated and people who approach it from different jurisprudential perspectives will sometimes reach different results. I mean, I think that's hard to deny because, as you say, every vote from the Supreme Court isn't unanimous, and sometimes it is but cases don't get to the Supreme Court unless the circuits disagree among themselves. So it's hard. But to the extent, Senator Durbin, that you're suggesting that I have some sort of agenda on felon voting rights or guns or campaign finance or anything else, I can assure you and the whole committee that I do not.</s>DURBIN: I didn't say that, and I wouldn't say that. But I will say that you come -- if you're successful in this pursuit -- you come to the Supreme Court with life experiences. You come to the Supreme Court having read a lot, I'm sure. And drawn some conclusions in your own mine about certain things and certain issues. Everyone on the court has that same background, they bring something to it that is just not generic, it's individual. And that's the point I'm making. There's an individualism to this, the (ph) class of originalists on the Supreme Court are not all going to vote the same on every case. And I think merely saying "originalism" does not absolve you or us from observing the obvious: There are going to be differences. I thank -- would you like to say something? I don't want to cut you off.</s>BARRETT: No, that's OK.</s>DURBIN: OK, thank you very much.</s>BARRETT: Thank you, Senator.</s>GRAHAM: -- Senator Durbin. We'll go to Senator Lee, and after that we'll take a 30-minute lunch break and start back with Senator Whitehouse. Senator Lee?</s>SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two letters for the record that I'd like to have admitted. They're offered by former law clerks of Judge Barrett's.</s>GRAHAM: Without objection.</s>LEE: I'd encourage all of my colleagues to read them, they're outstanding and provide great insight into Judge Barrett's immense qualifications. Judge Barrett, moments ago, we went through a rather interesting set of exchanges. One of my colleagues -- I hope I misunderstood him -- seems to have suggested that it's a political talking point for you to decline to indicate how you would rule on a particular case or a particular type of case. To the extent that that's what any colleague has suggested -- I'd remind that colleague that's just wildly incorrect. It's wildly incorrect with canons of judicial ethics, with federal law, with the statement laid out by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her own confirmation proceedings before this very body in this very room, nearly 30 years ago. It is imperative that you uphold those standards, and I applaud you for doing so. And I think on no planet is it appropriate for anybody to suggest that that's a political talking point, for you to say, "I'm not going to indicate how I'm going to rule in a particular case." Justice Ginsburg did in fact say it well (ph), and some of this has been quoted today. I'm going to quote it again, just for good measure. She said, "Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecast, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of a particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. "Similarly, because you are considering my capacity for independent judging, my personal views on how I would vote on a publicly-debated issue, were I in your shoes, were I a legislator, are not what you will be closely examining." That's what she said. She said it well. It was true in 1993, and it remains true today. I want to turn next to a -- a line of -- of questioning that you just finished, that you just completed. I -- I, too, have read the Kanter case and I am thrilled that we've got a jurist who is willing, when looking at somebody whose constitutional rights are about to be taken away, thrilled to have a jurist who's willing to consider a pre- deprivation (ph) review for that individual. Is it unusual, Judge Barrett, to consider someone's constitutional rights on an individualized basis before having a specifically- enumerated, constitutionally-protected right removed?</s>BARRETT: That would be very, very unusual.</s>LEE: It would be very, very unusual and it would be unwise, would it not?</s>BARRETT: Well, I think what I could say to that, to be careful about how much law I'm analyzing is that the 14th Amendment due process clause certainly guarantees to each individual due process before a liberty is taken away.</s>LEE: I also appreciated the thorough analysis that you undertook, making clear that our -- our -- our rights in this area don't just date back a few decades. They don't just date back to the 60s. They don't date just back to the 1780s, or the 1760s. They date back at least to the 1660s. I mean, they go way, way back. There is a lot of history that went into what became the Second Amendment. There were conflicts. This involves not just partisan conflicts, but in conflicts between the king and subjects, and not just between the king and subjects in the abstract, but very often, it was between Protestants and Catholics. Sometimes it was Catholics who weren't trusted with guns. Sometimes it was Protestants who weren't trusted with guns. But there was a lot of violence that went into that, and that led to our adoption of that amendment. I appreciate your historical analysis of this, your willingness to be thorough, to make sure that when someone's constitutionally-protected rights are taken into account, you're going to do your homework. You're going to do your homework even if it's hard. You're going to do it even if you've got colleagues who aren't willing to go there. That's what judicial leadership is. Judicial leadership involves willingness to stand alone. Judge Barrett, one of the things that came out to me as -- as I read your opinion in the Kanter case is that your commitment to textualism and originalism are, in fact, real. They're not feigned. This is the kind of thing you can't fake. This isn't something you make up at the last minute. And yes, I agree with Senator Durbin. Being a textualist and an originalist doesn't guarantee a particular result, a particular outcome in any particular case. But it does indicate a style, a preference. Tell me why textualism and originalism are important to you.</s>BARRETT: Because I think that both statutes and the Constitution are law. They derive their democratic legitimacy from the fact that they have been enacted, in the case of statutes, by the people's representatives, or in the case of the Constitution, through the Constitution-making process. And I, as a judge, have an obligation to respect and enforce only that law that the people themselves have embraced. As I was saying earlier, it's not the law of Amy; it's the law of the American people. And I think originalism and textualism, to me, boil down to that -- to a commitment to the rule of law, to not disturbing or changing or updating or, you know, adjusting and -- in line with my own policy preferences, what that law requires.</s>LEE: And is it -- is it the subjective motivation, the subjective intent of an individual lawmaker or drafter of a constitutional provision that we're looking at, or is it original public meaning? And if so, what -- what's the difference between those two?</s>BARRETT: It's original public meaning, not the subjective intent of any particular drafter. So one thing I have told my students in constitutional law is that the question is not, what would James Madison do? We don't -- or we're not -- we're not controlled by how James Madison perceived an particular problem. That's because the law is what the people understand it to be, not what goes on in any individual legislature's -- legislator's mind, is, I respect you greatly, Senator Lee, but what you think in your mind, rather than what passes through both houses and is signed by the president -- that's what's the law, not any private intentions you have.</s>LEE: So -- so regardless of -- of what -- I -- let's say I -- I -- I passed Bill XYZ, and I'm the sponsor of it. I take -- I take it down to the floor, and I say, "Here's Bill XYZ, and here's what I think about it. Here's what I intend to do with it," and I put that statement into the legislative record. What, if any, impact should that statement have on the meaning of Law XYZ, once it becomes law?</s>BARRETT: Nothing. You've got to get it into the law itself if you want it to be law. Legislative history is not what goes through the process of bicameralism and presentment.</s>LEE: Regardless of -- of how passionately and -- and persuasively I make that point in whatever glorious speech I give in support of Bill XYZ, it doesn't make a darn bit of difference, does it?</s>BARRETT: It doesn't. I'm sure the speech would be glorious, but I assume the point you make probably would be made by the advocates in the case, too. And so in that respect, you are functioning as an advocate when you make the glorious statement, but not speaking with the voice of the lawmaker, because no individual does. It's the full body that speaks.</s>LEE: I want to speak next about the Affordable Care Act. We -- we've seen posters going up over and over and over again. We've seen them yesterday, and we've seen them today. We've seen a lot of compelling stories of -- about people whose lives have been marked by difficult things that they've endured. They've involved touching and heartwarming stories. I continue to doubt the relevance of things like that here, especially in so far as they're being used to suggest that your confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States has anything to do with their healthcare. Tell me why you think that any individual American's healthcare status is or is not tied to your confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.</s>BARRETT: It is not tied to my nomination to the Supreme Court of the United -- United States. I have said repeatedly under oath that I had no conversations with anyone in the White House about that case. And I -- I'm not sure it -- to the extent there's a suggestion that I have an agenda, that I want to strike down people's protection for pre- existing conditions. That's just not true. I've never taken that position, and as I've also said repeatedly, any policy preferences that I have don't matter anyway. They're irrelevant. So making that law, coming out with a contrary to the ACA -- that's your job.</s>LEE: It is our job. It is the job of policy-making branches of government. It's the job of whatever combination of state and federal lawmakers and other policymakers have, and a judge is not a policymaker. When Congress passes a law, Congress is in charge of making sure that that law works. Insofar as that doesn't work or that law ends up being stricken down, it's our job to replace it with something that does work whether constitutionally or otherwise, in all respects. That's our job, not yours. You made some comments a few years, comments with which I wholeheartedly agree. Raising a criticism with Chief Justice Roberts, and his majority decision in NFIB v. Sebelius. That decision -- and don't worry, I'm not going to ask you to weigh in on this. You made those comments at the time and they're not relevant to me now, but I set this up for reasons I'll explain in a moment. He rewrote the Affordable Care Act, not just once, but twice, in substantive ways, in order to save that law from an otherwise inevitable finding of unconstitutionality, because that law, as written by this Congress was in fact unconstitutional in two material respects at issue in NFIB v. Sebelius. Blatantly unconstitutional, he effectively acknowledged that the law as written couldn't pass constitutional muster, and so he rewrote it not just once but twice in order to save it. That's water under the bridge, that happened -- it's inexcusable that he did that, he misused the judicial authority. That case has absolutely nothing to do with California v. Texas. It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of severability in that case. Would it be fair to say that my very strong opinions that I've just expressed do not indicate how I would feel -- how I would lean were I a jurist in California v. Texas?</s>BARRETT: I think you're correct Senator Lee that the question, the legal issue is entirely different in California v. Texas. Severability is an own independent doctrine, it has nothing to do with the statutory interpretation questions presented in Sebelius.</s>LEE: In many circumstances in this country we see emotionally charged issue that boil -- that boil for a long time and they can't always be resolved. Not everybody's going to agree on everything. Not everybody is going to agree on certain hot button social issues that result in some cases, from just basic differences in how people view life and how people view their place in the universe. One of those areas where it manifests itself is in the area of abortion. People view life and when it begins, differently. Some of that's informed by religious beliefs, some of it's informed just by people's commonsense approach to what they think the law ought to say and what it ought not to say. Disputes regarding when life begins, and disputes regarding abortion didn't begin with Roe v. Wade. What did change with Roe v. Wade, however, was the federalization and the grasping of the issue. And the taking it beyond the realm of political debate within the Federal Judiciary such that elected lawmakers were no longer in a position to be the primary drivers of policy. As a result over the last few decades you've had all kinds of questions that have been put in to uncertainty. You've got uncertainty by people at the state level, who want to make their own decisions about certain things around abortion. They know they can't prohibit it entirely, they know that there's this undue burden standard that has to be addressed, nobody's completely sure in advance what that means and so they work around it. There are discussions that arise regarding health and safety qualifications for abortion clinics, how close an abortion clinic needs to be to an accredited hospital, how it needs to be staffed, what the sanitation protocols are. And then you've got more recently some states passing laws saying look, there's abundant medical science showing that an unborn human can feel and respond to pain as early as, I don't know, 10 or 12 gestational weeks, but certainly by 20 weeks. And so, by 20 weeks we're going to adopt a different set of abortion procedures for an abortion as a result of that because if this is a human that everybody agrees can feel and respond to pain, we ought to handle that differently. All of those things -- the legitimacy of those laws are thrown in to the federal courts, yet again all because those were made federal issues. Now, I want to be very clear, you'd have the impression from watching debates in circumstances like this one -- and in protests outside the Supreme Court of the United States you'd have the impression that if Roe v. Wade didn't exist, that all of a sudden abortion would immediately become illegal in every state in America. That assumes a lot of facts, not in evidence -- in fact, that assumes a lot of things contrary to evidence. It is not -- it is simply not the case that the fate of healthcare in America turns on whether or not someone is confirmed at the Supreme Court of the United States, nor is it a fact to suggest that the availability of an abortion or lack thereof is contingent upon anyone's confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. The fact that we have this debate, and the fact that it's become as protracted, as personal as ugly as it has -- who -- I suspect retrace (ph) to the fact that we tried to take a debatable matter beyond debate, and we tried to take it outside the political branches of government where people can elect their individual representatives and have law respecting and reflecting the views of their respective communities. We're a country of what, 330 million Americans. It's really, really difficult to have those 330 million Americans reflected in nine members of a Supreme Court. It's still really hard to have them reflected in 100 Senators and 435 representatives -- that's doable, especially when those people are elected, they stand for election every couple years. In the case of the House every six years, and the case of the Senate. It doesn't happen that way in the Supreme Court of the United States. So to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who are fear mongering on this, causing people to worry, lose sleep over this -- fundraising over this -- fundraising over threats that people are going to lose their healthcare, fundraising over threats that people are going to be dying in the streets because of the lack of availability of this or that medical procedure, I'd ask, have we created a monster? Have we ourselves through our own inaction, through our own voluntary cessation of authority to a non-legislative, non-political branch -- have we created the very set of untenable social circumstances that are causing people to protest outside of a nonpolitical entity? I think we have to ask ourselves that question from time to time. Life is, in fact, valuable. It's not a religious statement to make the observation. In fact, it's the foundation of basically all of our loss, not just in this country, not just in -- in countries with Christian origins, but in basically every country that has ever existed anywhere in the world. A purpose of government is to protect life. That's what it is about. If we can't agree on the fact that it's reasonable that people ought to be able to have some say at least at some limit, at least at some point beyond the moment when an unborn human can feel in response to pain, something is wrong with us. And if we're going to leave those things perpetually in the hands of the unelected, might be really convenient for political fundraising within Congress. But it's not good for the United States of America. It's not good for constitutionally limited government, it's not good for our individual liberties. Judge Barrett, Alexander Hamilton was prescient in a number of areas. He had some crazy ideas, he did some crazy things. He was also freaking brilliant. I think he foresaw certain aspects of our lives when he described the differences between the branches of government in Federalist 78. And in Federalist 78, he said that the legislative branch, Congress, being a political branch, a branch whose job it is to make policies, to make law, its possessed with will and that what's possessed on the judicial branch is not will, but judgment. He then went on to explain that it's really important to maintain that -- that clear distinction between will and judgment, less you have the judicial branch consisting of people who are not elected by the people, not accountable to the people at the regular intervals and who served basically for the rest of their lives, so long as they're on good behavior. You can't have them exercise and will, because it's not their job. What you think he meant? What's the difference between will and judgment?</s>BARRETT: I think will is the imposition of policy preferences as happens in the making of law. Judgment is evaluating that law for its consistency with the Constitution, for example. Or to give another example, to interpret what that law means. But it most certainly is not the imposition of policy preferences. A judge who approaches a case as an opportunity for an exercise of will has acted -- has betrayed her judicial duty.</s>LEE: How does she know when she's reached that point?</s>BARRETT: So I think it requires disciplined judicial decision making. So you approach the text, you treat it as a text, you treat it as law. You know, I've described originalism and textualism so I won't belabor that point. But I will say that one practice that I have, one check I put on myself just to make sure that I'm not biased is that when I write an opinion, I try to read it from the perspective of the losing party so that any sympathy that I might feel for the particular results that I reach, I try to make the sympathy run the other way to see if it will still hold and also to see like -- you know, I would disappointed in this outcome if it was my child who is sentenced or a criminal conviction or civil law, whatever it is on the line. But would I still think it was a well reasoned opinion? And that's the test that I use for myself. I think discipline is required. But I take it very, very seriously.</s>LEE: As we've had this conversation today, one of the -- one of the arguments that's been made by some of my colleagues refer to activism and has -- has accused -- if I understood the argument correctly. Some text was originalist jurists as having engaged in activism. I want to be clear, I -- I'm one who doesn't believe that there is anything worse about an activist judge than a pacifist judge. Meaning I think it's every bit as bad to be a pacifist; that is, for example, to let stand an invalid unconstitutional law as if it were valid and constitutional. Every bit as bad to do that, as it is to invalidate as unconstitutional something that is in fact not unconstitutional. What you do agree with me that you both of those are equally in instances of bad judging?</s>BARRETT: They are both instances as you pose them, of not following the law, not following the Constitution or not correctly interpreting the statute.</s>LEE: Of the same token, a judge who fails to grant a meritorious dispositive motion and the judge who grants a nonmeritorious dispositive motion, they've both probably done an equally bad thing, is that right?</s>BARRETT: Yes.</s>LEE: Does the Constitution say anything about the size of the Supreme Court?</s>BARRETT: The Constitution does not. That is a question left open to Congress. It's my understanding that it's been nine for about 150 year; but that's a matter of statue, not constitutional requirement.</s>LEE: So it's statutory? A statutory decision, one that's stood for more than a century and a half. It's a decision nonetheless that has some bearing -- could have some bearing on constitutional issues, correct?</s>BARRETT: Insofar as there would be more decision-makers on the court?</s>LEE: Yes, if -- if we abandoned the long-standing historical practice and tradition of having nine justices, could that have an impact on the way the three branches of government interact with each other?</s>BARRETT: Possibly. But it's difficult for me to imagine what specific constitutional question you're asking, and of course if there were one I couldn't opine on it.</s>LEE: Of course. Of course. There are strong reasons, I believe, why over the last more than a century and a half, we've left that number at nine. As you point out, there's nothing in the Constitution that requires it. We could come up with any number we wanted. There does have to be a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as we choose to create, but it doesn't specify the number of seats that could be on there. There are nonetheless good prudential reasons, reasons having to do with respect for the separation of powers between the three branches of government, reasons that have, over the last 150-plus years left us to leave that number at nine. The last time, as far as I can tell there was any serious effort to move the number above nine was in the fall 1936 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt got tired of this so-called Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse -- a few members of the Supreme Court who were consistently voting against his agenda, and sometimes joined by one or more members of the Supreme Court. He got particularly tired of this and so he proposed packing the court, and let me explain what I mean by "packing the court" here. What I mean when I refer to this is increasing the number of seats on the Supreme Court and doing so by statute, with the intent of altering the composition of the court for short term political gain.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Faces Questions During Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing.

KLOBUCHAR: I think this was in a lecture you gave, where you said the dissent's view was that it wasn't for the court to decide. They could -- people could lobby in state legislatures. And all this takes me to one point, as I follow those tracks down that path, and it takes me to this point where I believe, and I think the American people have to understand, that you would be the polar opposite of Justice Ginsburg. She and Justice Scalia were friends, yes, but she never embraced his legal philosophy. So that is what concerns me, and I want to turn to an area that -- where I think Justice Ginsburg, whose seat we are considering you for, was truly a hero, and that was the area of voting rights and that was the area of elections. I think that -- what did the President say here? He said -- September 23rd, 2020, "I think this" -- he means the election -- "will end up in the Supreme Court and I think it's very important that we have nine justices." I don't think -- how much clearer we can be. And as I said yesterday, I do not, for a minute, concede that this election is going to end up in the Supreme Court because people are voting in droves as we speak, but that is what is on the mind of the man who nominated you for this job. Then he said on September 29th of 2020 "I think I'm counting on them" -- he meant the court -- "to look at the ballots definitely." So I know you said earlier in questions from Senator Leahy that you are not going to commit to whether or not you are going to recuse yourself for any -- any kind of an election case but I do want to point out that as the President has said these things and as he has nominated you, that people are voting right now, they are voting, as I said, in droves, do you know how many states are -- people are voting right now, Judge? I think one of my colleagues said it.</s>BARRETT: I don't know.</s>KLOBUCHAR: It's more than 40 states, people are voting right now as we speak. I think something like nine million votes have been cast. Do you think it is faithful to our democratic principles to fill a Supreme Court vacancy this close to an election, when people are still voting?</s>BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, I think that is a question for the political branches.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. That's -- that's your right to answer in that way. Beyond this immediate election, I want to turn to the Supreme Court's critical role when it comes to the right to vote, this area where Justice Ginsburg was such a champion. Senator Durbin went over your dissent at length in Kanter v. Barr, where you drew a distinction between individual rights and civic rights, and you wrote that "historically, felons should be disqualified from exercising certain rights, like the right to vote and to serve on juries." So my question is this - actually, this next line, where you said "these rights belong only to virtuous citizens." What does that mean?</s>BARRETT: Senator, I would need to look at the article to clarify but as I'm sitting here, I don't think I said "felons should lose voting rights." I think what I was talking about is that ...</s>BARRETT: ... 14th Amendment - yeah, that - that ...</s>KLOBUCHAR: But it wasn't an article, just to be clear, right? This was - this is your dissent.</s>BARRETT: Oh, my - sorry, my dissent.</s>KLOBUCHAR: Yeah, I think it's your dissent in Kanter v ...</s>BARRETT: Yes, you're right.</s>KLOBUCHAR: And it says "felons could be disqualified from exercising certain rights, like the rights to vote and serving on juries" but apart from that clause, you said "these rights belong only to virtuous citizens." That's what - I'm trying to understand what that means.</s>BARRETT: So the argument in the case, those who were challenging Heller and those who are arguing on the side of the government in the Kanter case, is that the 7th - the 2nd Amendment is a civic right, and that is how the Supreme Court itself framed the debate, as a distinction between civic rights and individual rights, with voting being a civic right, and in literature - you know, in the historical literature, that was - which was at play in that case ...</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK but how would you define the word "virtuous"? Because it doesn't appear in the Constitution. I'm just trying to know what that means because we're - we're living at a time where a lot of people are having their voting rights taken away from them. So what's "virtuous"?</s>BARRETT: OK, well, Senator, I want to be clear that that is not in the opinion designed to denigrate the right to vote, which is fundamental. The distinction between civic and individual rights is one that's present in the court's decisions and it has to do with a jurisprudential view of what rights are, and the virtuous citizenry idea is a historical and jurisprudential one. It certainly does not mean that I think that anybody gets a measure of virtue in whether they're good or not, in whether they're allowed to vote. That's not what I said.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK, now let me ask you this in a different way, cause now let's go to the real world here. So in Justice Ginsburg's dissent in Shelby, where a five-four court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, she described the right to vote as a fundamental right in our democratic system, and I assume you agree with this cause you just said that not - let's not get to her dissent - you agree with the concept that it's a fundamental right, because you just ...</s>BARRETT: As I just said, yeah, the court has repeatedly, repeatedly said ...</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. So she also wrote in her dissent that the Constitution uses the words "right to vote in five separate places - the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments. Each of these amendments" - this is still her talking now - the - "each of these amendments contains the same broad empowerment of Congress to enact appropriate legislation to enforce the protected right. The implication is unmistakable. Under our constitutional structure, Congress holds the lead rein in making the right to vote equally real for all U.S. citizens." Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg's conclusion that the Constitution clearly empowers Congress to protect the right to vote?</s>BARRETT: Well Senator, that would be eliciting an opinion from me on whether the dissent or the majority was right in Shelby County and I can't express a view on that, as I've said, because it would be inconsistent with the judicial role.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK, so here's my problem. So you go out of your way in the case, that Dick Durbin was discussing, to make this distinction between voting rights and gun rights but now you won't say whether or not you agreed with Ginsburg. And so my view is just based again, following those tracks on this case, that you are most likely with the majority, but I know you're not going to answer this, but what I do want you to know is this, and this is where it gets interesting, because of what Justice Ginsburg predicted in that dissent - according to the Brennan Center, over 20 states, since that case came out, that withdrew - that took away part of the protections from the Voting Rights act, over 20 states have now made more restrictive voting laws than they did before that case. Doesn't that suggest to you that Justice Ginsburg had the better of the argument when she wrote that throwing out pre-clearance, when it has worked and is continuing to work, to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet? Do you think that that's true and - I mean, it seems to me that the proof is in the pudding, like, basically, this rainstorm that she said would come has come, with all of these states, including a number of them that my colleagues over there represent, have enacted stricter laws. Has it happened?</s>BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, I want to clarify - you said I was answering Senator Durbin's questions about the 2nd Amendment but refusing to answer yours, and so I just wanted to clarify that I have written Kanter v Barr and so that's why I was talking about it, but since I didn't write Shelby, I can't really talk about it. So anything that I've written about or talked about, I would be happy to answer your questions.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK, all right. But again, you - it just seems to me you went out of your way on that case and this is a case that is so real for so many people right now, and that while you can say it's a fundamental right, the issue is that this case and the Voting Rights Act are so key, and let me - let me just say why. We're talking about the entire foundation of our democracy here. For centuries, Americans have fought and died to protect the right to vote. And so what matters is not just what you say about its being fundamental, it's what you do. States like South Carolina, Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee have policies that make it harder for people to vote and it's a real world thing before the Supreme Court. In fact, back in May, when voters in Wisconsin were standing in line in the middle of a pandemic in homemade masks, in garbage bags, in the middle of a rainstorm just to exercise their right to vote, 70 of them got COVID because we didn't know enough about it back then, because the President hadn't told us what he knew and we didn't know enough to protect those voters. So it ends up at the Supreme Court. What did Justice Ginsburg do when the Republican-appointed majority on the court ruled that voters in Wisconsin could not have more time to get their ballots in during the pandemic? She called them out in her dissent, in her blueprint for the future, and she said "the majority opinion boggled the mind." So what boggles my mind? Well two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the South Carolina report requirement that mail-in ballots must have witness signatures. In the middle of a pandemic, you've got to go and get a witness. In Texas, Republicans have argued that the pandemic wasn't a good enough reason to let people under age 65 vote by mail, despite the fact that over 42,000 Americans under 65 have died from COVID, and the governor is - right now, is forcing that state to have only one ballot box per county, including in Harris County, where there are 4.7 million people. And for those of you that thought a judge took care of it a few days ago, he did, but then yesterday, three Trump-appointed judges came in and reversed that, so we're back to one ballot box for people to drop their ballots off in a county of 4.7 million people. In Tennessee, Republicans have tried to prevent ballot drop boxes. I know, we had the Secretary of State as one of our witnesses at a Rules Committee hearing and they have argued in court that COVID-19 is not a valid excuse to vote by mail. In North Carolina, the Supreme Court struck down a core component of the Voting Rights Act. What happened? Well, states like North Carolina have laws that were so egregious to make it harder to vote that poor circuit struck down their law and noted that it target African Americans with almost surgical precision. So that is what the state saw. And that is why not having Justice Ginsburg on the court right now is so frightening to so many Americans out there. And that is why we are asking you these questions about voting. So let me turn to another election question, gerrymandering. In 2015, Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in Arizona state legislature for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, holding that it was constitutional for the people of Arizona to amend the state constitution to establish an independent redistricting commission. Because of this case and Justice Ginsburg's opinion, many argue now that Arizona has fairer electoral maps. The decision was 5-4. Here's your example. And now Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kennedy are no longer on the court. My question is this, must state legislatures abide by their own states constitution when exercising their authority under the Elections Clause?</s>BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, that would be eliciting an opinion from me about whether I agreed or disagreed with the results in that case ...</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. Is it constitutional for voters to amend a state constitution to establish specific processes for election like the voters in Arizona did to stop gerrymandering?</s>BARRETT: Again, you're asking me for a view on that particular case. And Justice Ginsburg herself gave the most famous articulation of the principle that constrains me from doing so, which is no hints, forecasts, or previews. So I can't express a view un-precedent (ph) or on how I would decided any question that was provoked by the application of that precedent to a later case.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. Last week a contractor from outside of my state of Minnesota started recruiting poll watchers with Special Forces experience to protect polling locations in my state. This was clear voter intimidation. Similar efforts are going on around the country solicited by President Trump's false claims of massive voter fraud. Something that, by the way, many Republican leaders, including Michael Steele, the former head of the Republican Party, including Tom Ridge, including Governor Kasich, including sitting Senator Romney have made very clear it's not true. So as a result of his claims people are trying to get poll watchers, Special Forces people to go to the poll. Judge Barrett, under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls?</s>BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, I can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation and I can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts. I can only decide cases as they come to me, litigated by parties on a full record after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing an opinion and so I can't answer questions like that.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. Well, I'll make -- I'll make it easier. 18USC594 outlaws anyone who intimidates, threatens, coerces or attempts to intimidate, threaten or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote. This is a law that has been on the books for decades. Do you think a reasonable person would feel intimidated by the president -- presents of armed civilian groups at the polls?</s>BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, you know that is eliciting -- I'm not sure if whether to say it's eliciting a legal opinion from me because the reasonable person standard, as you know, is more common in the law or just an opinion as a citizen but it's not something really that's appropriate for me to comment on.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. Here's one that I think is. Selection of election Electoral College electors are selected. Judge Barrett, in 1932 the Supreme Court and (inaudible) in the case involving my state ruled that the Minnesota state legislature could not change election rules unilaterally. Do you agree that unanimous opinion in (inaudible), which has never been questioned by any other Supreme Court case is settled law?</s>BARRETT: Well, I'll say two things about that. First of all, I was not aware of that case so you've taught me something. But secondly, I can't comment on the precedent, give thumbs up or thumbs down in Justice Kagan's words.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. Well, why don't we end there with precedents. I think that's a good way to end here. So you wrote in your 2013 Texas law review article that you tend to agree with a view that when a Justice's best understanding of the Constitution conflicts with Supreme Court precedent or case law, it is quote, more legitimate for her to follow her preferred view rather than apply the precedent. And I want to run through a few examples. So Brown v. Board of Education, as we know that holds that the 14th Amendment prohibits states from segregating schools on the basis of race. So is that precedent? That can't be overruled.</s>BARRETT: Yes -- well, that is precedent. And as I think I said in that same article, it's super precedent. People consider it to be on that very small list of things that are so widely established and agreed upon by everyone. Calls for its overruling simply don't exist.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. Well, you also separately acknowledge that in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court's controlling opinion talked about in -- the reliance interest on Roe v. Wade, which it treated in that case as super precedent. Is Roe a super precedent?</s>BARRETT: How would you define super precedent?</s>KLOBUCHAR: I -- I -- I actually -- I might thought someday I'd be sitting in that chair. I'm not, I'm up here, so I'm asking you.</s>BARRETT: OK. Well, people use super precedent differently.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK.</s>BARRETT: The way that it's used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you're reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled but descriptively it does meant that it's a case -- not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn't call for its overruling. I don't think that ...</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. So here's what's -- here's what's interesting to me, you said that Brown is -- and I know my time is running out -- is a super precedent. That's something the Supreme Court has not even said but you have said that. So if you say that, why won't you say that about Roe v. Wade, a case that the courts controlling opinion in that Planned Parenthood v. Casey case has described as a super precedent? That's what I'm trying to figure out.</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator, I can just give you the same answer that I just did. I'm using a term in that article that is from the scholarly literature. It's actually when that was developed by scholars who are, you know, certainly not conservative scholars who take a more progressive approach to the Constitution. And again, you know as -- as Richard Fallon (ph) from Harvard said, Roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased but that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn't fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury versus Madison and Brown versus the Board that no one questions anymore.</s>KLOBUCHAR: Is United States v. Virginia Military, is that super precedent?</s>BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, if you continue to ask questions about super precedents that aren't on the list and the super precedents that I discussed in the articles that are well acknowledged in the constitutional law literature; every time you ask a questions I'll have to say that I can't grade it.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK. Well I am then left with looking at the tracks of your record and where it leads the American people. And I think it leads us to a place that's going to have severe repercussions for them. Thank you.</s>GRAHAM: Senator Sasse.</s>SASSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, welcome back. I'm mean this as good news but it might not feel like it after me you're half done. I'm 11th of 22. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my questioning; I'd like to ask unanimous consent to admit into the record a letter from Allen Guelzo the Historian at Princeton, who has written a letter to the committee in response to some of Senator Harris' claims about the history of Supreme Court vacancies going back to the Civil War.</s>GRAHAM: Without objection.</s>SASSE: Thank you. Judge, you have said that the meaning of law doesn't change with time. And you've said that's very important. Can you unpack for us why it's so important that the meaning of a law doesn't change with time?</s>BARRETT: Sure. Because the law stays the same until it is lawfully changed. And if we're talking about a law that has been inactive by the people's representatives or gone through the process of constitutional amendment or constitutional ratification; it must go through the lawfully prescribed process before it's changed. So Article 5 in the context of the constitution or by (inaudible) and presentment (ph) in the context of statutes. And it's not up to judges to short circuit that process by updating the law, that's your job.</s>SASSE: But laws clearly are written in a context and then the things -- the circumstances to which those laws have applied would change. Does the 4th Amendment have nothing to say about cell phones? Unreasonable search and seizure was obviously not written at a time when they had imagined mobile technological devices that addicted our kids. Does the 4th Amendment have nothing to say about cell phones?</s>BARRETT: No. The 4th Amendment -- so the constitution one reason why the longest lasting written constitution in the world is because it's written at a level of generality that's specific enough to protect rights but general enough to be lasting. So that when you're talking about the constable banging at your door in 1791 as a search or seizure; now we can apply it as the court did in Carpenter v. United States to cell phones. So the 4th Amendment is a principle. You know it protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. But it doesn't catalogue the instances in which an unreasonable search or seizure could take place. So you take that principle and then you apply it to modern technology like cell phones or what if technological advances enables someone with superman x-ray vision to simply see in your house. So there's no need to knock on the door and go in. Well I think that could still be analyzed under the 4th Amendment.</s>SASSE: So, I think this is a useful place to explain to the American people again what originalism is and why it's a mistake to view it as a republican position? I think that originalism is a part of a jurist prudential debate, it's not a part of a policy continuum between republicans and democrats. I think it's something that is useful for everybody who believes that three branches of government have two that are political and one that is not. So maybe it's useful to just kind of back up and say when you define yourself as an originalist; what does that mean? And then how is it going to relate to that distinction between the principles that are timeless but the applications that are clearly going to change by circumstance?</s>BARRETT: Right. So originalism means that you treat the constitution as law because it commits these text to writing. And in interpreting that law you interpret it in accord with the meaning that people would have understood it to have at the time that it was ratified. And the reason that you do that is because otherwise -- as (ph) I said, the law stays the same until it's lawfully changed. Otherwise judges would be in the constitutional convention business of updating the law rather than allowing the people to take control of that. Now in the case of the constitution, as I said with the 4th Amendment many of its principles are more general. Unreasonable searches and seizures, free speech; those are things that have to be identified or flushed out or applied over time. So the fact that there wasn't the internet or computers or blogs in 1791 doesn't mean that the 1st Amendment's free speech clause couldn't apply to those things now. It enshrines a principle and we understand the principle as it was at the time. But then it's capable of being applied to new circumstances.</s>SASSE: So, when you define yourself as an originalist what are the other schools of thought that are adjacent to it? And how do you think about the debates among those with other people that are now with you on the Seventh Circuit for instance?</s>BARRETT: Sure. Well, Senator Sasse, I think one thing that's worth pointing out is that in the academy in any event where I spent a large portion of my career, originalism is not necessarily a conservative idea. There is a whole school of thought so originalist are now a very diverse lot. And there is a school of originalism that's more of a progressive originalism and is very committed to keeping the constitution's meaning. Just interpreting text the way all originalists do to say that it was -- has the meaning that it had at the time that it was ratified. But they tend to read it at a higher level of generality. So all originalists don't necessarily agree and in fact there is an advocacy group called the "Constitutional -- Constitution Accountability Center" which has routinely filed briefs in the Supreme Court that calls itself -- it writes briefs in support of originalism but taking it from a more progressive standpoint. So I don't think it's -- I think probably people think oh it's only conservatives who are originalists but actually it's more widely accepted view than that. I think that if you think about different strains of approaching constitutional text, originalism is one. All judges and justices take account of history and the original meaning. It's just that some weight it differently where as originalists would give it dispositive weight when it's discernable. Other approaches to constitutional interpretation may take a more pragmatic view. And say in some instances well that may have been the historical meaning but that's an uncomfortable fit for current circumstances so we will tweak it a little bit to adjust it to fit these circumstances that situation. Sometimes it's called living constitutionalism. In that the constitution can evolve and change over time. Sometimes it's called like a more pragmatic constitutionalism.</s>SASSE: So I just -- I want to make sure we establish this fact clearly together. Because one of the things that I think is really unhelpful for the American people when they see hearings like this over the last 20 years is there is an assumption that those of us who've advocated for you over the course of the last three years must be doing it because we know something about your policy views and we've seen the beautiful mind conspiracy theory charts, for instance, that this is about specific outcomes that people want. What I want is to have a judge who doesn't want to take away the job of a legislator that's account -- a legislature that's accountable to the people. What I want is to be sure that the two political branches that are accountable to the people -- because they can hire and fire us -- are the places where policy decisions are made. So what you're saying is, in the legal academy, there are people who agree with you on originalism as a broad philosophical school and yet would come out very different places on the outcomes of particular policy decisions?</s>BARRETT: That is what I'm saying.</s>SASSE: So on the Notre Dame law faculty, when you were up for the vacancy on the 7th Circuit three years ago, the Notre Dame law faculty, as I understand, the letter that we got from them here had people unanimously recommend you across the faculty, and I would assume there's a pretty wide view of policy on the Notre Dame law faculty.</s>BARRETT: There is.</s>SASSE: And so people can affirm that you know what the job of a judge is. You have the judicial temperament and modesty and humility about the calling, and they're comfortable with you even though they don't think they might agree with every policy view that you have before you put on your robe?</s>BARRETT: I hope that is what people think of me because that's what I've always striven to do and certainly in my time as a judge, I -- my job, my boss is the rule of law, not imposing my policy preferences.</s>SASSE: So can you tell us what the black robe is about? Why do judges in our system wear robes?</s>BARRETT: Well, judges in our system wear black robes, and they started wearing black robes actually because Chief Justice John Marshall started the practice. In the beginning, justices used to wear colorful robes that identified them with the schools that they graduated from. And John Marshall at his investiture decided to wear a simple black robe. And pretty soon, the other justices followed suit, and now all judges do it. And I think the black robe shows that justice is blind, we all dress the same. And I think it shows that once we put it on, we are standing united symbolically, speaking in the name of the law, and not speaking of our -- speaking for ourselves as individuals.</s>SASSE: Thank you. You, in your questioning from Chairman Graham this morning, talked a little bit about the process of judicial decision-making, and you started with four steps and then added a fifth, and then I think added a sixth.</s>BARRETT: So Article III of the Constitution says that courts can hear cases or controversies. So a judge can't walk in one day and say, "I feel like," you know, "visiting the question of health care and telling people what I think."

Second Vaccine Trial Paused In U.S. Due To Unexplained Illness; Trump Continues Attacking Dr. Fauci As 33 States See Rising Cases

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Some headlines in the coronavirus pandemic now as we wait for the confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. She is nominated of course to be Justice Amy Coney Barrett of the Supreme Court of the United States. We'll go back to that hearing on Capitol Hill as soon as it resumes. A quick lunch break right now. In the meanwhile, let's get some other headlines, the drug maker Johnson & Johnson now pausing its phase three trial of its coronavirus vaccine candidate that pause because of an unexplained illness with one of its trial volunteers. CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen joins us now with the details. Elizabeth, what happened?</s>ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: John, we learned from a call this afternoon or just today that this is all very new, this unexplained illness AstraZeneca learned of it just on Sunday, just two days ago. And they said they're not even sure if this participant received the vaccine or received the placebo. They said that it's still being looked into. Let's take a look at an AstraZeneca statement. What they had to say is that serious adverse events, which is a fancy way of saying a participant getting sick, are not uncommon in clinical trials. And the number of serious adverse events can reasonably be expected to increase in trials involving large numbers of participants. Now having -- what they're trying to say, and so this is from Johnson & Johnson, what they're trying to say, what Johnson & Johnson is trying to say is look when you vaccinate a whole bunch of people including them in your trials someone is going to get sick. If there is any thought that this sickness might be related to the vaccine, they pause the trial that is the right thing to do. We are told by experts, this doesn't happen all that often, it happens, but it's not how most trials go. Most trials don't have pauses. But certainly when you see an illness that could be caused by the vaccine, the right thing to do is pause the trial.</s>KING: And Elizabeth, the confusion, they're easy to understand, this is Johnson & Johnson. But the reason --</s>COHEN: Right.</s>KING: -- next up is because AstraZeneca had to do the same thing in its trial. What is the status of the other vaccine trials?</s>COHEN: Right, exactly. So I was talking about Johnson & Johnson. And now let's talk about the other trials. So there have been four trials that have been started in the United States. The first one Johnson or one of them, Johnson & Johnson, as we just talked about is paused. AstraZeneca also paused. They've been paused for more than a month while the FDA considers whether they should continue despite illnesses that have happened in their trials. Moderna started their trial July 27th. And they are still going. And Pfizer started July 27th. And they are still going. So there are also trials that are happening in other parts of the world as well.</s>KING: Elizabeth Cohen, thank you for that important update.</s>COHEN: Thanks.</s>KING: We will stay on top of that, see when they -- if they can get off the pause button, we shall see. Thanks, Elizabeth. President Trump once again attacking the nation's top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, of course. The President tweeting this morning. Actually, Tony's pitching arm is far more accurate than his prognostications. The President, there referring in politely to Dr. Fauci's first pitch back in the Washington Nationals game in July, the pitch went quite wide of home play. President Trump also dismissing the threat of the coronavirus at his rally in Florida last night.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women in them, everybody, just give you a big fat kiss. I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I can feel -- I feel so powerful.</s>KING: CNN's Kaitlan Collins joins us now live from the White House. Well, there's a lot to talk about there, Kaitlan. I'll let you take the lead. But number one, the President essentially mocking the virus at his first rally back on the campaign trail and mocking Tony Fauci. That's an interesting strategic play. They're spending millions of dollars on a new campaign ad featuring Dr. Fauci and the President now attacking his credibility, the marketing people would tell you wrong call.</s>KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I think it's clear why the President is going after Dr. Fauci. And it's because on Sunday, if you saw that ad, which a lot of people did during the NFL game Sunday, Dr. Fauci put out a statement saying he did not consent to being used in that ad. He believed his words were being taken out of context. And he said pretty bluntly for a federal health official that he was talking about the work of his other health officials in conjunction with him on coronavirus and not the President's work per se when it comes to the response, which of course, we know how voters have judged that which is poorly so far. So the President is attacking Dr. Fauci while his campaign is still running an ad using Dr. Fauci's likeness, in an attempt to appeal to voters because they know how popular Dr. Fauci is. So it's interesting that the President even has, Dr. Fauci in an ad because, of course, they have had a heated relationship for months. And a lot of it has come down to the fact that Dr. Fauci has called out some of the unscientific and inaccurate things that the President has said time and time, again, from the big things to even the more nuanced things like something that the President has been saying since he got COVID- 19, which is that he is now immune point blank, just saying that he cannot get it any longer saying, he potentially is immune for a lifetime when obviously, the actual science is still out on that. And it's a lot more nuanced with a few more caveats. And that's something that, you know, even Dr. Fauci said when he was doing an interview with CNN yesterday.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: He has an immune response in him that very likely would protect him from being reinfected. But we've got to be careful about that. Because we're starting to see a number of cases that are being reported of people who get reinfected, well documented cases of people who were infected, after a relatively brief period of time, measured anywhere from weeks to several months, come back, get exposed, and get infected again.</s>COLLINS: Now, John, the President has been going after Dr. Fauci for months complaining about how his approval rating is stronger than the President's. But what's different now is that you're seeing Dr. Fauci push back in a way that he hasn't before where before he just chalked it up to politics. He was hesitant to criticize the President in interviews, that's changing now. And he wants the campaign to take down this ad that's featuring him saying he's never endorsed any political candidate that we should know if people are wondering where this could go. Dr. Fauci has said he is not going to walk away from his position. Of course, he is a career official, it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible for the President to fire him. So that's the dynamic. But what's amazing is seeing it play out in the public eye as we are of course, you know, what Elizabeth was just talking about debating where these vaccine trials are going and where the future of this pandemic here in the U.S. is going.</s>KING: Right. Election Day, three weeks from today, the trend line and the pandemic heading in the wrong direction. Kaitlan Collins, thank you live from the White House. One of the things Dr. Fauci would like is a plan from his President to deal with the fact that 33 of the 50 states on this day, 33 of the 50 states now reporting more new infections now compared to a week ago. But the President on the campaign trail mocking the virus that is now growing across the country. A quick break for us, when we come back, the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett resumes any moment up on Capitol Hill.

Trump's Supreme Court Pick Faces Senators' Questions.

KING: We'll take you back live to Capitol Hill in just a moment. The lunch break in the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's pick to the Supreme Court, that lunch break about to end. Again, we'll take you back there live as soon as it happens. In the meantime, though, take a look at this, long lines at polling places in Georgia. One day after early voting began in that battleground state. This is Fulton County, the home of Atlanta. Average wait time at one precinct get this between two and three hours today. The state's Secretary of State says almost 127,000 people cast their ballots on the first day of in person early voting yesterday. In Texas early voting also underway beginning this morning just hours after an appeals court reinstated Governor Greg Abbott's order that limits the use of absentee ballot drop boxes to just one location per county. Several groups have filed lawsuits challenging that order which they say will unfairly burden large counties and create health hazards at this time of the pandemic. CNN's Kristen Holmes is following this story for us. Kristen, the Texas case is a big deal because of big state with sprawling counties.</s>KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right, John. And particularly when you talk about the civics groups that are going out there and fighting this decree from the Governor, they're talking specifically about Harris County, which is the third most populous county in the entire country. And our own Ed Lavandera actually drove from the edge of the county to the one singular drop box that there was, and noted that some residents would have to drive more than an hour --</s>KING: Hearing up on Capitol is resuming, forgive my interruption, take you back to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island asking the questions.</s>SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): What I want to do is go through with the people who are watching this now, the conversation that you and I had, when we spoke on the telephone. You were kind enough to hear out a presentation that I made. And I intend to ask some questions in that area. But it doesn't make sense to ask questions if I haven't laid the predicate, particularly for viewers who are watching this. So I guess the reason that I want to do this is because people who are watching this need to understand that this small hearing room and the little T.V. box that you're looking at, the little screen that you're looking at, are a little bit like the frame of a puppet theater. And if you only look at what's going on, in the puppet theater, you're not going to understand the whole story. You're not going to understand the real dynamics of what is going on here. And you're certainly not going to understand forces outside of this room who are pulling strings and pushing sticks and causing the puppet theater to react. So first, let me say why do I think outside forces are here pulling strings? Well, part of it is behavior. We have colleagues here who supported you, this nominee, before there was a nominee. That's a little unusual. We have the political ram job that we have already complained of driving this process through at breakneck speed in the middle of a pandemic while the Senate is closed for safety reasons and while we're doing nothing about the COVID epidemic around us. We have some very awkward 180s from colleagues. Mr. Chairman, you figure in this. Our leader said back when it was Garland versus Gorsuch. That of course, of course the American people should have a say in the courts direction. Of course, of course, said Mitch McConnell. That's long gone. Senator Grassley said the American people shouldn't be denied a voice. That's long gone. Senator Cruz said you don't do this in an election year. That's long gone. And our chairman made his famous hold the tape promise if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, we'll wait till the next election. That's going too. So there is a lot of hard to explain hypocrisy and rush taking place right now. And my experience around politics is that when you find hypocrisy in the daylight look for power in the shadows. Now people may say, what is all this matter? This is a political parlor game, it's no big deal. Well, there's some pretty high stakes here that we've been talking about here on the -- our side. And I'll tell you three of them right here, Roe versus Wade, Obergefell and the Obamacare cases. Here's the GOP platform, the Republican platform, the platform of my colleagues, on the other side of this aisle say that a Republican president will appoint judges who will reverse Roe, Obergefell, and the Obamacare cases. So if you have a family member with an interest in some autonomy over their body, under Roe versus Wade, the ability to have a marriage of friends marry, have a niece or a daughter or son marry, someone of their same sex, they have a -- you got a stake. And if you're one of the millions and millions of Americans who depend on the Affordable Care Act, you've got a stake. It's not just the platform over and over again. Let's start by talking about the Affordable Care Act. Here's the President talking about this litigation that we're gearing up this nominee for November 10th. In this litigation, he said we want to terminate health care under Obamacare. That is the President's statement. So when we react to that, don't act as if we're making this stuff up. This is what President Trump said. This is what your party platform says, reverse the Obamacare cases. Senator after senator including many in this Committee filed briefs saying that the Affordable Care Act should be thrown out by courts. Why is it surprising for us to be concerned that you want this nominee to do what you want nominees to do? One quick stop on NFIB v. Sebelius because a lot of this has to do with money. This is an interesting comparison. National Federation of Independent Businesses until it filed the NFIB versus Sebelius case had its biggest donation ever of $21,000. In the year that it went to work on the Affordable Care Act, 10 wealthy donors gave $10 million, somebody deserves a thank you. So let's go on to Roe v. Wade. Same thing, same thing. The President has said that reversing Roe v. Wade will happen automatically because he's putting pro-life justices on the court. Why would we not take him at his word? The Republican Party platform says it will reverse Roe. Why would we not comment on that and take you at your word? Senators here including Senator Hawley have said I will vote only for nominees who acknowledged that Roe v Wade is wrongly decided. And they're pledged to vote for this nominee. Do the math. That's a really simple equation to run. The Republican brief in June medical said Roe should be overruled. So don't act surprised when we ask questions about whether that's what you're up to here. And finally, out in the ad world that you have spared yourself wisely, Judge Barrett, the Susan B. Anthony Foundation is running advertisements right now saying that you are set. You are set to give our pro-life country a court that it deserves. There's the ad with the voiceover, she said, she said. And then Roe, Obamacare cases, and Obergefell, gay marriage, National Organization for Marriage, the big group that opposes same sex marriage says in this proceeding, all our issues are at stake. Republican platform says it wants to reverse Obergefell and the Republican brief filed in the case said same sex relationships don't fall within any constitutional protection. So when we say the stakes are high on this, it's because you've said the stakes are high on this. You have said that's what you want to do. So how are people going about doing it? What is the scheme here? Let me start with this one. In all cases, there's big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity, one lane of activity is through the conduit of the Federalist Society. It's managed by a guy -- was managed by a guy named Leonard Leo. And it's taken over the selection of judicial nominees. How do we know that to be the case? Because Trump has said so over and over again, his White House Counsel said so. So we have an anonymously funded group, controlling judicial selection, run by this guy, Leonard Leo. Then in another lane, we have, again, anonymous funders running through something called the Judicial Crisis Network, which is run by Carrie Severino. And it's doing P.R. and campaign ads for Republican judicial nominees. It got 17 million -- single $17 million donation in the Garland-Gorsuch contest. It got another single $17 million donation to support Kavanaugh. Somebody, perhaps the same person spent $35 million to influence the makeup of the United States Supreme Court, tell me that's good. And then over here, you have a whole array of legal groups, also funded by dark money, which have a different role. They bring cases to the court. They don't wind their way to the court, Your Honor, they get shoved to the court by these legal groups, many of which asked to lose below, so they can get quickly to the court to get their business done there. And then they turn up in an chorus, an orchestrated chorus of any key. Now I've had a chance to have a look at this. And I was in a case actually, as an anarchist myself, the Consumer Financial Protection Board case. And in that case, there were one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 Amicus briefs filed. And every single one of them was a group funded by something called Donors Trust. Donors Trust is a gigantic identity scrubbing device for the right wing, so that it says Donors Trust is the donor without whoever the real donor is. It doesn't have a business. It doesn't have a business plan. It doesn't do anything. It's just an identity scrubber. And this group here, the Bradley Foundation, funded eight out of the 11 briefs. That seems weird to me when you have Amicus briefs coming in little flotillas that are funded by the same groups but nominally separate in the court. So actually attach this to my brief as an appendix. Center for Media and Democracy saw it and they did better work. They went on to say which foundations funded the brief writers in that CFPB case. Here's the Bradley Foundation for 5.6 million to those groups. Here's Donors Trust, 23 million to those brief writing groups. The grand total across all the donor groups was $68 million to the groups that were filing Amicus briefs, pretending that they were different groups. And it's not just in the Consumer Financial Protection Board case. You might say, well, that was just a one off. Here's Janus, the anti- labor case that had a long trail through the court through Friedrichs and through Knox and through other decisions. And SourceWatch and ProPublica did some work about this. Here's Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. And here's the Bradley Foundation. And they totaled giving $45 million to the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 groups that filed Amicus briefs pretending to be different groups. And both of the lawyer groups in the case funded by Donors Trust, funded by Bradley Foundation in Janus. This is happening over and over and over again. And it goes beyond just the briefs. It goes beyond just the Amicus presentations. The Federalist Society, remember this group that is acting as the conduit, and the Donald Trump has said is doing his judicial selection, they're getting money from the same foundations from Donors Trust $16.7 million, from the Bradley Foundation $1.37 million, from the same group of foundations total, $33 million. So you can start to look at these and you can start to tie them together.

Breaking News: Trump's Supreme Court Pick Faces Senators' Questions.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): The argument of the four dissenters was not what our Democratic colleagues talked about here. It wasn't some reasonable gun control provisions are okay, that was not the argument of the dissenters. That question we actually had a reasonable debate on, reasonable minds can differ on what the appropriate line should be, what are reasonable law there? But that was not what was at issue with Heller. The position of the four dissenters was the Second Amendment protects no individual rights to keep and bear arms whatsoever. But merely a quote "collective right of the militia", which is fancy lawyer talk for a nonexistent right. Four justices would have ruled that way, one vote away. The consequences of the court concluding that there is no individual right under the First Amendment would mean you and I and every American watching this would lose your Second Amendment right. It would mean the federal government, the state government, the city could ban guns entirely, could make it a criminal offense for any one of us to own a firearm and no individual American would have any judicially cognizable right to challenge this. That is a radical reading of the Constitution. That is effectively erasing the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights. And Hillary Clinton likewise promised in 2016 that every justice she nominated would commit to voting to overturn Heller. They were big on litmus tests. And Joe Biden, although he refuses to answer just about anything about whether or not he's going to pack the court, he did tell the American people that voters don't deserve to know whether he's going to pack the court -- truly, a statement of disrespect and contempt for the voters, unusual in our political process. One vote away from the Second Amendment being erased from the Bill of Rights, none of our Democratic colleagues admit that that is their agenda. And yet, those are the justices that Democratic presidential nominees are promising they will appoint -- justices who will take away your right to criticize politicians, justices who allow censorship, justices who will allow movies and books to be banned, justices who will erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights. And how about religious liberty? Religious liberty is an issue near and dear to a great many of us. The right of every American to live according to your faith, according your conscience -- whatever that faith may be. Religious liberty is fundamentally about diversity. It's about respecting diversity. That whatever your faith tradition might be, the government is not going is not going to trample on it. Religious liberty cases over and over again have been decided 5-4. The case of Van Orden v. Perry -- a case I litigated -- dealt with the Ten Commandments monument that stands on the state capitol grounds. It's been there since 1961 in Texas. An individual plaintiff -- an atheist, a homeless man -- filed a lawsuit seeking to tear down the Ten Commandments. The case went all the U.S. Supreme Court. It was decided 5-to-4. Four justices were willing to say, in effect, send in the bulldozers and tear down that monument because you can't gaze on the image of the Ten Commandments on public lands. Another case, the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial -- this was a memorial erected to the men and women who gave their lives in World War I. It's a lone white Latin cross, simple and bare in the middle of the desert -- I've been there -- on Sunrise Rock, where it stands. The ACLU filed a lawsuit saying you cannot gaze on the image of a cross on public land. And the ACLU won in the district court. They won in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal courts ordered the veterans memorial to be covered up with a burlap sack with a chain on the bottom and in a plywood box. When the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, I represented 3 million veterans pro bono, for free, defending that veterans' memorial. We won 5-4. And there were four justices prepared to say tear down the veterans memorial. And under the reasoning that they put forth they were not far away from saying bring out the chisels and remove the crosses and the stars of David on the tombstones of the men and women that gave their lives, at Arlington Cemetery, defending this nation. That is a radical view. And we're one vote away. That is utterly contrary to the text of the First Amendment, to the understanding of the First Amendment. When we argued the Ten Commandments case in the U.S. Supreme Court there was more than a little bit of irony in that. Do you how many times the image of the Ten Commandments appears in the courtroom of the Supreme Court? The answer to that is 43. There are two images of the Ten Commandments carved on the wooden doors as you walk out of the courtroom -- you will soon be sitting looking at them. There are 40 images of the Ten Commandments on the bronze gates on the -- both sides of the courtroom. And then, Judge Barrett, when you're sitting at the bench, above your left shoulder will be a frieze you know well. A frieze carved into the wall of great lawgivers, one of whom is Moses. He is standing there holding the Ten Commandments, the text of which is legible in Hebrew, as he looks down upon the justices. And four justices will -- were willing to say, in effect, bring out the sandblasters because we must remove God from the public square. That is a profound threat to our religious liberty. And I would note that it doesn't just extend to public acknowledgements. It also extends to religious liberty. The Little Sisters of the Poor are a Catholic convent of nuns who take oaths of poverty, who devote their lives for caring for the sick, caring for the needy, caring for the elderly. And the Obama administration litigated against the Little Sisters of the Poor, seeking to fine them in order to force them to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, among others. It's truly a stunning situation when you have the federal government litigating against nuns. The Supreme Court decided the Hobby Lobby case, another case routinely denounced by Senate Democrats. The Hobby Lobby case concluded that the federal government could not permissibly force a Christian business to violate their faith. It reflected the religious liberty traditions of our country that you can live according to your faith without the government trampling on it. You know what this body did? I'm sorry to say, Senate Democrats introduced legislation to gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Religious Freedom Restoration Act, when it passed this body, passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Senate Democrats -- including Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy -- all voted for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And yet, in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision, this body voted on legislation to just gut the protections for religious liberty. And I'm sorry to say, every single Senate Democrat voted to do so. Not a single one, zero, would defend religious liberty. Joe Biden has already pledged, if he is elected, he plans to initiate again the attack on the Little Sisters of the Poor. You know, it's interesting. Folks in the press like to talk about Pope Francis. And on some issues, Pope Francis has been vocal -- when it comes to the environment, when it comes to issues concerning immigration. The Pope has been vocal on issues that our Democratic colleagues like and agree with, the press is happy to amplify those views. Somehow missing from that amplification is acknowledgement that when the pope came to the United States in Washington, he went and visited the Little Sisters of the Poor. Here in D.C. -- he went to their home here in D.C. And the Vatican explained he did so because he wanted to highlight their cause, that the federal government shouldn't be persecuting nuns for living according to their faith. That's what is at stake in these nominations. And you won't hear any of that from the Senate Democrats on this committee. That is why their base is so angry at your nomination Judge Barrett, because they do not believe you are going to join the radical efforts to erase those fundamental rights from the Bill of Rights. I believe that if you're preserving the Constitution, preserving the Bill of Rights, our fundamental liberties, I believe it's the most important issue facing the country in the November elections. And I think for those of us who value those rights, we should take solace in the fact that not a single Democrat is willing even to acknowledge the radical sweep of their agenda, much less defend it. They know it's wildly unpopular and look, right at the heart of this is a decision many Democrats have made to abandon democracy. You see most policies, policies like Obamacare, policies like healthcare, most policies on our constitutional system are meant be decided by democratically elected legislatures. Why? So they can be accountable to people. So if the voters disagree, they can throw the bums out. But too many Democrats have decided today that democracy is too complicated. It's too hard to actually convince your fellow Americans of the merits of your position. It's much easier just to give it to the courts, find five lawyers in black robes and let them decree the policy outcome you want, which makes your radical base happy, presumably makes the millions, if not billions in dark money being spent for Democrats, happy, without actually having to justify it to the American people. Judge Barrett, I'm not going to ask you to respond to that (ph),but I do want to shift to different topic, which is a bit more about you personally, your background. Judge Barrett, do you speak any foreign languages?</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Once upon a time and I could speak French, but I have fallen woefully out of practice, so please don't ask me to do that right now.</s>CRUZ: You can be assured of that, because my -- I had two years of high school French, and -- and -- and I suspect yours remains much better than mine. How about music? Do you play any instruments?</s>BARRETT: The piano.</s>CRUZ: How long have you played the piano?</s>BARRETT: Well I've played the piano growing up for 10 years, and now most of my piano playing consists of playing my children songs for them and supervising their own piano practice. I look forward one day when I have more time to be able to choose some of my own music.</s>CRUZ: Now, do the kids do piano lessons as well?</s>BARRETT: The kids do piano lessons. Some of the older ones who are in high school have gotten so busy with sports and those things that they've stopped, but the younger children do.</s>CRUZ: Our girls are nine and 12 and we have -- they both do piano lessons, and I will say at least in our household it is less than voluntary.</s>CRUZ: One of the things Heidi and I found particularly the last six months during COVID, which has been an extraordinary crisis, is just with two kids at home, that doing distance learning when schools were shut down, was really hard for us with two children. For you and your husband you've -- you've got seven kids. How -- how did -- how did you all manage through the lockdowns and distance learning? What was that like in -- in -- in the Barrett household?</s>BARRETT: Well it was a challenging time as it was for every American. Our oldest daughter, Emma who's in college, moved home at that point, because she's at Notre Dame it's closed. So Emma obviously can manage her own e-learning, and our high school aged children, Tess and Vivian (ph) could too. But Jesse and I just tried to take a divide and conquer approach for the younger four. And yes, it was quite challenging, I assure you.</s>CRUZ: One part of your story that I find typically remarkable and that I admire, is the decision you made to adopt two children. You and your husband had five biological children, you adopted two more. Both of your adopted children are from Haiti. Haiti is a country that has some of the most crushing poverty in the world. My brother-in-law is a missionary in Haiti and -- and actually Heidi and the girls just got back from Haiti couple weeks ago. I was curious if you would share with this committee and with the American people what led you and your husband to make the decision to adopt? It's -- it's, I think one of the most loving and -- and compassionate decisions any family can make.</s>BARRETT: When Jesse and I were engaged, we met another couple who had adopted, in this instance, it was a couple that had adopted a child with special needs, and then we also met another couple that adopted a few children internationally. And we decided at that point when while we were engaged, that at some point in the future, we wanted to do that ourselves. And I guess we had imagined initially that we would have whatever biological kids that we had decided to have, and then adopt at the end. But after we had our first daughter, Emma, we thought, well why wait. So I was expecting Tess when we went and got Vivian. So she and Tess function -- we call them out paternal twins. They're in the same grade, and it really has enriched our family immeasurably. And once we had adopted Vivian, at that point, then we made the decision that we definitely wanted to adopt again. And so several years later John Peter entered our family.</s>CRUZ: So your children have been wonderfully well behaved. I think you're an amazing role model for little girls. What advice would you give little girls?</s>BARRETT: Well what I am saying is not designed -- my brother now has laughed -- I'm just thinking of what my dad told me before the spelling bee about anything boys can do, girls can do better. And since my sons are sitting behind me, I'll also say, but boys are great too.</s>CRUZ: Thank you.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Thank you. Senator Klobuchar.</s>SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Welcome again, judge. Since I have the draw to always follow Senator Cruz, I did want to make one thing clear, after listening to that for a half- hour that Joe Biden is Catholic and he is a man of faith. And then I want to turn to something else and that is that we need a recess here in my mind for the people at home, a bit of a reality check that this isn't normal right now. We have to understand what people are dealing with, that 7.7 million people have gotten this virus that 214,000 Americans have died. And for people watching at home and wondering what we're all doing in this room right now, and maybe you're home because you lost your job or maybe you've got your kids crawling all over your couch right now, maybe you're trying to teach your first grader how to do a mute button to go to school. Or maybe you've got a small business that you had to close down or that's struggling. We should be doing something else right now. We shouldn't be doing this. We should be passing coronavirus relief, like the House just did, which was a significant bill that would have been a big help, and I think people have to know that right now. And whether you're Democrat, Independent or Republican, and that's why I started out yesterday by telling people that they need to vote. Number two: Some of my colleagues throughout this hearing on the other side have been kind of portraying the job that the judge is before us on as being some kind of ivory tower exercise. I think one of my friends called it -- related that you'd be dealing with the dormant commerce clause. Well, I'm sure that might be true. But we also know that this is the highest court in the land; that the decisions of this court have a real impact on people. And I appreciated, Judge, that you said that you didn't want to be a queen. I actually wouldn't mind being a queen around here, the truth be known.</s>KLOBUCHAR: I don't -- I wouldn't mind doing it as kind of a benevolent queen and making decisions so we could get things done. But you said you wouldn't let your views influence you and the like. But the truth is, the Supreme Court rulings, they rule people's lives. They decide if people can get married. They decide what schools they can go to. They decide if they could even have access to contraception. All of these things matter, so I want to make that clear. And the third reset here that I think we need to have is that this hearing is not normal. It is a sham. It is a rush to put in a justice. The last time that we had a vacancy so close to an election was when Abraham Lincoln was president, and he made the wise decision to wait until after the election. The last time we lost a justice so close to an election, that's what he did. Today, we are 21 days from the election. People are voting. Millions of people have already cast their ballots, and I go to the words of Senator McConnell. The last time we had a situation in an election year he said the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. That set the precedent that so many of you have embraced, or at least, you did a few years ago, and that is that in an election year, the people choose the president, and then the president nominates the justice. So why is this happening? Well, that's a good question. This guy, our president, he is the one that decided to plop a Supreme Court nomination in the middle of an election when people's healthcare is on the line with a case before the court on November 10th. So let's see what he said about the Supreme Court. Well, one of President Trump's campaign promises in 2015 was that his judicial appointments will do the right thing on Obamacare. You can see it right here. And in fact, Judge, just one day after you were nominated -- this is, like, a few weeks ago -- he said also on Twitter that it would be a big win if the Supreme Court strikes down the health law. So Judge, my first question: Do you think we should take the president at his word when he said his nominee will do the right thing and overturn the Affordable Care Act?</s>BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, I can't really speak to what the president has said on Twitter. He hasn't said any of that to me. What I can tell you, as I have told your colleagues earlier today, is that no one has elicited from me any commitment in a case, or even brought up a commitment in a case. I am 100 percent committed to judicial independence from political pressure, so whatever people's, you know, party platforms may be, or campaign promises may be, the reason why judges have life tenure is to insulate them from those pressures. So I take my oath seriously to follow the law, and you know, I -- I have not pre-committed, nor would I pre-commit to decide a case any particular way.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK, and I think this life tenure, this idea that you have, just for everyone out there, a job for life makes this even more important for us to consider where you might be. And I know you have not said how you would rule on this case that's coming up right after the election, where the president had said it would be a big win if the Supreme Court strikes down the law. But you have directly criticized Justice Roberts in an article in my own state in one of the Minnesota Law School journals. It was in 2017. It was the same year you became a judge. And when Roberts writes the opinion to uphold the Affordable Care Act, you said he, quote, "pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute". Is that correct?</s>BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, I just want to clarify. Is this the constitutional commentary publication that you and I discussed? Because I (inaudible) -- OK.</s>KLOBUCHAR: Yes, it is. In fact, it is, but it's still a Minnesota -- University of Minnesota Law -- yes.</s>BARRETT: No -- OK, I just wanted to be sure...</s>KLOBUCHAR: Yeah.</s>BARRETT: I hadn't published it in the (inaudible).</s>KLOBUCHAR: Again, did you ask that question -- did you say that, that he pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute?</s>BARRETT: One thing I'm going to clarify is you said that I criticized, you know, Chief Justice Roberts, and I don't attack people, just ideas, so...</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK.</s>BARRETT: That was just designed to -- to make a comment about his reasoning in that case which I've -- as I said before, is consistent with the way the majority opinion characterized it as the less- plausible reading of the statute.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK, so you didn't agree with his reasoning in the case that upheld the Affordable Care Act.</s>BARRETT: What I said, and was this King v. Burwell or NFIB v. Sebelius?</s>KLOBUCHAR: That was NFIB v. Sebelius.</s>BARRETT: Sebelius.</s>KLOBUCHAR: I'll get to King v. Burwell in a second.</s>BARRETT: OK. What I said with respect to NFIB v. Sebelius is that the interpretation that the majority exacted constrained the mandate to be a tax, rather than a penalty, was not the most natural reading of the statute. (inaudible)...</s>KLOBUCHAR: But it was still the reading that Justice Roberts got to. Now, you also criticized, as you pointed out by bringing up King v. Burwell, another case where the court ruled in favor of the health law. This was in a 2015 National Public Radio interview, and you acknowledged that the results of people being able to keep the -- their subsidies under the Affordable Care Act was -- and it would help millions of Americans. Yet you praised the dissent by Justice Scalia, saying the dissent had, quote, "the better of the legal argument". Is that correct?</s>BARRETT: I did say that, yes.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK, so then would you rule -- have ruled the same way and voted with Justice Scalia?</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator Klobuchar, one of the plus sides, or the upsides of being an academic is that you can speak for yourself. A professor professes and can opine. But it's very different than the judicial decision-making process. So it's difficult for me to say how I would have decided that case if I had to go through the whole process of judicial decision-making that I was describing this morning. Now, having been a judge for three years, I can say I appreciate greatly the distinctions between academic writing or academic speaking and judicial decision making, such that a judge might look at an academic and say "easy for you to say," because you're not on a multi- member court, you're not constrained by stare decisis, you don't have real parties in front of you consulting with litigants, consulting with your clerk. It's just a different process.</s>KLOBUCHAR: I'm just -- I view -- that's one -- so interestingly (ph) because you were commenting on the public policy result, which you and my colleagues on the Republican side have said "this shouldn't be about public policy" and you said "OK, that's OK," but then you were really clear on your legal outcome in terms of your view, of whose side you were on. You were on Scalia's side and, of course, that was a side to not uphold the Affordable Care Act, which would've been -- kicked millions of people off their healthcare. In effect, they would've lost their subsidies. And I just see this as interesting because of this kind of dichotomy they're trying to make between policy and legal, and my view is that legal decisions affect policy. I mean, I'm looking at people in my state that'll deal with this if the Affordable Care Act is struck down -- Elijah (ph) from St. Paul, who was born with cerebral palsy. Because of the Affordable Care Act, he is now 16 and is a proud Boy Scout. Casey (ph), whose brother lives in Alexandria and he has chronic kidney failure and he needs a transplant. Without the ACA, that'd be that. Or Bernette (ph) from the suburbs of St. Paul, whose daughter has multiple sclerosis, depends on benefits under the ACA. Liliana Fridley (ph), who has a 21 year old son with autism, and needs her children to be able to stay on her insurance until she's 26. Melanie (ph), a senior from Duluth who's being treated for ovarian cancer and needs access to the Affordable Care Act. So my point is that these are real world situations. And so I get that you're not saying how you'd rule on these cases. So what does that leave us with here, to try to figure out what kind of judge you would be? And I was thinking last night of when I was growing up, we would go up to northern Minnesota, and we didn't have a cabin but we had friends that did and we would go on these walks in the woods with my mom, and she loved to show all of the tracks on that path, whether they were deer tracks -- and she'd have us figure out what they were -- or elk or maybe even a bear, and we would follow these tracks down that path and you'd always think "is there going to be a deer around the corner that we're going to see?" And very rarely was there one but we would follow the tracks. And so when I look at your record, I just keep following the tracks. That's what I've got to do. And so when I follow the tracks, this is what I see -- you consider Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative judges in the history of the Supreme Court, as your mentor. You criticized the decision written by Justice Roberts upholding the Affordable Care Act. That is, to me, one big track. Even if you didn't consider yourself criticizing him personally, you criticized the reasoning. You then said in another case about the Affordable Care Act that you would -- that you like the legal reasoning, that he had the better legal argument -- that Justice Scalia had the better legal argument. You have signed your name to a public statement featured in an ad -- a paid ad that called for an end to what it called -- the ad called the "barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade," which ran on the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court decision. You disagreed with long-standing precedent on gun safety, which said that felons shouldn't be able to get guns, something that was pretty important to me when I had my old job in law enforcement. This is something that Senator Durbin asked you about. You suggested that you agree with the dissent in the marriage equality case, Obergefell, that it wasn't the role of the court to decide that same sex couples had the right to be married. I think this was in a lecture you gave, where you said the dissent's view was that it wasn't for the court to decide. They could -- people could lobby in state legislatures.

Voters Patiently Fall In Line To Vote; Democrats Emphasize Consequences For Confirming Judge Barrett

DONALD MCNEIL JR., SCIENCE & HEALTH REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: -- plus thousands of Americans are dead, which is terrible but we're doing better relatively speaking than we did in 1918 when we had no choice but to die, and there's going to be a vaccine to stop. I can't say exactly by when, but you know, as Tony Fauci has said, you know, it's going to be probably by the middle of next year that some of the optimistic vaccine. Experts think it will be earlier than that. But you know, certainly by some time middle of the next year this should be fairly much over, then we've got to look to rebuilding the economy and helping the rst of the world.</s>CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: So, if we keep on the track, literally keep the faith, and you'll get in the right place. I encourage everybody to read your piece. It's very thoughtful. Donald McNeil Jr., "New York Times," thank you very much.</s>MCNEIL: Thank you.</s>CUOMO: Thank all of you for watching. "CNN TONIGHT" with D. Lemon starts right now. That McNeil Jr. sounds like you.</s>DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Well, the optimism you mean?</s>CUOMO: Yes.</s>LEMON: Look, I want you to go with me. Because you stole the open of my show. I'm trying to get people optimistic. You ready? Just go with me.</s>CUOMO: Please.</s>LEMON: Are you ready.</s>CUOMO: You got put your wrist fist higher so they can see it.</s>LEMON: OK.</s>CUOMO: Matthew McConaughey. But he'd also have, like --</s>LEMON: We survived -- we survived six months, eight months. We can survive six hours in line. I don't care how long it takes.</s>CUOMO: It's true.</s>LEMON: We got to take.</s>CUOMO: Although McConaughey had the benefits of two bottles of wine and an 8-ball.</s>LEMON: And then he had that vial at lunch, too. But I'm just trying to -- listen, it's all on how you look at it. You heard what Mayor Pete says, right? About trusting is life to someone. It's all in how you look at. You heard what your last guest says, optimism and how you look at it. Did you know, Chris, 21 is a lucky number? It's the number of the angels. It's a lucky number. When you see the number 21, that means something good is about to happen, right? And for us, we should be optimistic because election day is coming. That means you have the opportunity the change and shape your country. If you're not happy with it, you got a chance. If you're happy with it, you have a chance as well.</s>CUOMO: And in almost all places you don't have to wait until that day.</s>LEMON: You don't have to wait until that day.</s>CUOMO: Hence the lines in Georgia.</s>LEMON: There you go. We're ready to go. I'll see you tomorrow.</s>CUOMO: You know it, brother. I'm with you. I love you.</s>LEMON: I love you too.</s>CUOMO: I'm going to do this all night.</s>LEMON: Yes. Yes. So, get ready people. I'm going to fire you up tonight. That's what I'm going to do. I'm going to get you excited about voting, about this election. They're so -- it's so dark lately. I know there's death out there. I know that a lot is going on. I know people are hurting, but now is the opportunity to make it all better. This is CNN TONIGHT, and I'm Don Lemon. I'm so happy that you joined me this evening. Twenty-one, the lucky number that I said, the number of the angels, right? The good luck number. Twenty-one days to go until election, the election day. Just three weeks from today. Three weeks. But Americans are not waiting until November 3rd. Wait for election day? Take a look at this. In Texas, this young woman wasn't even going to wait until tomorrow. She's having a baby. She waited two hours to vote.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm due tomorrow morning so I was trying to decide, am I going to stay? Or I wanted to go ahead and get my vote in and make it count. It was disappointing to see some people left. I'm, you know, wondering are those people going to make it back in to vote, or, you know, they not just going to vote this year?</s>LEMON: Well, some gentleman or gentlewoman should have let her get to the front of the line, but I digress. Because in every state where early voting is allowed like Georgia, like Texas, Ohio, people are turning out in droves, waiting for up to eight hours or more to cast their ballots. They're ignoring the noise, they're ignoring the distractions that we all have grown so sick of and doing what they have to do, what they feel they must do, and that is vote with an exclamation point. No more excuses. There are none. Get excited, vote, snail mail, plane, train, automobile, two wheels or two feet. Get your souls to the polls. Get your butt to the polls, vote. You know why? In all seriousness here, seriously, you cannot let down the 215,000 Americans who have died from this deadly pandemic. It didn't have to be this way. Don't let down the more than seven million people who contracted the virus or the ones still in the ICU or on ventilators or who have long haul syndrome, the ones with preexisting conditions. The ones who couldn't say good-bye to the love of their lives. To their ailing mothers, to their widower or father, their grandmothers, their grandfathers, their sisters, their brothers, their nieces, their nephews. To their coworkers, their best friends. If you don't vote for yourself, OK, if you think that, my vote doesn't count, well vote for them because their vote can count, and it does. They deserve as much. That is the way you pay tribute. Vote for them. Now, look, it should not be this hard to vote in America. It shouldn't be. We should be -- we should be making an opportunity for everyone to vote as easy as possible for everyone to vote. That is our right as Americans. Lines like this, they can be a form of voter suppression. How many people are going to wait that long? Do you have that much time? Some people will turn away, and that is a huge problem. But as I said, this is 2020. Nothing is easy. More than ten and a half million people have cast a vote so far. On the second day of early voting in Georgia, long lines, but determination.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd rather be out here doing my civic duty than not. I don't trust the whole mail-in voting thing, so I will be here, and I will sign it and make sure it goes where it needs to go.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have voted in every presidential election since I was qualified to vote. And I think it's important. I think we have a say and I think we need to exercise our right to vote. I think this is a critical election in how our country acts as a civilization.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's something I have to do. So, it's OK. It's just the price you pay to cast your vote.</s>LEMON: Price you pay to cast your vote. Voters in Cobb County, Georgia lining up the polls -- at the polls before dawn. Many have even tried to vote yesterday on the first day of early voting but couldn't due to the large numbers of voters turning out.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Kept checking the web site throughout the day and, it was like 480 minutes and all that. So, I said, well, I guess I'll be getting up early this morning.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I came here yesterday and it was wrapped around the parking lot, so my cousin and I came out today, so we're going to make sure we get our vote counted today.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's going to be one of the higher voter turnouts in my lifetime, at least.</s>LEMON: Look at that, people like waiting in concert. Waiting for the latest Jordans. Good for you. So, you might ask yourself, are the lines this long where everyone lives? Or is there voter suppression going on? One study in Georgia found that in this year's primary, there's -- there are voters in communities of color were more likely to vote in long -- to wait in long lines than white voters. So, we're going to keep an eye on this for you every night between now and the election, OK? Because there are a lot of efforts to try to suppress the vote and even some places steal people's vote. It's not a secret who is driving people to the polls. That's no secret. This election is a referendum on one man, and that man not surprisingly, held a huge rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, thousands in the crowd, very few in masks. No social distancing. Not a surprise, again. Trump's planning on holding big rallies right up until election day, despite the spreading of the coronavirus. He's taken his coronavirus tour, the super spreader tour, on the road.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I felt good very quickly.</s>TRUMP: I don't know what it was. Antibodies. Antibodies. I don't know. I took it. I said I felt like superman. I said, let me at them. No, and I could have been here four or five days ago. It's great. We had great doctors. I want to thank the doctors as Walter Reed and Johns Hopkins.</s>TRUMP: One great thing about being president, if you're not feeling 100 percent, you have more doctors than you thought existed in the world. I was surrounded with, like, 14 of them. Where are you from? I'm from this one. Where are you from? I'm from Johns Hopkins. I'm from Walter Reed, but what great talented people. They did a great job.</s>LEMON: Fourteen doctors. Do you have 14 doctors? Can you even see a doctor? Do you have health insurance? Fourteen doctors surrounding me. Really? Now you have a preexisting condition, Mr. President. Like millions of other Americans. But they can't get 14 doctors and the best medicine and a helicopter ride to the hospital. Two hundred fifteen thousand Americans are dead. Many of them died alone or at home. Most of them didn't have to die as a result of a president whose deadly dereliction of duty that cannot be erased. Yes. See? It's I'm reading something serious and look what's happening. That can't be taken away no matter how many times he goes the rallies and dances to the village people. Wow. You know that play that song like every night in every gay bar across America. But you know. And last night I think it was "Macho, Macho Man" and that one, too. You cannot write this stuff. But he is having fun and dancing. On the graves of 215,000 Americans. Dancing. Everywhere on the campaign trail tonight, Joe Biden already ahead of Trump in the polls hoping to secure his lead with help from his former boss. Today announcing that Barack Obama is preparing to hit the campaign trail for him and he'll have a message in store for President Trump.</s>BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies. I did hope for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously. That he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care. But he never did. Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't. And the consequences of that failure are severe. In this democracy, the commander in chief does not use the men and women of our military, who are willing to risk everything to protect our nation, as political props to deploy against peaceful protesters on our own soil.</s>LEMON: Now, the former President Barack Obama campaigned hard for Hillary Clinton, too, and we all know what happened there. She's not the president. Even though sometimes if you watch state-run TV, you might think she is, given how obsessed they are with her and stories about her. This time he thinks democracy is on the line. And if you were watching Capitol Hill today and day two of the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett you would see Barack Obama's party, Joe Biden's party, Kamala Harris' party, they want every American to know something else is on the line, and that is the Affordable Care Act, your health care.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump has made it crystal clear -- he's promised his nominees would overturn the</s>ACA. SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): People's healthcare is on the line, with the case before the court on November 10th.</s>SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Just a week after that election, the Supreme Court is going to hear a case that could take away healthcare protections for more than half of all Americans.</s>SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): President Trump, who nominated you for this vacancy has not only explicitly stated that the Supreme Court should overturn the Affordable Care Act, but he promised that he would nominate a judge who would, quote, "do the right thing," unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare.</s>SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, Senate Republicans' number one priority has been to tear it down.</s>LEMON: When Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell decided to ram this nomination through days before the election in an act of the brazen hypocrisy, you know what their argument was? You know what I'm going to say.</s>TRUMP: I will tell you very simply, we won the election. Elections have consequences. We have the Senate, we have the White House, and we have a phenomenal nominee.</s>LEMON: Elections have consequences. Judge Barrett's confirmation hearing is a great reminder to all Americans that voting really matters. The pandemic is a huge reminder of that ever-present, every day in our lives. Now the voting lines are a reminder of that. Elections have consequences. You've gone through a lot over the last couple of months, but you're strong, and you can wait in line, 21 days, vote. More on our breaking news from the trail tonight. We've got some other breaking news to tell you about as well. The Washington Post is reporting an investigation into Obama-era government officials, pushed by Trump's DOJ, there's breaking news -- it finds nothing. After railing about unmasking and conspiracy theories, conspiracies and crimes, no charges, no public report. Kaitlan Collins, John Avlon, after the break.

Coronavirus On Its Second Wave In The U.S.

LEMON: So, these are the facts. Coronavirus cases are rising all across the country. As of tonight, 33 states are now in the red zone. That is a frightening place to be especially considering more than 215,000 Americans have already died from COVID-19. But that's not stopping President Trump from holding packed campaign rallies. He may be feeling better, but just tonight we learned after a new case involving an attendee at his super spreader Rose Garden event. The labor secretary's wife, Eugene Scalia's wife has tested positive for coronavirus. So, you can see her -- it's not there. We'll put it up later. We don't know how she contracted the virus and we're told that Scalia himself has tested negative as Kaitlan just reported but will work from home for the time being. So, I want to discuss now with Dr. William Schaffner. He is a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. Doctor, good to see you. Thank you for joining us tonight. So, President Trump, despite getting sick, despite his wife and closest aides getting sick, he's back to saying to this country that it is rounding a corner right now, that we're rounding a turn on the pandemic. He is lying. But the numbers don't lie, doctor.</s>WILLIAM SCHAFFNER, PROFESSOR OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Don, actually, we are turning a corner. We're turning an upward corner. Those graphs are going up just as you demonstrated. That sound you hear is the beginning of the second wave coming on to the shore. You know, each of these major rallies is full of people who in all likelihood don't wear masks and social distance in their daily lives. When they all come together, the odds are, this is just a statistical statement, that some of them will be carrying the virus to these events. And I am just sure that each one of these events is going to be an accelerator. It will be spread within the actual rally, and then those people will take it home and spread it into others. So, these rallies are accelerating the spread of this virus wherever they are held, and they're part of this increasing wave of COVID infections that's over most of the country right now. And with the winter just down the road, there's even more to come, I'm afraid. I wish I didn't have this grim statement, but that's the way it looks to me.</s>LEMON: I want to play this for you and our viewers, it's Dr. Fauci speaking about the up -- the uptick in positivity rates in the country. Here it is.</s>ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: You would like to see them less than three percent, optimally 1 percent or less. We're starting to see a number of states well above that which is often and in fact, invariably highly predictive of a resurgence of cases which historically we know leads to an increase in hospitalizations and then ultimately an increase in deaths.</s>LEMON: So jumping off of what Dr. Fauci is saying there, 13 states had a daily positivity rate of above 10 percent over the last seven days. Wyoming's rate is above 24 percent. This is an alarming trend, correct?</s>SCHAFFNER: Read them and weep. Absolutely. Dr. Fauci and I are harmonizing on this. We read the numbers in exactly the same way. This is an up-surge. We are not in a plateau, and we're certainly not going down. This virus is still very much among us. And a lot of states now affected have large rural areas. It takes a while for this virus to get out of the cities and into the small towns and the little hamlets in rural areas. It's starting to spread in those communities, a little bit slower than it might be in the big city, but it's moving out there. We don't have a single county in Tennessee, and we have many rural counties, that's COVID free. So, it's out there.</s>LEMON: Dr. Schaffner, always appreciate your expertise and your time. Thank you.</s>SCHAFFNER: My pleasure.</s>LEMON: More than 215,000 Americans dead from coronavirus. COVID-19 infections on the rise in 33 states and this is how the president is conducting himself on the campaign trail. Mary Trump is here. She's going to respond next.

Sen. Lindsey Graham Whining Over Poor Campaign Donations.

LEMON: So, Senate judiciary chairman Lindsey Graham front and center at the Amy Coney Barrett hearing spending a lot of time about his own struggling campaign in South Carolina.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): All of you over there who want to impose Obamacare in South Carolina, we don't want it. We want something better. We want something different. You know what we want in South Carolina? South Carolina care, not Obamacare. That's the political debate we're involved in a campaign in South Carolina. My fate will be left up to the people of South Carolina. Let's go to citizens united, to my good friend Senator Whitehouse, me and you are going to come closer and closer about regulating money. Because I don't know what's going on out there, but I can tell you there's a lot of money being raised in this campaign. I'd like to know where the hell some of it is coming from.</s>LEMON: Don't be a hater. Raise your own money. Senator Graham trying to take a jab at the fundraising efforts of the Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison who raised a breaking-record $57 million last quarter. Graham repeatedly going on Fox News to beg for campaign donations as polls show the race coming down to the wire. Look at that. Wow. That really is a story. I mean, even if Jaime Harrison doesn't win. Look -- South Carolina? A senior -- an incumbent senator? A Republican going up against a Democrat. That is -- whoa. Let's talk to the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in South Carolina, Jaime Harrison. Jaime, good evening.</s>JAIME HARRISON (D), SOUTH CAROLINA SENATE CANDIDATE: Good evening, Don.</s>LEMON: Listen, just -- just the fact that it's this close, I mean, that says something about what's happening in South Carolina. It's -- I -- people should be shocked.</s>HARRISON: Well, Don, what folks are seeing is the emergence of what I call a new south, one that is bold that is inclusive that is diverse. And you know, Senator Graham should be worried. It is because he's been our senator, he's been in Washington, D.C. for 25 years, and people don't like his record. And you know, it's sad that he's going to take a moment in a hearing that we shouldn't have because he said, you know, we can use his own words that we weren't going to have this hearing in the midst of a campaign. I wish he would take all of that energy and passion that he has asking people to go and give him contributions and actually pass a COVID relief bill, because that is the issue that is on the minds of the people here in South Carolina. We need help in South Carolina and he won't provide it.</s>LEMON: I know you're speaking for South Carolina, but I mean, across the country, people really need help. You touched upon it just a little bit, but Senator Graham looking like he is using today's Amy Coney Barrett hearing as a campaign ad.</s>HARRISON: Yes.</s>LEMON: He says it is appropriate to respond to political attacks in a political way. What say you?</s>HARRISON: No, Senator Graham is just desperate. You know, I am living rent free in his head right now. Even when he's doing his official duties all he's thinking about is the fact that he's about to lose his job. And so, I want folks to continue to help me live rent free. Let's add another bedroom in his mind right now. Folks go to jaimeharrison.com and let's get him a little more anxious tomorrow when he starts and open up a next hearing. But you know --</s>LEMON: You got your plug in.</s>HARRISON: There you go. There you go, Don. But seriously, you know, folks really are desperate right now here in South Carolina. We have some of the highest eviction rates in the country. You know, 3,500 people have died and passed away because of it, 750,000 are unemployed. We really need some help and we're not getting it from our senior senator.</s>LEMON: So, listen, considering the time line here, do you think that's going to affect your -- the time line for confirming the process, the whole process with Amy Coney Barrett, they're eyeing October 29th, do you think that's going to affect your election?</s>HARRISON: Well it's already affected the election. You know, we were supposed to have another debate on October 21st. You know, we have given Lindsey Graham a number of dates and they have been, you know, passing back and forth. You know, Senator Graham, I just wish that he would put the urgency on South Carolina that he does on being important and relevant in Washington,</s>D.C. LEMON: You -- you saw Senator Graham today, I'm sure you were watching not wearing a mask at the hearings. Your debate with him last Friday was canceled after your campaign requested to take a COVID test and then he refused to do that. What are you hearing from voters? How is the -- how is the coronavirus impacting this race?</s>HARRISON: Well, you know, folks and even the state newspaper editorial board wrote about how -- how it was head scratching that Senator Graham would not take a COVID test. You know, it takes less than 30 minutes. It takes two minutes to get the cotton swab into your nose and less than 30 minutes to get the end results. And he had gotten a test the weak prior. And so we didn't understand what the big deal was why he couldn't get a test this time around, when all of the employees at the TV station got a test. I got a test. It's not a big deal. But for Senator Graham, I have no idea. I'm sure, Don, every time he went golfing with the president, I bet you he got a test. But again, when it comes to South Carolina, we're always second, and it's D.C. that's first.</s>LEMON: Well, Jaime, thank you very much. We appreciate you joining us. Stay safe. Best of luck. We'll talk to you soon.</s>HARRISON: Thank you, Don. take care yourself.</s>LEMON: The president -- you as well. There president dancing and falsely touting coronavirus immunity on the campaign trail, falsely touting that as the U.S. deaths top 215,000 people. Well, there she is, Mary Trump. She's here, and she's next.

Three Weeks Until Election Day; President Trump Tries Courting Female Voters; Obama To Hit Campaign Trail For Biden; Barr's Unmasking Investigation Concludes Without Charges; Amy Coney Barrett Says Landmark Roe V. Wade Ruling Is Not A Super Precedent; Supreme Court Grants Trump Administration's Request To Halt Census Count While Appeal Plays Out; Trump Back In Campaign Trail And Holding Rallies In States Where Coronavirus Cases Are Growing; More Than 10.5 Million Votes Cast So Far In 41 States.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Twenty-one days until Election Day, millions of Americans are already casting their ballots. We are seeing massive early voting crowds in states like Georgia, Texas and Ohio. Some people waiting for up to eight hours to vote. The coronavirus pandemic having a massive impact on this election, but you would never know it looking at President Trump's packed rallies, no social distancing, very few people wearing masks. The facts are coronavirus still a huge problem. As of tonight, new cases are rising in 33 states. So, I want to bring in now CNN's Senior Washington correspondent, Mr. Jeff Zeleny who's on the road with the Biden campaign. Also Ms. Amanda Carpenter, the former communications director for Senator Ted Cruz and Mr. Ron Brownstein, senior editor at the Atlantic. Good evening. So, I called Jeff Mr. So, I had to call everyone -- to give everyone, you know, a title before. Ron, I'm going to start with you. President Trump in Pennsylvania tonight. He won the state in 2016. Biden is now in the lead there. He plans to keep coming back over and over the next three weeks. So talk to me about how you see this race three weeks from Election Day.</s>RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, AND SENIOR EDITOR OF THE ATLANTIC: The president is operating on too small a base from which to win at this point. I mean, he's on an island that is taking on water on several different sides. We saw it in 2018, a historic movement away from the Republicans and white collar suburbs, not only in places where we've seen it see before like Northern Virginia, New Jersey but places across the Sun Belt like Atlanta, Houston and Dallas, I mean Phoenix. That it had not seen it before. All of that is continuing, Don. The president is on track to lose college educated white voters by the biggest margin ever. He is still very strong among his base. The non-college whites, even evangelical and rural whites, but not quite as strong as in 2016. And because he has so alienated everyone else, including not only the college whites but young people and people of color, he has to basically be Ted Williams every year and hit 406 with his base. You know, he just can't make the numbers add up. Joe Biden is not Hillary Clinton. He is a more culturally acceptable to those blue collar and rural white voters. And as a result, Donald Trump, while he is still very strong at around 60 percent of them, that's not nearly enough to make up from what is happening with everyone else at this point.</s>LEMON: Amanda, I want to you listen to the president's pitch to a key group of voters.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Suburban women, they should like me more than anybody here tonight, because I ended the regulation that destroyed your neighborhood. I ended the regulation that brought crime to the suburbs. And you're going to live the American dream, and that's what you're going to do. I ask you to do me a favor. Suburban women, will you please like me? Please. Please. I saved your damn neighborhood, OK?</s>LEMON: You remember 2016 when he made fun of -- please clap for Jeb Bush. And now -- I mean, he's tried some casual racism, but when that didn't work, why not begging?</s>AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR SENATOR TED CRUZ AND THE AUTHOR OF GASLIGHTING AMERICA: Yes, I mean, listen, he knows he has a problem. He has a huge problem with women. And he lucked out in 2016. Just enough women were willing to give him a chance. One, because they just didn't like Hillary Clinton. Number two, they thought Donald Trump was a good business guy who would turn around the economy. Well, guess what? In 2020 you don't have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has tanked the economy. And everyone knows the economy has been tanked because of coronavirus. And particularly women understand that the economy will not come back until you solve coronavirus. And here he's holding these rallies like everything's fine. His female surrogates, which you know, are in his family, like Ivanka Trump and Laura Trump, are running around the country pitching -- making the pitch to women that he's the one to bring it back and that he saw this coming and he was the only one that took it seriously. I mean no one, none of this makes sense, and so no wonder he's dropped off with women.</s>LEMON: Jeff Zeleny, so, you're on the road with the former Vice President Joe Biden, and he'll soon have President Obama campaigning for him. What are you hearing about his plans?</s>JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'm in Florida. This is where Joe Biden was today going after this senior vote, which he is leading in. And this is something that is a critical constituency for President Trump, no doubt about it, and this is something that Joe Biden making a big distinction over Donald Trump. Not having big rallies. He had to drive-through rally. That it really felt like an old drive-in movie. So, this is something Joe Biden's doing, but meanwhile as he is preparing for the debate next week. I am told that former President Barack Obama is going to hit the campaign trail for Democrats in key early voting states. The states that will begin early voting next week where early voting is already under way, like here in Florida, like in North Carolina, Georgia, and other states. We don't know the exact itinerary yet of the former president, but we do know he is going to be going after I'm told three distinct constituencies, black voters, Latino voters and younger voters. There is some falloff among all of these groups for Joe Biden. There is some sense that they need to increase enthusiasm to get -- the support where the Biden Campaign would like it. So, having Barack Obama out on the campaign trail is something we've not seen yet this year because Democrats have been taking a much more cautious stand here. But in the final two weeks of the campaign, I am told that Barack Obama is coming out. Of course, this is personal for him as well. Donald Trump went after the former president, went after his family, has repealed many of the things he tried to do in office. So, Don, the final two weeks of this campaign, the closing stretch, is going to be a fascinating matchup between Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and of course Joe Biden.</s>LEMON: So, Amanda, we often talk about the conspiracy theories that, you know, that go unchallenged on -- in conservative media and on state TV, where they, you know, just bark about it all the time. The Washington Post is reporting tonight that the investigation that Attorney General Barr commissioned into unmasking around the 2016 election was quietly completed without any charges or public report, nothing. This is what the president and his allies have been saying about it. Here it is.</s>TRUMP: The unmasking and the spying. And to me, that's the big story right now. That's a very, very big story. It's disgraceful what went on. It's disgraceful, Obama-gate. It's been going on for a long time. It's been going on from before I even got elected and it's a disgrace that it happened. Well, the unmasking is a massive thing. I just got a list. It's -- who can believe a thing like this?</s>SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Why in the hell did the Obama administration's unmasking request jump threefold from 9,500 in 2013 to 30,355 in 2016?</s>TRUMP: If I were a Democrat instead of a Republican, I think everybody would have been in jail a long time ago, and I'm talking with 50-year sentences. It is a disgrace what's happened. This is the greatest political scam, hoax, in the history of our country.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why was everybody in the Obama administration listening to the phone call and finding out and knowing that it was General Flynn?</s>GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYTS: Look at the list of people during that brief transition period making unmasking requests of Michael Flynn. So many of them were partisan officials who had no business snooping and seeking to unmask the successors, the incoming Trump administration.</s>LEMON: I mean, the only unmasking that's going on is at Trump rallies. If this was such a massive crime, why did Barr's team come up empty?</s>CARPENTER: Because there was nothing there.</s>LEMON: Like the voter fraud team?</s>CARPENTER: Because there was nothing there. Barr can -- I mean, we can joke around about this, but it's hard to exaggerate what a massive deal this was. I mean, Donald Trump started this big gaslighting conspiracy on day one of his presidency saying that the deep state was out to undo his presidency, and it wasn't just him. He got the conservative media to go along with it and he got U.S. Senators to go along with it and use the levers of power to try to push something out. John Cornyn, Texas Senator who's widely considered to be kind of a smart establishment guy said this is going to be bigger than Watergate. They were talking about jailing government servants, OK? People put out a list of names at one point in time, and now years later -- years later, it turns out to be nothing? Man, I hope we don't forget this, because people need to remember what these people did and how they threatened good serving public officials for no reason.</s>LEMON: Just for Ron, off the top of my head, we had the Hillary Clinton email server thing that turned out, remember? And then buried the report like on a Friday night or something that turned out nothing. Now we have this. What in the hell is going on here?</s>BROWNSTEIN: Well, look. I mean, you have the president who's you know, trying to weaponized every element of the federal government, of the census which the Supreme Court kind of allowed him to (inaudible). The postal service or the Justice Department. But you see the counter reaction. I mean, Don, the other thing that happened today that was pretty incredible, 128,000 people as you probably know showed up to vote in Harris County in Houston Texas more people than vote in-person in the entire state of Georgia yesterday. Another 40,000 turned in mail ballots. It's over 170,000 votes in a County where 1.3 million people voted in the 2016. It's also a county that went from 1,000 vote margin for Obama in 12, to a 201,000-vote margin for Beto O'Rourke in 2020. And it is really emblematic of what's happening. Donald Trump is exiling the Republican Party from the fast-growing urban center and metros that are going to driving the population and economic growth. And I think, you know, in 2016 he lost 87 of a hundred largest counties by a combined 15 million votes. The evidence is it's going to be even bigger. I mean, it's going to be substantially bigger in those 100 counties. Maricopa was the largest county in the country that he won in Phoenix and he's been trailing consistently in the polling there as is Martha McSally. If he's going to win he's going to have to find a way to just ramp up rural turnout to a really, really historic and heroic levels, because he simply is driving the party out of these big populations. By the way, it's happening in the House as well. Republicans are down to one- quarter of all the seats with more college graduates average in a house and it could be as low as one-fifth after this election.</s>LEMON: All right. Thank you all, that's all we have time for. I appreciate it. I'll see you soon. Be safe on the campaign trail, Jeff. Thank you very much. So, Democrats grilling Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett over issues from health care to abortion. President Trump's pick refusing to say how she'll rule on those hot button issues. But perhaps the biggest headline in all of this is this answer about how she sees the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade. I want you to listen to this exchanges with Senator Amy Klobuchar.</s>SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Will you also separately acknowledged that in planned parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court's controlling opinion talked about the reliance interest on Roe v. Wade, which it treated in that case a super precedent. Is Roe a super precedent?</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: How would you define super precedent?</s>KLOBUCHAR: I actually thought someday I'd be sitting in that chair, but I'm not. I'm up here so, I'm asking you.</s>BARRETT: OK. Well, people use super precedent differently.</s>KLOBUCHAR: OK.</s>BARRETT: The way its use in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you're reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall into that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that it doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it's not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn't call for its overruling.</s>LEMON: Let's discuss now. CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Laura Coates joins us. Hi, Laura, good to see you. Barrett repeatedly declining to answer Democrats on how she might rule on Roe v. Wade but saying it's not a super precedent. That's telling.</s>LAURA COATES, CNN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ANALYST: It was. And of course I was tickled a little bit by the idea of this semantics based hedging at first, as if not to understand what the substance of Senator Klobuchar's question was, which was do you intend or do you think that Roe v. Wade is a vulnerable precedent? Which was really the question she was asking. And she tried to go around in terms of super precedent which she really ultimately ended up saying was that, just by virtue of the way in which people are questioning it with me, the way in which there has been a you full well know and all on assault on Roe v. Wade and an attempt to overturn it to presidential value that she believes it is in fact is vulnerable. And part of the reason for that is because she is one of the people -- and I don't know of any other Supreme Court nominee who had signed on to articles and different statements suggesting that it needed to be overturned in some capacity or at the very least revisited, and she's done just that.</s>LEMON: Today the Supreme Court is granting a request from the Trump administration to halt the census count while an appeal play out. A lower courts order would have required it continue until the end of this month. And this happened on a 5-3 court, which looks like it's going to be 6-3 soon.</s>COATES: You know, what's so unfortunate about this Don, is that the census is so important. It is something that the founding fathers in fact contemplated. It was one of the reasons they are able to figure out about apportionment and about representation in how many members of the House, about what types of services are going to be given to people from the elderly to the increasingly vulnerable. It's a way for people to really participate in democracy and get the funding they actually need. It's also one of the things that's used by the voting rights section of the civil rights division among other entities to figure out whether or not there has been some form of gerrymandering, a way to try to undermine your ability to really be a participant in democracy. And so they have it end early. This is after of course, an attempt to try to add a citizenship question with an eye, I believe, towards trying to root out undocumented persons in this country and trying to intimidate people from participating. You see what's happened I guess a mere 20, 21 days before an election. It's a vital part of our democracy, and any attempts to stop it early -- what could be the possible benefit? Why would you stop a count? I guess what they say is, you know, democracy is not just about the voting, it's about the counting, Don.</s>LEMON: Yes. And it could change, you know, the number of representatives and so on. It has a big -- it has a ripple effect.</s>COATES: Yes.</s>LEMON: Thank you so much, Laura. I appreciate you joining me. Good to see you.</s>COATES: Of course.</s>LEMON: Thank you.</s>COATES: Thank you.</s>LEMON: Long lines and record turnouts as polls open for early voting in some states. Plus, Dr. Anthony Fauci warning of a resurgence of coronavirus throughout the country. 33 states reporting an increase in cases and some hospitals are overflowing with patients again. We will bring you the latest.

Fake Social Media Accounts Posing As Black Trump Supporters Reaching Thousands Online

LEMON: So fake Twitter accounts made to look like they belong to black Americans who support President Trump are popping up amid the final days of the 2020 race. One fake account showing the image of a black police officer tweeted pro-Trump messaging. According to The Washington Post, the account was only up for a week but received tens of thousands of likes and followers before being suspended by Twitter. And while Trump has not polled well with black voters, it is clear he will likely need more support from them than he has now in order to keep the Oval Office. The president's effort to win over voters of color was on full display on Saturday during his White House event, which was supposedly aimed in part at black and Latino Americans. President Trump is repeating some of his favorite claims about his record.</s>TRUMP: We achieved the lowest black and Hispanic unemployment rate in the history of our country.</s>TRUMP: The black youth unemployment rate reached the lowest ever again in the history of our country. I say the fact is that I've done more for the black community than any presidents since Abraham Lincoln. I say it. Nobody can disagree. Nobody can disagree and it's true.</s>LEMON: It's true. Attendees at the event included members of a small group called Blexit, which encourages black Americans to leave the Democratic Party. But why are so many of these fake Tweeter accounts made to look like they belong to black men? There isn't a conclusive answer, but consider this. A recent PEW poll shows that Joe Biden is far ahead with black voters. But when it comes to Trump's poll numbers, there is an interesting catch. He is actually polling better with black men and black women. There is a lot to discuss with CNN's Donie O'Sullivan. Donie, thank you, appreciate you joining us. Let us talk about this, these fake accounts, OK? Black Trump supporters. How are they made and where did they come from?</s>DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN REPORTER: Hey, Don. These accounts are really going very viral on Twitter, getting thousands and thousands of shares. I want to show you an example of another one of these accounts that are posing falsely as black Americans. Take a look at this one. It goes by the name of Gary Ray. You see there on the profile a flattering picture of Trump and some tweets pointing out -- saying that he is going to vote for Trump, pointing out specifically that he is black and that he is voting for Trump. But Gary Ray doesn't exist. Twitter actually shut down that account. And the man you see in the profile picture there is a man not named Gary Ray. His real name is Robert Williams. He lives in Michigan. He didn't know about this Twitter account until earlier tonight when I tracked him down and I called him. And of course, he was shocked that his identity was being used in this way. And of course, Don, he told me on top of all of this that he is not a Trump supporter and he will not be voting for the president.</s>LEMON: Did you record the phone call?</s>O'SULLIVAN: I didn't, but I'm sure --</s>LEMON: OK.</s>O'SULLIVAN: -- he'd be happy to come on and speak with you any time, Don.</s>LEMON: OK. All right. Got it. All right. So --</s>LEMON: I thought you were going to play it. Sorry about that, Donie. So, listen. We learned in the Mueller report about how Russia specifically targeted black voters with this information during the 2016 race. But is it clear who is behind these accounts now? Do you know if it's Russians? Do you know if it's QAnon or members of the Trump -- the Trump folks? Who is it?</s>O'SULLIVAN: Yeah. I mean, that's the really frustrating thing here, especially just a few weeks out from the election. Right now, we do not know who is behind these accounts and if they're all even linked together in some way. Twitter might have that information on sort of the back end. It can see who is behind a lot of these accounts, but it is not sharing that information right now. We have seen in the past foreign nation states posing as Americans, particularly as African-Americans on social media to try to sew division and confusion.</s>O'SULLIVAN: And as you mentioned in the case of Russia in 2016, try to dissuade black voters from supporting Democrats. But we've also seen con artists and scammers also posing as Black Lives Matter, activists to try and sort of set up fake donation sites. Now, experts at the cybersecurity company Far-Right (ph), which has been tracking some of these accounts, tell me that some of the accounts were posting links to merchandise sites, a sign that they might have had financial motives. And also, researchers at Clemson University have been looking into this, saying that these accounts have become increasingly active in the past few months. But, I mean, Don, whatever the motivations of the people who are behind these accounts, they are giving the impression on social media that there is a groundswell of African-American and black support for President Trump.</s>LEMON: And it's not really real. As I understand, Donie, there are others you're trying to contact. When you get them, keep in touch, let us know. Thank you, Donie. I appreciate it.</s>O'SULLIVAN: Thanks, Don.</s>LEMON: The FBI is saying that Michigan's governor wasn't the only target of an alleged domestic terrorist plot. Another governor was considered. Plus, hours long lines at polls in Texas and Georgia today as early voting begins.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): How long have you been waiting in line?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: About two hours now.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): What do you think about that?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It sucks. But, you know, I'd rather be out here doing my civic duty than not.

Day Two of Confirmation Hearings for Amy Coney Barrett; Personal Faith Not to Interfere with Court Rules Says Judge Barrett; Interview With Jessica Anderson, Executive, Heritage Action for America; Drugs Derived from Stem Cells; Interview With Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor, Slate; Interview With Former U.S. Poet Laureate Natasha Trethewey; Interview With Author Dave Eggers.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.</s>JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Judges can't wake up one day and say, I have an agenda, I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion, and walk in like a royal queen and impose, you know, their will on the world.</s>AMANPOUR: What impact will Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, have on health care, civil rights and abortion rights? I ask pro-life activists who support her nomination, and I ask a legal expert, Dahlia Lithwick, about originalism, textualism and what all this means for democracy itself. Then, novelist, Dave Eggers, on how they think his Trumpian satire has held up since it was first published a year ago. Plus --</s>NATASHA TRETHEWEY, AUTHOR, "MEMORIAL DRIVE: A DAUGHTER'S MEMOIR: She wasn't going to let him batter my soul in the same way that he was battering hers.</s>AMANPOUR: Domestic abuse rises to shocking level under the cover of COVID. Our Michel Martin speaks to Pulitzer prize-winning author, Natasha Trethewey, about her new memoir "Memorial Drive." Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. It is day two of confirmation hearings in the United States for Amy Coney Barrett. She's president Trump's third Supreme Court appointment, and the stake could not be higher with health care amid this pandemic top of mind on both sides of the Atlantic. In yet another case of politics versus science, here in Britain a bombshell revelation that the government of Boris Johnson rejected advice from its own scientific advisers in September to implement a short lockdown as cases dangerously rose, and they continue to rise across the United States as senators question Judge Barrett's interpretation of the law amid concerns about her faith and previously stated opinions. Familiar battle lines are drawn between Republicans and Democrats, from the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare to abortion and civil rights. Judge Barrett claims personal faith should not interfere with court rulings. But what do pro-life activists make of her nomination? My first guest tonight is one of them. Jessica Anderson is executive director of Heritage Action for America, lobbying for conservative policies on Capitol Hill, and she's joining us now from Washington. Jessica Anderson, welcome to the program. So, you've been watching clearly very closely the Senate questioning of Judge Barrett. What exactly, if you can sum it up, is your case for her to be the next Supreme Court justice?</s>JESSICA ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE, HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA: Thank you for having me. Judge Barrett is an exceptional judge. She has incredible jurisprudence, an originalist perspective in all of her legal writings, and we're excited to see her move through the Senate Judiciary process this week and ultimately to the Senate floor. We think she's a great nominee. She's a great legal scholar, and she will bring a certain sense of decorum to the Supreme Court in filling that ninth seat, hopefully sooner rather than later.</s>AMANPOUR: You've seen some really interesting presentations from various senators. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic senator from Rhode Island, just a few minutes ago, brought up some pretty interesting evidence, reports and things that he had taken down from the Republican platform, including this from one of the other pro-life groups in Washington which is the Susan B. Anthony Foundation. Let's just play what he's raised in the Senate and then we'll talk to you about it.</s>SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): The Susan B. Anthony Foundation is running advertisements right now saying that you are set, you are set to give our pro-life country the court that it deserves. There is the ad with the voiceover. She said --</s>AMANPOUR: So, Jessica Anderson, clearly that's what your group wants as well. Give me an idea. Do you expect that to be one of her signature, you know, achievements on the court?</s>ANDERSON: Well, I think there is something to clear up here. Of course, I have a personal opinion on Roe v. Wade as does Judge Barrett. She has acknowledged as such, but I really do think it's a bit unfair to stake out the potential position of a judge before a case is in front of them. So, some of the Democrat comments today and yesterday around how she may or may not rule on the ACA or Obamacare or Roe v. Wade or Heller and the gun cases, they all really are premature. And just like previous judicial nominations that have come before the committee and full Senate, we don't yet know how they will rule if a case in fact gets in front of them at the Supreme Court. So, my organization, we view the role of the judiciary differently. We view it as a way to protect the constitution, to protect the rule of law. I think many Democrats view it as a super legislator in some places where they can enact policies that they may or may not be able to push through Congress or the White House at another given time.</s>AMANPOUR: I agree with you. We don't yet know how a Supreme Court justice would cast an important vote. However, when you say it's premature to judge, let me just read you this, you must know this, obviously, that she signed her name, Judge Barrett, to a newspaper ad in 2006, you know, that's a long time ago, that denounced, the "barbaric legacy" of Roe v. Wade and called for it to be overturned. She was a member of Faculty for Fife at -- as a law professor at Notre Dame University where she got her law degree. And today, under question from Senator Dianne Feinstein of California she also asked particularly about the Affordable Care Act and about Roe v. Wade. Here's the exchange.</s>SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?</s>JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I love it or hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.</s>FEINSTEIN: Let me try again. Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?</s>BARRETT: Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question, but, again, I can't pre-commit or say, yes, I'm going in with some agenda because I'm not. I don't have any agenda. I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.</s>AMANPOUR: So, she referred to Casey, just for our viewers, it's a 1992 ruling that upheld Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed it. I mean, that's a non- answer answer. Again, what -- you know, your groups have spent a lot of time, a lot of energy, a lot of money and a lot of strategic planning for decades to try to overturn Roe v. Wade. Are you really saying now that that's actually not your agenda? What is your agenda then on Roe v. Wade?</s>ANDERSON: Well, we've spent a lot of time and money and effort to have an originalist put on the bench. I mean, that really becomes the heart of this issue, whether or not she is an originalist and whether or not we can count on her to do that. I will just say her comments today, I think that was a good clip to play but also her remarks yesterday which is that she is articulating there is a difference between her personal view on a subject, which is why she signed that letter that has been referenced and then how she might rule as a judge. A number of senators went through every single policy position that, you know, is under the sun right now to ask, can you separate your personal opinion from a potential Supreme Court case in front of you? And I think her words and her commitment to the American people that she would do so is important and it's one that we should take her word for and use this process through the judiciary to finetune that and to better understand her juris prudence as opposed to any personal policy positions.</s>AMANPOUR: OK. So, that might, in fact, end up happening, but you know better than I do that the 2016, which is the 2020 GOP platform and what we've heard from President Trump himself and many of his supporters and those of you in the antiabortion movement, pro-life movement, have said that that's what you want to see, an overturning of Roe v. Wade, the gay marriage act and also parts of Obamacare. So, let me just put it to you again. As you know, some 6 in 10 American people say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade, but the numbers that are truly fascinating to me are the numbers in the latest "Washington Post" poll which suggest that even amongst the evangelicals there is a majority that agree. Listen to this, white evangelical protestants overall, not just those who lean Republicans are split with 44 percent saying Roe should be overturned and 41 percent saying it should be upheld. So, that's very close. A 60 percent majority of Catholics and 62 percent of white Catholics say Roe should be upheld. Who are you doing this for then? What is the Democratic imperative of this kind of agenda if it's not for the American people? I'm not sure where you and your groups are headed in the American people are clear about wanting, by a majority, Roe v. Wade to be upheld. And we've seen what they want about Obamacare and we've seen the Supreme Court rulings on that so far.</s>ANDERSON: Well, look, I'm personally pro-life, the organization that I work for, Heritage Action, we advocate pro-life positions here in Washington, but when it comes to judges and the judicial process, we are very clear, we want to see an originalist the bench and we want to see that filled with this ninth seat. So, to me, any time you rely the judiciary to advance a policy position, that's out of stuff with not only what the American people want is, you've just described, but also our American founding. And so, we have no desire to see the judiciary turned into a super legislator. I think Congress has their hands full enacting policies. Obviously, the Trump administration has done a lot on the pro-life cause including defunding much of planned parenthood and providing the protect life rule. I mean, this is the type of work that we can get excited about because it puts arguments around the abortion fight and not life fight back into the hands of legislatures and out of the courts. So, we actually fall specifically in supporting an originalist, not really as why I'm excited about Judge Barrett moving through the process this week.</s>AMANPOUR: I wonder whether you are convinced though that legislature by a huge majority in the United States would heavily restrict Roe, because that's, hey -- you know, they were moving certainly at the time in a much more reformed way and the Democratic will of the people is clear with all these numbers that I have read to you. But I also wonder what you think about your organization. As I mentioned, Susan B. Anthony, other organizations, which are like minded, what you think then about President Trump? Because, for instance, in an interview with "The New York Times," Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony has said, she didn't support Trump initially. But he's been the most pro-life president in history. He's appointed more than 200 judges. And now, he's had three Supreme Court justices. Is that the legacy that you are looking for? Let's say he doesn't win in November. Let's say, there's a, you know, Democratic Congress elect. Let's just say, is the Supreme Court then delaying for and are some of President Trump's, you know, questions about his moral compass, about his behavior over the last three years a worthwhile trade-off?</s>ANDERSON: Well, look, I am going to judge President Trump's administration and his legacy based on the policies that he puts in place for the American people. And I think that runs the life issues that we're talking about now. And so, you know, when I look at President Trump's nominees, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and now, Barrett, I'm looking specifically through the lens of are they an originalist, will they uphold constitution and the rule of law when it's applied to the cases that are before them today? If President Trump's nominees prove true to that, then I think that is a lasting legacy. It's one that restores the rule of law in many ways the Supreme Court and takes this out of this partisan politics that are taking place and frankly, that hurt the country when it becomes so embroiled in the partisanship that we're not able to see past each other as just Americans. So, I'm looking forward to Judge Barrett on the court because I actually think she will turn the temperature down in this country and allow a shift that's going to hopefully be generational. I mean, she's very young. She has the potential to be on here for three, you know, maybe four decades, maybe not that long but long enough for there to be truly be a generational shift where we can get some of this partisanship around policymaking out of the courts back to the legislator, whether that's here in Congress, in Washington or at the state level and not rely on judges to advance policy positions on either side of the aisle.</s>AMANPOUR: We're going to talk about originalism with our next guest. But I want to ask you, finally, again, people in America have said exactly what they mean, and they've been saying it since 1972 when Roe v. Wade was adjudicated. The majority of American people, by a fairly healthy majority, want to keep it and do not want to see it overturned. Now, I want to ask you about this because it's got a related aspect. President Trump, as you know, apparently feeling much better after his bout with COVID, after being hospitalized, but trumpeted over and over again what he said was the main -- at least he felt, the main drug that made him feel so much better. Regeneron, which is a monoclonal antibody serum. Now, as you know, it was derived and developed using human cells derived from a fetus that was aborted decades ago. President Trump called this a cure. What do you make of that?</s>ANDERSON: Well, I think going back to your first point, there's an argument that can be made if the -- as the American people have weighed in through polling and obviously through letters to the editor and campaigns at the local level, then let's just -- let's allow any sort of policy legislation that needs to go forward on abortion to be handled at the state level. And I think the great makeup that we have in this country around federalism will allow that to happen, and you see states having everything from, you know, the 24-hour notifying period to parental rights, all of that playing out at state level, which is an important, I think, element in this conversation. As to the president's well-being and as he clearly has turned the corner, thankfully, from his bout with COVID over the last week, you know, I can't speak to any specifics on a drug of how it was made it or the specifics of how it's helped him. But I think at the end of the day, what you're seeing from President Trump is that he listened to his doctors. His doctors advised him to move to the hospital, to leave the Oval Office, he followed that advice. He's thankfully feeling better. And we would hope this thing for any of our elected officials as well as all Americans that might be stricken ill from COVID-19.</s>AMANPOUR: Everybody wishes everybody well, of course, but president Trump has talked over and over again about the issues we're talking about tonight, today. The "New York Times" has quoted a doctor who led the international society to stem cell research saying, if they opposed this research, they should be willing not to take a drug that was developed using that. Do you agree? Is it not somewhat hypocritical?</s>ANDERSON: Well, again, I can't speak to the drugs that the president's doctor --</s>AMANPOUR: Anybody, anybody. You, yourself, would you take it. Would you take Regeneron?</s>ANDERSON: I personally would have to look and see if that was something that my doctor was prescribing, if it was meant to help me feel better. And at the end of the day, I think that decision is between the individual and their doctor and their health care choice and that's what all the conversation around health care reform and health care freedom really comes down to, access to care and making that decision to be as small of a circle of people as possible between the doctor and the individual.</s>AMANPOUR: Right. It goes to the heart of abortion though and to the heart of the pro-life issue and, of course, the argument for Roe v. Wade is precisely what you say, the freedom for individuals to make decisions over their own bodies. So, finally, do women have the right to make their own decisions in the most intimate and sometimes, often painful situations?</s>ANDERSON: Women have the right to make decisions over their health care, but they don't have the right to take away the decision of a human being that's in their womb's health care. That's really what this comes down to. Do you believe that life begins at conception and that that is a child in utero developing? And I think at the end of the day, the more the extremism of abortion comes to light with late-term abortions and even abortions after the woman has survived an abortion, then what do you do with the baby, whether you call it infanticide or you keep them comfortable, that's the kind of stuff that I look at, and I believe that along with the majority of Americans that that's too far and it represents a shift in our culture as we look at this important issue and ultimately, as it plays out at the state level, as it plays out with state regulations and state legislatures and hopefully, it doesn't distract us too much from Judge Barrett's confirmation process as she moves through the Supreme Court this week.</s>AMANPOUR: Jessica Anderson, thanks for joining us. Now, listening to all of this is Dahlia Lithwick. She is Slate's legal correspondent. And in her latest juris prudence column, she warns that these confirmation hearings represent "the erosion of representative democracy in the United States." That is pretty dramatic. And Dahlia Lithwick is joining us from Ontario, Canada. Welcome to the program. I wonder if you could just weigh in there. Is there, you know, a mix of morality going on when it comes to using drugs that are derived from stem cells that pro-life, you know, candidates disapprove of? And the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett which is all about the pro-life agenda.</s>DAHLIA LITHWICK, SENIOR EDITOR, SLATE: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. It's great to be here. And I think you're exactly right. I think you can't say, you know, what is sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander if you are opposed to all of the stem cell research. If you say, fundamentally, this is immoral, then you can't turn around and reap the benefits of using it as medicine when you're in a crunch. I will say, I just think we get very, very, very knocked off course, Christiane, when we start talking about infanticide and late term abortions. I mean, I think we have to be really, really focused on what the terms of this conversations are. Infanticide is not part of this conversation.</s>AMANPOUR: Well, indeed, the majority of Americans, as I've said, approve of upholding Roe but with some restrictions. So, I think that's also interesting as well. But I want to ask you because Jessica Anderson spoke over and over again about this concept of originalism. Can you tell us what she means precisely in relation to this nominee and at questions that she's being asked?</s>LITHWICK: Yes. Originalism is a method of constitutional interpretation. It's a toolbox. It was probably most famously embodied by Justice Antonin Scalia. That's Amy Coney Barrett's mentor. She clerked for him. And I think there's different flavors of it, but the flavor that Judge Barrett says she subscribes to is this notion that when you look at either a constitutional provision or statutory provision, you go back and you try to figure out what was the original public meaning that the drafter had in mind. In other words, you don't triangulate forward into the future. You don't necessarily look at present circumstances. You are very much bound by the actual language of the statute or the provision, whatever the drafters thought it meant is what it means, and that means sometimes looking in dictionaries, contemporaneous dictionaries, but it's a way of saying, I'm constrained by the language of the law.</s>AMANPOUR: So, everybody who has read history knows the framers themselves were bitterly divided, you know, and had lots of disputes over the actual, you know, meaning of the document. I guess it's just an obvious question, and it's hard to understand how one would expect a 21st century judge or a 21st century Supreme Court being bound by a text that was, as brilliant as it was, hundreds of years ago. How is that possible? I mean, does that happen elsewhere?</s>LITHWICK: Well, it's not clear that it's possible. I think the effort is to try as best as you can to replicate it. But you're quite right, Senator Dick Durbin today was pressing Judge Barrett on how you think about the Second Amendment, an original public meaning, when folks had muskets, not weapons of war. So, there's one problem which is, how do you understand, you know, stem cell research? How do you understand marriage equality? How do you understand so many complexities of campaign finance through the lens of the constitution? There's a second problem, I think is more pressing, and that is there are a lot of provisions of the constitution like due process, equal protection of the law that had no meaning. They were deliberately left broad in order to pour future meaning into it. And so, I think that while it's nice to say as sort of a rhetorical trick that the framers had the answers to everything, the framers were smart enough to say on some questions what is cruel and unusual punishment, we're going to leave that open so that each generation can interpret it as that generation sees fit. So, there's a lot of limitations on how far originalism strictly construed can get you.</s>AMANPOUR: Do you think -- I mean, I read out to Jessica Anderson something that Judge Barrett had written when she was at Notre Dame about Roe v. Wade, and you saw that she didn't fully answer Senator Feinstein on the issue. Do you believe that that is her intention or might she be a surprise? Do you think she might not vote to overturn Roe? What is your prognostication for what will happen to this particular law under the new Supreme Court if she's appointed?</s>LITHWICK: A couple of answer. One, I noticed that Jessica Anderson confirmed to answering in terms of Judge Barrett's speeches and writings and the ads she signed, but we actually have evidence from Judge Barrett's time on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, she actually weighed in on abortion cases. So, we know how she thinks of this not just as a citizen but as a judge. And in two cases that I could come up with, she went much further than any normal judge looking at president would go. In other words, she was willing to push beyond Roe, and I think that's emblematic. I also think we just have to take very seriously, and you brough this up, that Donald Trump has pledged to put someone on the court who will automatically overturn Roe. Josh Hawley has said he will not vote to confirm anyone who will not vote to overturn Roe. And so, in some sense, whether or not she wants to be bound by the promises that other people, including groups that say, we will only support her if she strikes down Roe, she is bound by the fact that everyone else says they are pledging her to this. And so, I think it puts Judge Barrett in a box, but I'm not sure it's a box she gets out of by simply saying, I'm a brain in a vat, I start from scratch, I have no prior opinions.</s>AMANPOUR: Interesting. In 2016, at Jacksonville University, she said she didn't think abortion or the right to abortion would change but that "some of the restrictions would change," and that the question is how much freedom the court is willing to let states have in regulating abortion. How do you see -- you heard also Jessica Anderson talking about it going to the states. Where are the states right now? I mean, I know you can't say -- they are not all the same. But in general, what would you predict?</s>LITHWICK: It depends on the state. We have states like Virginia and California that are making it ever easier through telemedicine and medication abortions for women to terminate pregnancies. We also have a whole host of red states that have tried very hard and largely succeeded in regulating all but one clinic out of existence. And so, we have one states like Louisiana that are down to almost no clinics to serve of entire populations. So, I think when you say, oh, this will just get kicked back to the states, what you're doing is consigning women in states like Texas or Louisiana or Ohio or Georgia to having no clinics, and what that means, of course, is that that will fall the hardest on poor women and women of color who can't necessarily make their way to California. But I think the other thing that you say that is really important is that you don't have to write the words Roe v. Wade as overturned in order to end Roe. Just by regulating, regulating and further regulating clinics until they go out of business. That's been kind of the playbook in a lot of red states. That will be the playbook that the Supreme Court without ever saying Roe is formally overturned, just to create so many burdens on women seeking abortions and saying every one of those burdens is constitutional, that's probably the way the court will go.</s>AMANPOUR: So, to state the obvious, we're in the middle of an election, this is a pretty controversial time to be, as the others have said, the critics ramming through such an important confirmation. And Democrats are trying to see and trying to get her to say that she will re recuse herself from cases which could influence the election, California versus Texas or any contest where voting rights could arise. This is what she said about it today.</s>BARRETT: I want to begin by making two very important points, and they have to do with the ACA and with any election dispute that may or may not arise. I have had no conversation with the president or any of his staff on how I might rule in that case. It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case and how I would rule.</s>AMANPOUR: How do you interpret what she said, and should she recuse herself given what the president has said about these issues?</s>LITHWICK: This is a bit the point I was making before about how the president puts her in a box because the president has said, I need her on the court to strike down the ACA, I need her on the court to eviscerate Roe, I need her on the court, he said, to count ballots for me in a close election. It doesn't matter whether she pledge to the president or someone in the White House that she would do those things, the judicial recusal rules are really clear, judged recuse if there's an appearance of bias or impropriety. And so, what she's trying to do is disaggregate to say, well, I didn't make any promises. The fact that the president says she's made promises, that Josh Hawley has said she's made promises, the fact that Republican want her because they believe that she's going to put her thumb on the scale puts her in the box of it looks improper, that's the benchmark for judges, not whether they actually do something bias whether it looks bias, and that's a real problem that Donald Trump set up for her when he made all those promises in advance.</s>AMANPOUR: And in one word, in her three years on the Appeals Court, has she been apolitical?</s>LITHWICK: I think she's been very much a card-carrying originalist</s>AMANPOUR: OK. Dahlia Lithwick, thank you so much for joining us. And this all adds to the turbulence of the current presidency amid a tight election campaign. Writers, commentators, satirists, journalist alike have grappled over the years with how best to cover this most unusual White House. Dave Eggers is of course known for his parablelike novels on issues such from globalization to technology and political polirization. In his novella "The Captain and the Glory," he follows the election of a large and lumpy man with a yellow feather in his hair, whose passion for disruption has unintended consequences. Sound familiar? Well, Dave Eggers joins us from San Francisco. Welcome back to the program. Just having read and reread this book, it just seems that you kind of got it right. You have figured out how to make a parable. And I just wonder what you were trying to do when you wrote it. Of course, it came out a year ago.</s>DAVE EGGERS, AUTHOR, "THE CAPTAIN AND THE GLORY": Yes.</s>AMANPOUR: Tell me, what was the sort of impetus for when you wrote it?</s>EGGERS: It was pure self-therapy and telling myself a story that makes sense of this time. And I had been going to Trump rallies for -- since he was a candidate and then watched with astonishment and horror when he got elected. And I guess the -- I wanted to write a story that had an ending to this time. And parable or allegory gives you the chance to make sense of a complicated or chaotic time and sort of attach a linear narrative to it. And so, for me, it was very cathartic and therapeutic, especially when I got to finish the story and imagine a time when we were free of this, we'd gone through this dark corridor and come out the other side.</s>AMANPOUR: Well, look, just to quote, your captain has a yellow feather in his hair. The captain is inspired by pirates, the Pale One. Maybe that was Putin Bloodbeard, maybe that was MBS. I mean, you have certainly written about that. What you were digging in, it seems, also was a sort of a sense of inadequacy and insignificance. The captain sort of tosses books and experts overboard, so that he doesn't feel inferior. What were you saying?</s>EGGERS: Well, I think Trump is surely the most fearful and insecure president we have had in the modern era. I think he is the most needy and the most desperate for approval and attention. And, for whatever reason, that approval he seeks most of all is from other autocrats. And so "The Captain and the Glory" takes place where he captains a ship, even though he has no qualifications and has never steered a dinghy before, but he's elected to lead the ship and steer it through rough waters. And the people that he looks up to are the bloodthirsty pirates, who see him as a joke and a lapdog. And so, yes, I -- some of the corollaries are a little obvious there, like the Pale One and Blood</s>AMANPOUR: Oh, I think we have lost Dave Eggers in full flow. We apologize for that. Read "The Captain and the Glory." It is quite an amazing satire. Now, October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. And, as we have reported, this cruelty has surged around the world, along with the pandemic, due to mandatory lockdowns, with abuser and victim trapped inside together. Our next guest knows firsthand the devastating impact of violence in the home. Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Natasha Trethewey was 19 when her stepfather murdered her mother. This excruciating pain is the subject of her new book, "Memorial Drive: A Daughter's Memoir." She also writes about growing up in the '60s in the Deep South as a mixed-race child. And here she is in a raw and often emotional conversation with our Michel Martin.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Christiane. Natasha Trethewey, thank you so much for joining us.</s>NATASHA TRETHEWEY, FORMER U.S. POET LAUREATE: Thank you for having me.</s>MARTIN: I think many people are familiar with your work. You have won multiple awards. You're a respected, highly sought-after college professor, teacher, former poet laureate of the United States, a high honor. I feel comfortable in saying that I'm sure millions of people know your work. And I remember reading a brief biography of you. It said, her father, Eric Trethewey, was a poet. Her mother died when she was in college. Her mother died when she was in college. So, just to get to the core terrible details, your stepfather, your mother's ex-husband, who had physically abused her, and, frankly, if I may say, emotionally abused you, killed her when you were only 19 years old and when she was 40. She had finally gotten free of him. And, frankly, he seems to have been threatening her for years, from what I can see. Why this book now? Did this book sort of force its way out of you? Why this book and why now?</s>TRETHEWEY: I think it did. I have been carrying this grief with me now for 35 years. And more and more, my mother was being erased. This erasure was ongoing. It was particularly easy for people, as I said, to draw this line straight through my father to me, because my father was a poet. My father was also my white parent. So there was something both racial -- racialized and patriarchal in this assumption that I'm who I am because of my father. And it wounded me deeply that people didn't understand that the thing that hurt me into poetry, that the thing that I had tried to contend with my whole adult life was the loss of my mother. I felt like I needed to tell that story and to place who she was and what she meant to me in its proper perspective.</s>MARTIN: The title of your book, of course, is "Memorial Drive." And it comes at this remarkable moment of reckoning for the country, where this country is reckoning with its racial past, as it does periodically. And one of the remarkable things about your book is the way it intertwines your personal history with that of the history of the South and of the country. So, to that end, I just wanted to ask if you wouldn't mind reading a passage for us from...</s>TRETHEWEY: Oh, of course, I'd be happy to. This is from the first chapter, which is called "Another Country." "In the spring of 1966, when I was born, my mother was a couple of months shy of her 22nd birthday. My father was out of town traveling for work, so she made the short trip from my grandmother's house to Gulfport Memorial Hospital, as planned, without him. "On her way to the segregated ward, she could not help but take in the tenor of the day, witnessing the barrage of rebel flags lining the streets, private citizens, lawmakers, Klansmen, often one and the same, raising them in Gulfport and small towns all across Mississippi. "She could not have missed the paradox of my birth on that particular day, a child of miscegenation, an interracial marriage still illegal in Mississippi, and as many as 20 other states. Sequestered on the colored floor, my mother knew the country was changing, but slowly. She had come of age in the summer of 1965, turning 21 in the wake of Bloody Sunday, the Watts riots, and years of racially motivated murders in Mississippi. "Unlike my father, who'd grown up a white boy in rural Nova Scotia hunting and fishing, free to roam the open woods, my mother had come into being a black girl in the Deep South, hemmed in, bound to a world circumscribed by Jim Crow. "Though my father believed in the idea of living dangerously, the necessity of taking risks, my mother had witnessed the necessity of dissembling, the art of making of one's face an inscrutable mass before whites who expected of blacks a servile deference."</s>MARTIN: It's always tricky asking our artists how she makes her art. But I am wondering how you arrive at this voice, how you arrive at this kind of intertwining of the personal with the social story, the mixing of the races, the expectation of white supremacy, expectation of deference? Was it hard?</s>TRETHEWEY: Well, it took a long time to write this book. It took me seven years to write the book. And I think part of the hardest thing was to figure out the voice. Who am I in telling this story? And what is the story that needs to be told? I mean, because there are obviously the tragic facts of my mother's life and mine, but that's not the story. And I -- when I -- what I realized, and it has everything to do with that intersection of public history, the history of the Civil War and the aftermath and the monuments we have erected to remember, or misremember, the Civil War, and my mother's death at the base of Stone Mountain, that largest monument to the Confederacy. Those things converge, and they actually represent my two existential wounds. In his memorial to William Butler Yeats, W.H. Auden wrote, "Mad Ireland hurt you into poetry." Well, likewise, my nation, my native land, my South, my Mississippi, with its history of violence and racial oppression, inflicted my first wound. Being born there on Confederate Memorial Day was as if I were given that history to write. And then, when my mother's death occurred at the base of that mountain, I could see how what is remembered and what is not was the very threshold through which to enter this book.</s>MARTIN: This book is so beautifully written. And it is so -- if you don't mind my saying, it is so terrible in other ways, just the recitation of the abuse that your -- was visited upon your mother is very hard to read. It's obviously the remembering and the intuiting of the kind of physical harm that he's inflicting on your mother, but it's also terrifying and horrible to read the harm he inflicted on you in trying to silence you. In fact, there's this one passage where you come home and you say, I'm going to be a writer.</s>TRETHEWEY: Right.</s>MARTIN: And he says to you, you're not going to do any of that.</s>TRETHEWEY: Right.</s>MARTIN: I can't think of a more terrible thing to say to a child.</s>TRETHEWEY: Yes. So, I mean, I think that anything that seemed like a dream that I had, he was going to try to find a way to shut that down. And that is a very telling moment in my relationship with my mother as well, because she was obviously enduring physical abuse at his hands, often out of sight, but something I could hear. And, for years, in order to kind of do a kind of dissembling and to keep him from going into a violent rage later on, out of sight, she would only talk to me about my accomplishments or achievements when he wasn't around. It was something that we had to keep secret. But that particular day, I came home so excited, I couldn't wait. And I said that at the dinner table. And when he said, you're not going to do any of that, I could see my mother's hands clench the fork she was holding and her jaw clench. And she said, "She will do whatever she wants." And even in that moment, I knew the price that she was going to pay for defending me. And as much as she was willing to do that, and knowing the cost, she wasn't going to let him batter my soul in the same way that he was battering hers.</s>MARTIN: Mm-hmm. Your stepfather murdered your mother. He murdered her after she had left him, after a long history of abuse. That's right. That's the foundation...</s>TRETHEWEY: She'd been divorced for him -- from him for nearly two years when he murdered her. So, she indeed had done everything right and gotten away. And he continued to stalk her. He even went to prison for attempting -- well, he wasn't convicted of attempted murder, but he did try to kill her once before, on Valentine's Day in 1984. He went to prison for about a year, but only convicted of criminal trespass. And when he got out, he came back and finished what he started.</s>MARTIN: Natasha, it's another hard thing, but it's my understanding that he's actually been released from prison now. Is that true?</s>TRETHEWEY: That's right. He was released in March of last year.</s>MARTIN: May I ask, do you feel safe from him?</s>TRETHEWEY: You know, the day that I found out, I had the strangest sensation of being inside my mother's body. And I was very afraid and I felt very unsafe. I think the only thing that makes me feel safe, or a modicum of safety, is that I don't live in Atlanta anymore. I got out of Atlanta just before he was released, a year or two before. And so that helps. The distance helps. But I think I have never truly felt safe in the world.</s>MARTIN: Kiese Laymon writes in "The New York Times" that: "Trethewey's memoir is not the hardest book I have ever read." He says: "The poetry holding the prose together, the innovativeness of the composition, make such a claim impossible. 'Memorial Drive' is, however, the hardest book I could imagine writing.'" And, truly, you do some very difficult things in this book. I mean, you go through the files, like you're -- the police officer -- incredibly, you encounter the police officer who responded to your mother's murder, and he retrieves the files for you.</s>TRETHEWEY: Right.</s>MARTIN: And you go through them all. I just find myself wondering how you were able to do that, to read the fact that she was keeping notes of what was happening to her, create -- to create some sort of protection for her, for herself, which ultimately did not succeed. But how did you do that, and why did you feel that was so necessary to do?</s>TRETHEWEY: Well, I resisted doing it for a long time. He gave me those files in 2005. And I did not allow myself to sit and go through them until I was in the process of writing this book. I didn't want to have to look at those things. I'd been trying to, I think, forget and avoid as much as I could over these last three decades. And, finally, when I did sit down, it was as if I were reliving those -- those days. They came all back to me. And the grief -- even now, having done that, the grief feels much more immediate, as opposed to sort of the dullness of it that I have lived with my whole adult life. But I think it was important, because it allowed the possibility of my mother's voice to enter this book, along with mine. And I knew that that was important, because I could tell you how resilient and powerful and loving she was, or I could just let you see it for yourself. And I think, when you read those documents that I include in the book, you see it for yourself. The evidence is incontrovertible.</s>MARTIN: I'm reminded that, as we are speaking now, this country, among -- and along with many, many others, many people are still in lockdown mode. I mean, many people are trapped at home. I can't help but think about other people who might be trapped in similar circumstances, as part of this effort to control this health crisis. But part of it makes me worry that another crisis is afoot. And I wonder if you think about that, too, given what you saw, given what you grew up with.</s>TRETHEWEY: I do. And it's a terrifying moment to think about how many people might be in a situation of domestic violence. One of the things I think about all the time is that, in the language of organizations committed to ending domestic violence, my mother was referred to as a perfect victim. And that's because, not only did she do everything right, did she seek out the right resources to get out of this marriage, but she was also an educated professional woman who was not dependent upon her abuser for shelter, for the care of her children, for support, for financial support. And so, if you have someone like my mother like that who can't even get away, what can you say to women who are in that situation, but are dependent on their abusers for support? It's almost impossible to get away. And if you add to that the chances of you dying go up, not when you stay, but when you leave, it makes it almost impossible. And we are in a moment where all of that is the case now, and it's even harder to leave, because where will people go during this time of lockdown?</s>MARTIN: This country is very fractured and traumatized right now, I feel comfortable in saying. Is there something we can learn from your story, do you think, as a country?</s>TRETHEWEY: Oh, well, I would hope a lot of things, actually. One of the things that I deal with constantly is the idea of memory and forgetting. On a personal level, one might argue that, for a long time, I enacted a kind of forgetting, thinking that that was helping me some kind of way. And yet, even as I was consciously trying to forget, I think our bodies recall trauma. So, it was still there with me waiting to somehow attack me at a different point. I think that's a metaphor for our kind of cultural amnesia in this country, that wounds that we haven't healed, that we have simply allowed to fester are waiting to make us sick, to make us even more damaged, because we haven't contended with the truth of our shared history. I think that that's what this moment of reckoning is about. So, I always -- Yeats wrote, we make of the quarrel with others rhetoric, but of the quarrel with ourselves poetry. I always begin with the argument the quarrel I have with myself in order to talk about the larger quarrel that I have with my nation over and -- our historical amnesia about race, about the aftermath of the Civil War, about the causes of the Civil War, about the reason that we erected monuments to the Confederacy. All of those things, if we don't deal with the truth of them, they're going to continue to erode us as a nation.</s>MARTIN: Natasha Trethewey, thank you so much for speaking with us today.</s>TRETHEWEY: Thank you, Michel.</s>AMANPOUR: It's really sad. And, of course, it's such an important reminder that we also need to address our national wounds. So, we have got Dave Eggers back with us now. And I want to ask him kind of a postscript, really, to the book and to the conversation we were having, perhaps what Michel just asked Natasha. Is this something from your story, completely different story, obviously, a satire of a captain who's taken charge of a ship, an incompetent, who throws all the manuals and all the norms out the window, is this something from that, that we can learn about our country, our world? Do you think about that now, a year after that book was published?</s>EGGERS: I think we have to take ourselves seriously again as a country. And I think it starts at the educational level. I think that there's a maxim in this country that says anybody that can -- anybody can grow up and become president. But I don't think we understand exactly what that means. It doesn't mean that anybody that has built golf courses and assigns his name to steaks can then govern a nation of 330 million. I think we have got to get back to respecting expertise, competence, and a respect for the work of governing. And until we do that, we're going to keep spiraling into a laughingstock.</s>AMANPOUR: So, it's really interesting, because the end, as you said, is vaguely optimistic. The captain escaped, and the workers on board the ship pull together to try to restore the Glory, as it's called, to its former working self. So, I just want to read this to you. It's an excerpt. "This additional part of life on the Glory, though horrifying and against every belief system and moral code ever devised by humans, was new, and anything new was something different, and different was inherently good." Again, does that remind you of anything? You talk about the captain. You talk about his supporters as his enthusiastic enablers, and you talk about his opposition as basically the kindly mutineers, but incompetence. Things -- how do you see that, the dynamic, playing out in the United States right now ahead of this election?</s>EGGERS: I think that his supporters -- and I noticed this going to Trump rallies while he was a candidate -- were really</s>AMANPOUR: OK. Dave Eggers, author of "The Captain and the Glory," thank you very much. And, of course, education, education, education, every parent tells you that. And, finally, the pandemic has also forced many of us to put our dreams on hold, but it hasn't stopped this tourist stranded in Peru for nearly seven months because of coronavirus restrictions. Jesse Katayama from Japan finally got his wish to visit Machu Picchu. And he was the only visitor there. That is probably the first and last time that'll happen. He scaled this challenging height with the blessing of Peru's culture minister, capturing these spectacular views at the peak of what is an ancient Inca citadel designated a World Heritage Site. It's expected to open to the public again next month. Talking of Machu Picchu and other amazing destinations, join us later this week for a conversation with Michael Palin, who, of course, morphed from his cult comedy status with Monty Python to indispensable global travel guide in his series "Around the World in 80 Days." That is it for now. You can always catch us online, on our podcast and across social media. Thanks for watching. And now we return to CNN's continuing coverage of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett. Goodbye from London. END

SCOTUS Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Faces Grilling From Democrats

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.</s>CUOMO: We're looking at the Supreme Court as if it's one seat either way. I don't think we're looking at it the right way. Here's a different perspective. Today's Supreme Court decision to let the Trump Administration stop counting the census early, now that's the kind of decision that proves that what we're watching here with Amy Coney Barrett, it's not about her. It's not about one seat. And look, she's doing what every nominee does, OK? They dodge everything. They get asked about abortion, they get asked about healthcare, the election, and they say, "Well I can't do hypothetical facts on to the law. I'd have to know the law and the facts. I can't do the case and hypothetical." They all say that, all right? And then they oddly seem to follow, almost without exception, the Party's positions that placed them. So, this is about not seats, survival. Republicans already established a generation of jurisprudence on the Supreme Court, right? They have the majority. It's going to be there for a long time. This confirmation is about ensuring the Party's future. The numbers show the strategy. This is real court-packing, OK? McConnell blocked Obama's appointments on SCOTUS, but also federal courts below whenever and wherever he could. Now, he's packing courts all over the country with White conservative men, even though his Party represents a minority of this country, and the last two GOP POTUSes did not win a majority of your votes. See, for the Republican Party, the end results go beyond abortion and healthcare. This is the Party's survival in a country that is growing beyond the confines of conservatism. Two examples are playing out, as we speak, Texas and Georgia, both traditionally Republican-controlled, right? They're both facing really long lines of early voters. See, this is why governors try to make it harder to vote, because they don't like the prospects of this, because many of the people in those lines are not their people, OK? That's why we just saw federal judges rule against making it easier to vote. What kinds of federal judges? Put there by Republicans, all of them appointed by Donald Trump. The Republican Party holds power in the Senate, and the White House, not because the majority of you voted for them. I make that point twice because it matters. They hold power in spite of your will. The question is what are you going to do about it? Let's start with the Democrats. We have three big names in the Democratic Party here tonight, all in the fight. The Senate, we have Senator Mazie Hirono, the polls, you got Stacey Abrams, and Pete Buttigieg, supporting, of course, former VP Biden, OK? They're all going to tell you they got to win in November. And they're right. But they've done that twice in the last three presidential elections, so clearly telling you that ain't enough. Let's bring all three in and have a good discussion here. Senator Mazie Hirono, thank you very much. I know it was a long day.</s>SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): Good evening, Chris.</s>CUOMO: What do you make of what you heard today?</s>HIRONO: I thought you described the situation so accurately. It is about retaining power. And what the - what Mitch McConnell and the Republicans can't get through the legislative process, they are now packing the courts, so that they can get the courts to give them what they want. And in this case, with Amy Barrett, the President has said, "I'm going to appoint some nominee, somebody who's going to overturn Roe v. Wade, and who will strike down the Affordable Care Act." So, she can sit there and say all she wants that to tell us, "I'm just going to follow the law." But we know why the Republicans are rushing her through. ACA, Roe v. Wade, and a whole slew of other kinds of cases that protect our Civil Rights and environment, and you name it.</s>CUOMO: Does her faith create an issue for you more than you've seen with other judges? And if so, why?</s>HIRONO: No. Her faith is irrelevant. It's her positions on these issues that matter. So, her position is one that certainly led the President to think that he's got a person, who's going to strike down the ACA, which, as you know, Chris, he's before the Supreme Court, right now, to totally strike down the</s>ACA. CUOMO: Senator, thank you. Stay with me. Pete Buttigieg, it's good to see you. The - oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm going to bring him on. So Senator, I'm confused, because I got two different lines of thought going on.</s>HIRONO: You got - yes.</s>CUOMO: And I'll give them - I'll give them both to you. And you help me suss it out. So, this is what I don't understand, Mazie, in terms of what the goal is. So, you're questioning her. She does have an affiliation in a religious organization, which I think makes her different than most Catholics. I think that her faith is by design more central to her value system and her behavior and thoughts than it would be for just an ordinary Catholic who doesn't belong to People of Praise. But let's put that to the side. What can you do about any of this except expanding the size of the Supreme Court?</s>HIRONO: Well there are a lot of other things we can do, and I have been thinking about court reform for a while. So, if you really want to have a serious discussion about court reform, the Democrats need to take back the Senate. Court reform is not something that you just toss out on a whim. You have to really discuss it, and think about the consequences of whatever you're doing. So, that's where I am. So that's - increasing the size is only one. But I'd like to see some really strong ethics provisions, applied to the Supreme Court, which they currently do not. So, there are a number of ways that we can try to balance the court so that they can truly be not the partisan political court that it's definitely turning out to be, but one that we can truly look at as being independent and objective so that--</s>CUOMO: Do you think Senator--</s>HIRONO: --people can get a fair shot.</s>CUOMO: --it would be less partisan, if you guys made more of the choices than the Republicans, or would it just be more partisan in your direction?</s>HIRONO: Well I don't call wanting to provide people with individual rights, expanding equal protections, I don't call that partisan. I call that what the Constitution requires, and what we should be doing. But that is not where the Republicans are, by the way. And, in fact, the decision that you just mentioned that would shorten the census that is a case in point. They have OK-ed gerrymandering. They are OK- ing a lot of things that makes it harder for people to vote. And so, that's not where we are. I expect our nominees - court nominees to not have written all kinds of things about how they don't want the Affordable Care Act, or they're against LGBTQ rights, or any number of things that the Trump nominees have weighed in on, and that is why they are being nominated. So, he's ended up with one-fourth, or so of the entire federal judiciary. They will be there for their lives, decades.</s>CUOMO: Quickly, Senator, Senator McConnell said in a debate, the other night, when his opponent was saying, "Hey, look, they want Barrett on there, so they can get rid of the ACA. And the ACA has been good from Kentucky. It needs to be fixed, not eradicated," he said, "No, no, no, no, no. Nobody thinks Barrett being on the court will mean the end of the ACA." Really? You think it. Don't most Democrats think if she gets on that court the ACA is done?</s>HIRONO: The President thinks it.</s>CUOMO: That's right. The President thinks it, right?</s>HIRONO: And the Republicans - the Republicans know it too, and they just don't want to admit it. And they're hiding it from the people, their own people that they're about to rush this person on to the court so she can be there, November 10th, to hear the ACA case, which, by the way, was brought by 12 Republican Attorneys General and the President is right in there. And so, yes, they want somebody who will - who will turn back the ACA, destroy it. They've been wanting to do that for at least 10 years. They voted 70 times in Congress to get rid of the ACA. So, to say, "Oh no, we're not doing that" is please, what? I just want to say, "Shut up."</s>CUOMO: There's a lot of that going around these days. Senator Mazie Hirono, really, thank you, after such a long day--</s>HIRONO: Sure, thanks.</s>CUOMO: --making the time to be with us on PRIME TIME. It's a benefit to the audience and to me. Thank you, and be well.</s>HIRONO: OK, you too.</s>CUOMO: All right. While Republicans race to confirm a Justice, and we know why, if you want to have that case, about the ACA, on November 10th, the tradition is that if you weren't in to hear the case, you don't judge it, so, she's got to get in there to hear the arguments, all right? But you know what's happening? Millions of you are already voting, waiting in these insane lines, in Georgia, for hours, like 11, loads of glitches. This is just like what happened in the troubled primary there. Why is it happening again? How is it not going to impact the vote? Voting Rights Advocate Stacey Abrams makes the case next. And also, we do have Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He's going to be here on what's at stake in this election. He's got a great new book. Three weeks out, every second matters. Let's make the most of it.</s>TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

Massive Lines For Start Of In-Person Early Voting In Georgia.

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.</s>CUOMO: This is what early voting in Georgia looks like right now. Ridiculously long lines, more than 10 hours in some places. Think about it, would you wait 10 hours to vote? It creates a big risk of de facto suppression, meaning, not technically by law, but we'll argue that part, but just the way it is, all right? Now, it's so hard that many may come and leave, or not come at all. Now, just over three months ago, Georgia held its primary, and the scene looks a hell of a lot like it did then, long lines, technical problems. Once again, Blacks disproportionately having to work harder to vote. This is called systemic inequality. That's what it looks like. Let's bring in former Georgia candidate for governor, Stacey Abrams. Good to see you, Counselor.</s>STACEY ABRAMS, (D) FORMER GEORGIA GOVERNOR CANDIDATE, FOUNDER, FAIR FIGHT, AUTHOR, "OUR TIME IS NOW": Thank you so much, Sir.</s>CUOMO: Why is it happening?</s>ABRAMS: It's happening because we have two equal problems or so - not equal, two problems. We have a Secretary of State who has refused to invest heavily in the areas where we need him to, to support elections, and we have, unfortunately, counties that are doing their best to scramble to fill in the gap, working organizations, and non-profits, but they cannot do the Secretary of State's job. However, the most important piece is that we are also seeing voter enthusiasm to create change. And so, as angry as we should be, about the injustice, and the voter suppression, that is on display in Georgia, we should be extraordinarily pleased that people are willing to fight back, and to make their voices heard, despite the challenges they face.</s>CUOMO: Is there an end run? Are you allowed to approach people on those lines, and offer them an ability to mail in vote, or is that not available by law, or not allowed in terms of solicitation at the line?</s>ABRAMS: So, in Georgia, you have to apply for your absentee ballot, and you have to go through a certain process. You have to fill an affidavit, send it in, and receive the ballot, so it is not a possibility to do it in that way. And because we are coming down the homestretch, Georgia is one of the states that requires that your absentee ballot be received by Election Day, not postmarked, which means you have to do it as quickly as possible, so that you can meet all of the requirements, and you don't get caught up in any challenges. So, we're encouraging people, if they have an absentee ballot, to return it as quickly as possible. Take it to a drop box. Every time you have one, put it in the mail, if you want to, but make certain you get that absentee ballot in, as quickly as possible.</s>CUOMO: Now, you rang the alarm about this, in your election, and it seems as though nothing has changed. Is that the case?</s>ABRAMS: Well, it's not that nothing has changed. It's that Brad Raffensperger, the current Secretary of State has created new problems. So, where we faced exact match, excessive purging, closure of polling places, in 2018, what he has decided to orchestrate are machines that are not - we don't have adequate number of machines. We have a bottleneck at the beginning of the process. And, in fact, today, he said, well he's going to reach out to the state vendor for elections to make certain we have additional bandwidth, because one of the challenges is checking people in. Now, mind you, there was a - there was an alarm raised about this that we needed to have a backup of paper poll books, because that's what's really causing part of the problem, and he sued to stop that from happening. And so, not only has Brad Raffensperger created new problems, he's also refused to solve old problems. We have told him many times that they need to look at the resourcing of areas and look at the likelihood of turnout. We know that this is going to be a high-volume election. All you have to do is look at the primary, and look at the absentee ballot results. So far, we have more people who've returned absentee ballots in 2020 than in the entire 2016 election. And so, his failure to plan, his failure to resource and, once again, his failure to take responsibility is forcing Georgians to have to fight to vote. But we're incredibly proud of not only their work, but the work of folks like Coach Lloyd Pierce, who has the Atlanta Arena - State Farm Arena, as a site, where people can go and vote in Fulton County, our single largest county, and we're so proud of those who've stepped up to fill the gap in leadership that has been left open by our Secretary of State.</s>CUOMO: The State matters anyway you look at it. And part of the job is staying on stories, not touching and never coming back. I promise you got this as a platform to tell us about what happens in this final round of this fight. As issues come up--</s>ABRAMS: Thank you.</s>CUOMO: --and you understand it, you will have a platform here to discuss it, OK?</s>ABRAMS: Thank you, Sir. I really appreciate it.</s>CUOMO: All right, Stacey Abrams, good to see you, good health to you and the family. Another big-Party powerhouse ahead, because look, this is about whether or not the Democrats are going to get this done, OK? We talk about Trump all the time. You know what his game is. You know what the play is. You know what the numbers are. What does Pete Buttigieg make of what this hearing today says about the future of the country? And he's got problems with this nominee, some of which I was talking about with Mazie Hirono. The Mayor has been paying a lot of attention to how her faith is applied, in ways that you may not know. Next.</s>TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

Trump Returns To Campaign Trail With Casual Attitude Toward COVID; Biden Heads To Florida As Democrats Look To Flip Battlegrounds; Johnson & Johnson Pauses Coronavirus Vaccine Trial.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR: Surviving a deadly pandemic seems to mean only more of the same from this president. Basic safety protocols ignored at his return to the campaign trail. Other Republicans still following his lead.</s>BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Plus, trials for a promising coronavirus vaccine put on hold. Why and what it means for broader efforts to fight the virus.</s>JARRETT: Good morning, this is EARLY START. I'm Laura Jarrett.</s>SANCHEZ: And I'm Boris Sanchez in for Christine Romans. We are 31 minutes past the hour. Great to see you as always, Laura.</s>JARRETT: Always great to have you, Boris.</s>SANCHEZ: Thank you.</s>JARRETT: So it was just a week ago when the president said he'd learned a lot from his own battle with coronavirus. He said he had been to school. But you wouldn't know it if you saw his return to the campaign trail in Florida yesterday. It was a packed rally with few masks and no real social distancing. Another potential super-spreader event for this president launching a last-ditch effort to turn around his struggling campaign. He has a rally in Pennsylvania today as he and Vice President Mike Pence head to states that they need to keep on their side, some of which have been reliably red. Also red, 33 states headed in the wrong direction with cases increasing as colder months approach now and more people stay indoors. Also, keep this in mind. It's not just asymptomatic cases we're seeing. The number of people in the hospital hasn't been this high in more than a month.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH: I hope these numbers that you're quoting, which are absolutely correct numbers, jolt the American public into the realization that we really cannot let this happen because it's on a trajectory of getting worse and worse.</s>SANCHEZ: The president is not alone when it comes to a casual attitude toward COVID-19, including the governor of Florida high- fiving people at the president's rally, his chief of staff Mark Meadows refusing to wear a mask to speak with reporters. And a senator who actually had COVID, Utah's Mike Lee, going maskless at Monday's Supreme Court confirmation hearing. All of them acting like a pandemic that's killed 20 -- that's killed 215,000 Americans is just a memory. CNN's Kaitlan Collins has more from the White House.</s>KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Laura and Boris. It was only hours before this rally that President Trump's doctor actually announced that he had tested negative for coronavirus -- the first time we have been told that since, of course, the president's diagnosis. And in this memo, Dr. Sean Conley said the president had tested negative for consecutive days using a rapid test, though he didn't say which days it was that the president had actually tested negative. And we know that the White House has declined to say when the president last tested negative before his diagnosis, something that Conley made no mention of in his memo. But this memo came out just hours before the president took the stage in Florida. He was there and spoke for a little over 65 minutes or so. And at times, he sounded hoarse. But at others, he talked about his diagnosis with coronavirus and said that he felt powerful and talked about what his recovery has been like. And, of course, as he's been doing now, claimed that he is immune.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I can feel -- I feel so powerful, I would walk into that audience. I'll walk in there and I'll kiss everyone in that audience. I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and the -- everybody. I'll just give you a big fat kiss.</s>COLLINS: Of course, we know science says that what the determination on immunity is and how long it lasts is still very much out despite the way the president is spinning his own health. And though he tried to talk about coronavirus as if it was in his past, we know it's at the top of mind for voters. And it even appeared to be so for some of the president's own advisers, including his chief of staff who does not typically wear a mask but was seen wearing a mask on this trip yesterday only hours after he refused to take questions from reporters on Capitol Hill because they asked him to keep his mask on.</s>SANCHEZ: Kaitlan Collins, thanks for that. Just one day after President Trump was in the Sunshine State, Joe Biden heads to Florida today. He stopped in Ohio on Monday. It's part of a major push by Biden and his wife Jill to flip all these states that went to Trump in 2016. You'll notice Texas is on that map. The former vice president now going a bit further on his answers about packing the Supreme Court. He told CNN affiliate WKRC he is not a fan of court-packing, but he says the burden is actually on Republicans who are pushing through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett just days before an election.</s>JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: The imbalance in the court is a debate that's going on now. What I want to focus on -- they're court- packing right now. And what's going on now is just an all outright effort to do away with health care. That's what it's all about right now -- health care.</s>SANCHEZ: A challenge to the Affordable Care Act goes before the Supreme Court right after the election.</s>JARRETT: All right, 21 days to the election. It's time for three questions in three minutes. Let's bring in CNN's senior political analyst, John Avlon. John, great to have you this morning.</s>SANCHEZ: Good morning, sir.</s>JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning.</s>JARRETT: So I think we're seeing something of a role reversal. Biden on the offense -- he's not in the basement anymore -- Trump on the defense, obviously after battling COVID. Will seeing more of Trump on the trail win back his support as he hopes or is it going to hurt the campaign?</s>AVLON: Sometimes Trump has done better when he recedes. But look, in general in politics, the best defense is a good offense. And even though Joe Biden's got a lead in the polls, he wants to be playing offense and that's important because you can't take anything for granted in life and especially in presidential elections. Donald Trump feeling that same urgency. Him getting out to play to the base I think is as much about getting the energy of the crowds to validate himself as anything else. But he wants to be out there -- they both do. Three weeks to go, folks. This is not a drill.</s>SANCHEZ: Yes. I want to take a quick look at this map of where the candidates are going. I think we have it ready. It tells you where the race is --</s>AVLON: Yes.</s>SANCHEZ: -- right now. Trump and Pence going to states that they want to hold on to that went red in 2016. Places like Florida, Ohio, North Carolina. Biden looking to flip those states. When you look at this map what stands out to you, John?</s>AVLON: I mean, it tells you everything you need to know. You want to find the truth in politics, follow the money or follow the candidates. And just the fact that Trump and Pence are trying to lock down states they won last time around when Biden and his wife are going to states that Republicans won -- and these are states, in some cases, that are real ambitious. They're long balls -- Georgia --</s>SANCHEZ: Texas.</s>AVLON: -- and Texas. But, Vice President Biden focusing on Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida. Those are the ambitious must-wins (ph). It says everything you need to know about the tenor of the race. Biden trying to reach out and flip things that Republicans won last time around. Republicans desperately trying to hold on to states they won last time around.</s>JARRETT: Yes. Beto O'Rourke, I know, making a big push that Biden can actually win Texas this time, especially if he goes to the state. We'll see if that happens. So, voter enthusiasm, thankfully, is sky-high right now but access is becoming a real problem as it always has, actually.</s>AVLON: Yes.</s>JARRETT: So a federal court judge has now decided that Texas can actually limit drop boxes to one per county and voters we're seeing -- they're being met with long lines when they're trying to vote early. So how are Democrats supposed to get out the vote when it's getting harder and harder? And I say Democrats because these are in states that have Republican strongholds that are making explicit inroads trying to cut access.</s>AVLON: Yes, and the problem is you've got a history of explicitly long lines, particularly in urban centers.</s>JARRETT: Right.</s>AVLON: So -- but what you're seeing right there is Georgia. There are folks who waited in line almost 10 hours -- and this is the first day of voting, to be fair. But in no other country do you have long lines like this to exercise your right to vote. But folks did because they want their vote to count. In Texas, what you're seeing is a -- is a court upholding Greg -- Gov. Abbott's decision to reduce these drop-off boxes to one per county. Counties in Texas are huge. Harris County, Houston -- one county, one drop-off box. It's hard to see that as anything other than limiting. California, the GOP getting in trouble with these bespoke drop-off boxes that are in violation of the law. Bottom line, whatever party you are or whoever you want to vote for, go out and vote. Do it early if you can. The lines are only going to be worse on Election Day. But don't let the system deter you from exercising your right to vote.</s>SANCHEZ: Yes, that Texas decision is really striking when you consider -- you mentioned counties, the sizes of them. Tens of millions of people live in these counties --</s>JARRETT: Yes.</s>SANCHEZ: -- and they're only supposed to use one drop box.</s>AVLON: Yes.</s>SANCHEZ: It is really surprising.</s>AVLON: Bonkers.</s>SANCHEZ: John Avlon, thank you so much for getting up bright and early for us. We appreciate it.</s>AVLON: Take care, guys.</s>JARRETT: Great to see you.</s>SANCHEZ: President Trump's return to the campaign trail coinciding with rising alarm among Republicans. CNN has learned GOP candidates are increasingly worried about the president's unpopularity hurting them down-ballot. CNN has also learned that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell recently told lobbyists that Democrats are on fire. Both parties are using the Supreme Court hearings as a way to drive voter turnout. Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings resume today with a first round of questions. Democrats acknowledge there's nothing they can do to stop her confirmation so they're focusing on the Affordable Care Act. Lawmaker after lawmaker holding up pictures of constituents who they say could be harmed if Obamacare is overturned. Republicans believe Barrett is qualified and they are all-in to get her on the court. CNN's full coverage of the hearing begins at 9:00 a.m.</s>JARRETT: All right. Bank makes -- banks make billions on overdraft fees but a Joe Biden presidency could end that. Overdraft fees are one of the things consumers hate the most. The industry brings in more than $11 billion worth each year and critics say the most vulnerable among us are the ones that are punished. Data shows just nine percent of accounts pay a staggering 79 percent of all fees. Analysts say Biden and his appointed regulators, if he should win the presidency, will likely mean restrictions on how often banks can charge overdraft fees. Biden hasn't explicitly said he'll take action on them but the Democratic nominee has called for rolling back President Trump's corporate tax cuts.</s>SANCHEZ: We're following some breaking news overnight. Drugmaker Johnson & Johnson pausing the clinical trial of its coronavirus vaccine because of an unexplained illness in one of the study's volunteers. The vaccine requires just one dose, so federal officials were hoping it would be ready a bit faster. The trial is studying one of six vaccines being tested in the U.S. and one of four that are in the final stage.</s>DR. ASHISH JHA, DEAN, BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: The Johnson & Johnson trial is the biggest trial of the vaccine that I know of -- 60,000 people. Within that trial, you'd expect a few pauses. So on one hand, they're right -- this is completely expected. And it's just a reminder of how ridiculous it is to try to meet a political timeline of having a vaccine before November third.</s>JARRETT: November third, of course, being Election Day. Now, President Trump had been pressing to unveil a vaccine before then. This is the second phase-three COVID vaccine trial to be paused in the U.S. so far. AstraZeneca's trial was paused last month after a British volunteer experienced some complications. That trial resumed in the U.K. and elsewhere but it remains on hold in the</s>U.S. SANCHEZ: For the first time in almost two months the U.S. had at least 40,000 coronavirus cases a day for a full week. On the flip side, one city in China recorded just 12 cases. But that was enough to fast-track millions of tests to try and prevent any spread. CNN has the pandemic covered around the world.</s>DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm David Culver in Beijing. China's government now testing millions of people for COVID-19 after only a handful or so tested positive for the virus in the city of Chengdu. This latest cluster outbreak has led to health officials testing all of the city's roughly nine million residents. On Tuesday, authorities announced they've already tested more than three million people and they've processed about a million of those tests. They claim no new confirmed cases have surfaced. This follows last week's major travel holiday here and if the numbers spike, it could challenge China's strict containment efforts.</s>PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Paula Hancocks in Seoul. From today, South Korea is making mask-wearing mandatory across the country on all public transport. These are rules that had already been in place in the capital, Seoul, and other cities but also now across the country in places like cafes and restaurants when you're not eating and drinking. Medical facilities and rallies, you have to wear a mask. There will be a 30-day grace period but from November 13th, if you're caught not wearing a mask or wearing it incorrectly, you could be fined the equivalent of $87. Now it comes at the same time as social distancing rules have been relaxed across the country. From now on, churches and sporting events can have a 30 percent capacity.</s>NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: I'm Nic Robertson in London where the British prime minister is facing pushback from the government's scientific advisers. After the prime minister's press conference Monday night where he announced new lockdown measures for the country, they released minutes of a meeting from three weeks ago where they recommended the government back then take tougher measures. This indicates they're not satisfied with the measures the prime minister is taking now, indeed. England's chief medical officer said at that press conference Monday night that the measures that the government is taking right now alone do not go far enough.</s>SANCHEZ: Thanks to all of our correspondents for those reports. Hey, stay with EARLY START. We'll be right back.

Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Trial on Hold; Trump's Return to the Trail

LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR: Trials for a coronavirus vaccine are put on hold. We'll tell you why and what it means for the fight against the virus.</s>BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Plus, surviving a deadly pandemic seems to have taught the president nothing. Basic protocols ignored at his return to the campaign trail with other Republicans still following his lead.</s>JARRETT: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is EARLY START. I'm Laura Jarrett.</s>SANCHEZ: And I'm Boris Sanchez, in for Christine Romans. Great to see you as always, Laura. It is Tuesday, October 13th, 5:00 a.m. in New York, and we are exactly three weeks to the election, so strap yourselves in.</s>JARRETT: Buckle up. And we begin with this news breaking overnight. Drugmaker Johnson & Johnson has paused the clinical trial of its coronavirus vaccine because of an unexplained illness in one of the study's volunteers. Now, the company didn't immediately say what happened to the person but remember, the vaccine requires just one dose, so federal officials were hoping it would be ready a bit faster than any others. The trial is studying one of six vaccines being tested in the U.S. and one of four in the final stages.</s>DR. ASHISH JHA, DEAN, BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: The Johnson & Johnson trial is the biggest trial of the vaccine that I know of, 60,000 people. Within that trial, you'd expect a few pauses. So, on one hand, they're right, this is completely expected and it's just a reminder of how ridiculous it is to try to meet a political timeline of having a vaccine before November 3rd.</s>SANCHEZ: November 3rd, of course, is Election Day, and President Trump has been pressing to unveil a vaccine before then knowing full well that this election will largely be a referendum on his handling of the virus. This is the second phase 3 COVID vaccine trial to be paused in the U.S. you'll recall AstraZeneca's trial had to be paused last month after a British volunteer experienced complications. That trial resumed in the U.K. and other places, but it remains paused here in the</s>U.S. JARRETT: So, just a week ago, the president said he learned a lot from his own battle with coronavirus. Well, you wouldn't know it if you saw his return to the campaign trail in Florida. A packed rally, you can see there with few masks, no real social distancing in a state where the positivity rate is increasing but the economy recently reopened. Dangerous conditions for this potential super spreader event for the president, launching a frenzied last ditch effort hoping to turn around his campaign. The president has a busy campaign schedule ahead as well. He has a rally in Pennsylvania today as he and the vice president head to states they need to keep on their side. Some of which have been reliably red. Also red, 33 states now headed in the wrong direction with cases increasing as colder, indoor months approach us. The number of people in the hospital hasn't been this high in more than a month.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I hope these numbers that you're quoting, which are absolutely correct numbers, jolt the American public into the realization that we really cannot let this happen because it's a on trajectory of getting worse and worse.</s>JARRETT: And notably, the president is not alone when it comes to a casual attitude toward COVID. His chief of staff, Mark Meadows, refuses to keep his mask on to speak with reporters. Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, high-fiving people at the president's rally. And in Washington, you see there, Senator Mike Lee who actually had COVID, going maskless at Monday's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, all of them acting as though a pandemic that has killed 215,000 Americans is just a memory. CNN's Kaitlan Collins has more from the White House.</s>KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Laura, and Boris. It was only hours before this rally that President Trump's doctor actually announced that he had tested negative for coronavirus. The first time we had been told that since, of course, the president's diagnosis. And in this memo, Dr. Sean Conley said the president tested negative for consecutive days using a rapid test though he didn't say which days it was that the president had actually tested negative, and we know the White House has declined to say when the president last tested negative before his diagnosis. Something that Conley made no mention of in his memo. But this memo came out hours before the president took the stage in Florida. He was there and spoke for a little over 65 minutes or so, and at times, he sounded hoarse, but at others, he talked about his diagnosis with coronavirus, said that he felt powerful, and talked about what his recovery has been like and, of course, as he's been doing now, claimed that he is immune.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I can feel -- I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience.</s>COLLINS: Of course, we know science says that what the determination on immunity is and how long it lasts is still very much out despite the way the president is spinning his own health, and though he tried to talk about coronavirus as if it was in his past, we know it's at the top of mind for voters, and it even appeared to be so for some of the president's own advisers, including his chief of staff who does not typically wear a mask but was seen wearing a mask on this trip yesterday, only hours after he refused to take questions from reporters on Capitol Hill because they asked him to keep his mask on.</s>JARRETT: All right. Kaitlan, thank you for that. Joe Biden heads to Florida today after a stop in Ohio on Monday. It's all part of a major push by Biden and his wife Jill to flip all of these states that went to Trump in 2016. The former vice president now going a little bit further as well on his answers about packing the Supreme Court. He tells a CNN affiliate, WKRC, he's not a fan of court packing but he says the burden is actually on Republicans who are pushing through the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett days before an election.</s>JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: The imbalance in the court is a debate that's going on now. What I want to focus on, they're court packing right now. And what's going on now is the outright effort to do away with health care. That's what it's all about right now, health care.</s>JARRETT: The challenge to the Affordable Care Act, of course, goes before the Supreme Court right after the November election. CNN's Jessica Dean is on the campaign trail with Biden.</s>JESSICA DEAN, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Laura and Boris. Vice President Joe Biden coming to the state of Ohio on Monday. Ohio, a state that President Trump won by some eight points back in 2016. So, what does this tell us? Well, the Biden campaign, playing a bit of offense. Ohio has been one of the 17 priority states, but other states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, must win states for them have gotten more attention in the last few months. And local Democrats believe that Ohio is winnable for Joe Biden. They cite a shift in the suburbs as a reason why. For his part, Biden pitching his economic plan in Toledo on Monday, telling the crowd they are framing in that, what we have been hearing, his Park Avenue versus Scranton framing. Take a listen.</s>BIDEN: When you see the abuse of power, there's only one way to respond to it, and that's with power, and the only power we have to take on corporate America is union power. That's the only power.</s>DEAN: That economic message directed right at white working class voters in Toledo, in Ohio. That is a key demographic within the coalition that the Biden campaign thinks that it can bring together here in Ohio that includes those white working class voters, black voters and also suburban voters, those are key constituencies they have their eye on here in Ohio. As for Vice President Biden, he goes into Florida later today. Another state like Ohio, the Biden campaign does not have to win to get to 270, but if they did, it would make president Trump's path to reelection incredibly difficult -- Boris and Laura.</s>JARRETT: Jessica, thank you. Breaking overnight, new restrictions in Texas that allow only one ballot drop box per county have been reinstated by a federal appeals court. The three-judge panel all appointed by President Trump accepted Governor Greg Abbott's unproven claim that multiple drop boxes opportunities for fraud. Now, several groups had sued arguing it would suppress voting, particularly in the larger Democratic-leaning counties. For example, in Harris County which includes Houston, well, it planned to have 12 drop boxes instead of just one.</s>SANCHEZ: Yeah, and that just one drop box is set to help millions of voters cast their ballots. Early voting begins today in Texas and Kentucky. Georgia saw a record setting turnout on the first day of early voting, nearly 127,000 people. You can see the line. The state is a presidential battleground for the first time in decades and it could play a crucial role in deciding which party controls the Senate, too. There's also a controversy in California where Republicans who spent months railing on voter fraud could be committing voter fraud. Authorities have sent a cease-and-desist order to the state Republican Party over unofficial ballot drop boxes. CNN's Pamela Brown takes a closer look.</s>PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, Laura and Boris. We have learned that roughly 8 million people have already cast their ballots early in this election, and one way the voters are casting their ballots is by using legal ballot drop boxes. But now, this process is turning more complicated in parts of the country. Let's look at California. Unofficial ballot boxes popped up in several counties, and now, the D.A. is investigating. It turns out in at least one of those counties, the Republican Party bought those boxes but wouldn't say how many or where they put them. The California secretary of state told CNN the practice of using fake ballot boxes is a violation of state law.</s>ALEX PADILLA, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA: It's not just the state Republican Party but it looks like some of their local committees participating as well. This is wrong no matter who is doing it. It's not just the security of the ballot that's in question here. It is, you know, the transparency, voter confidence itself.</s>BROWN: And the RNC is saying in a statement to CNN that this practice of using an unofficial ballot box is in response to ballot harvesting favored by the Democrats which allows people in certain states to hand over a ballot to a door knocker. But the RNC stopped short of saying it was in support of expanding this practice. Overall, though, big picture, election officials say drop boxes, official ones, are a secure method of making sure your vote is counted. Back to you, Laura and Boris.</s>JARRETT: Pam, thank you so much for that. We should note, California law does allow people to hand their ballots over to a designated person who then delivers the ballot. However, it does not allow for unauthorized ballot drop boxes. If you're looking for a real California drop box, it looks like this. Do not fall for anything else right now.</s>SANCHEZ: Several countries in Europe weighing harsh restrictions to stop a second wave of the coronavirus pandemic. How and where? We're live from Berlin in just a few moments.

Second Wave of Coronavirus in Europe Leads to New Restrictions

SANCHEZ: Countries across Europe are imposing new restrictions to combat a second wave of coronavirus, England and Germany in particular. Let's bring in CNN's Scott McLean. He joins us now live from Berlin. And, Scott, in some places, there's push back to these new measures.</s>SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, you're absolutely right, Boris. There's definitely a sense of fatigue, even in countries like Germany where people have been good about, you know, keeping to the coronavirus restrictions and Germany was one of the most successful countries in Europe in tamping down its first wave. They were exporting ventilators to other countries because they had a surplus. Now, though, they are seeing the highest levels since April, and it's leading to increased demand at testing centers like this one. Actually, this one is wrapping up for the day. When we were here earlier, people were lined up down the block. Some people waited for several hours. But, unfortunately, they have a limited number of tests they can actually do, about 350 per day. Tomorrow, German Chancellor Angela Merkel will meet with the premiers of all the German states. She's expected to announce new coronavirus measures that the country will be taking then. Meanwhile, in the U.K., the government announced a tiered set of restrictions for different regions. The city of Liverpool reaching the highest tier of restrictions, that means the bars and restaurants will have to close down all together. The government there is also being accused of ignoring its own scientists' advice when it comes to coronavirus restrictions. The scientists had been recommending about three weeks ago the country introduce a sort of circuit breaker lockdown, similar to the one we saw earlier this year but much, much shorter, just to get the numbers under control. But the government obviously choosing not to go that route. The prime minister has said over and over again, his priority is educate getting the economy going again and keeping schools open at all costs. Countries around Europe are doing everything they can to get a handle on the virus. Italy is seeing its highest ICU admissions it's had since March. They just introduced a nationwide mask mandate, even outdoors. And the Czech Republic is one country to keep your eye on. It is seeing sky high rates in Europe. One of the most highly infected countries on this continent. It just introduced new measures, but the prime minister is warning they could be in full scale lockdown if things don't turn around soon, Boris.</s>SANCHEZ: Yeah, Scott, even the countries that were most successful at mitigating the spread months ago now facing a second wave, just shows how difficult it is to deal with this virus. Scott McLean from Berlin, thanks so much.</s>JARRETT: All right. A series of positive COVID tests and schedule changes forcing a change in COVID protocol by the NFL. What it means for the league and the schedule, that's next.

Drew Brees Leads Saints Past Chargers in Overtime.

JARRETT: The Saints quarterback Drew Brees leading New Orleans on a huge comeback to beat the Chargers last night. Andy Scholes has this morning's "Bleacher Report". Hey, Andy.</s>ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, good morning, Laura. You know, Drew Brees has been doing this for a long time. This is his 20th season in the NFL. He was up against a Chargers rookie quarterback Justin Herbert last night, a 19-year age gap between the two quarterbacks. And it was the rookie who started off hot in this one. Herbert to Hunter Henry for the touchdown. That got the Chargers up 20-3. Herbert, four touchdown passes in this one. But Brees leading the Saints back, he finds Jared Cook in the 4th quarter for a 41 yard touchdown. The two teams traded scores after that. The Chargers hit the field goal that would have won the game as time expired. It goes off the upright. Game goes to overtime. In the extra period, the Saints would make a field goal and hang on to the 30-27 win. All right. The Patriots and Titans, meanwhile, reporting no additional new positive COVID-19 tests on Monday. New England's game against the Broncos scheduled for last night was postponed again after Patriots recorded a positive test on Sunday. Meantime, the Titans are set to host the Bills tonight. It's the NFL's first Tuesday night game in ten years. The league is updating its coronavirus protocol to include game day testing for all players, coaches and some team employees. That's according to a memo sent to teams last night and obtained by CNN. The NFL has been testing some 8,000 people every week. Those classified as tier one or tier two have been testified every day except for game day in part because the results before would not have been ready in time for kickoff. For the first time since spring training, there were fans in the stands for a Major League Baseball game last night. Nearly 11,000 people attending game one of the National League Championship series between the Braves and Dodgers in Arlington, Texas. They were treated to a good one. Teams tied at one in the top of the 9th inning when Atlanta's Austin Riley blasting the solo shot, 448 feet. That gave the Braves a 2-1 lead. Atlanta, they would go on to win, 5-1. Such a different ball game with fans in the stands now. We didn't have any fans in the ALCS. They missed a show from the Rays' Manny Margot. He had a three-run bomb in the first to give Tampa raised the lead. Then in the next inning, you got to check out this incredible catch. Look at this foul ball. Margot tracks it down, and falls over the wall. That's about a 6 feet drop right there. Amazing catch. Everything going the Rays way in this one. They beat the Astros 4-2 to take a 2-0 lead in that series. You can watch the game 3 of that one tonight, just after 8:30 Eastern on our sister network TBS. Dodgers tried to even that series against the Braves, that one is just after 6:00 Eastern. Boris, you know, down 2-0, really a must win for the Astros in game three. And they are playing every single day, so these pitching staffs, they could get taxed if it's a long series. It'd be interesting to watch.</s>SANCHEZ: Yeah, it's tough on the rotation, right? Like that's a lot of work, and especially with all the COVID restrictions, it's a lot to handle, but look forward to those games. Andy Scholes with the "Bleacher Report", thanks so much. The nation's top infectious disease doctor saying the president is asking for trouble. Scenes like this in Florida make his point. We're back out on the campaign trail after a quick break.

Sen. Kamala Harris Questions Trump's Supreme Court Nominee; Sen. Harris Presses Judge Barrett on Obamacare, Abortion.; Trump Holds Rally in Pennsylvania with Few Masks; Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) on Kidnapping Threat Points to Trump's Rhetoric.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENT NOMINEE: Insurance companies reinstating annual and lifetime caps and more than 20 million Americans losing insurance at the worst possible time, again in the midst of a pandemic, including nearly 2 million Texans, 607,000 North Carolinians, 288,000 South Carolinians, 227,000 Iowans and 4.2 million Californians. And the pain of losing these protections would disproportionately be felt among the 9 million African-American, Latino, Asian and Native Americans who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act. But this isn't about statistics. This is about millions of real people living real lives, who deserve their government and its institutions to see them and to heed their call. And I know a Republican member of this committee said earlier today that the people who will lose health care are somehow not relevant to this hearing. I disagree. Helping these people is supposed to be why we are all here. Why we all ran for office in the first place and I'm here fight for people like Felicia Perez (ph) and this is her. Felicia (ph) is a writer, a public speaker and former high school teacher from Southern California who now teaches at the University of Nevada, Reno. She has multiple preexisting conditions, including arthritis, asthma and a rare autoimmune disorder that caused tumors that have wrapped around her optic nerve and part of her brain. Her life depends on periodic cancer fighting infusions that cost $160,000 a year. Felicia (ph) is terrified. She knows that without the Affordable Care Act, she could not afford ongoing treatment. The treatment she needs to stay alive and here's exactly what she said and I will quote, "My life is in the hands of people I do not know, who do not know me, who are essentially telling me I don't matter, that my life doesn't matter, that my health doesn't matter. That the day-to- day quality of my life doesn't matter and that's really hard." Tragically, Felicia's (ph) story is not unique. Her fears are shared by millions of Americans, the Affordable Care Act and its protections hinge on this Supreme Court and the outcome of this hearing. Before being elected, President Trump promised that every justice he put forward, "Will do the right thing like Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare." Judge Barrett, 18 months later, you criticize the Chief Justice for upholding the Affordable Care Act when you concluded, "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute." My question is how many months after you published that article did President Trump nominate you to be a judge on the Court of Appeals?</s>JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Sen. Harris, I apologize, I don't remember the timing of that article. I was nominated, I believe, my nomination to the court of appeals was announced in May of 2017.</s>HARRIS: That's correct.</s>BARRETT: But I don't remember when the article came out.</s>HARRIS: The article was published in January of 2017, so that would have been five months later. Justice Ginsburg whose seat you're seeking to fill provided the critical fifth vote in a 5-4 decision that upheld the Affordable Care Act. So let's lay this out for everyone who's watching. As I've discussed previously, one, Republicans have spent a decade trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act. Two, Donald Trump promised to name a Supreme Court justice and Supreme Court justices who would tear down the Affordable Care Act. Three, President Trump is before the Supreme Court right now arguing that it be struck in its entirety. Four, the Supreme Court could be just one vote away from overturning the Affordable Care Act and all of its protections, including for everyone who has a pre-existing condition or may ever get a pre- existing condition. In other words, the Affordable Care Act and all its protections hinge on this seat and the outcome of this hearing. And I believe it's very important the American people understand the issues at stake and what's at play. Judge Barrett, the day after President Trump announced your nomination to the Supreme Court, he tweeted, "Obamacare will be replaced with a much better and far cheaper alternative if it is terminated in the Supreme Court." But in reality, there's no alternative that protects the millions of Americans who depend on the Affordable Care Act every day. The horrifying truth is that President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are fighting to take health care away from the American people in the middle of a pandemic, as I have said. President Trump has said that he wants to protect the American people's health care, but the reality is right now he is asking the Supreme Court to take it away, period. Sen. Klobuchar, Judge Barrett asked you earlier today but did not receive an answer. Prior to your nomination, were you aware of President Trump's statements committing to nominate judges who will strike down the Affordable Care Act and I'd appreciate a yes or no answer, please.</s>BARRETT: Well, Sen. Harris, I want to be very, very careful. I'm under oath. As I'm sitting here, I don't recall seeing those statements. But if - let's see - I don't recall seeing or hearing those statements, but I don't really know what context they were in. So I guess I can't really definitively give you a yes or no answer. What I would like to say is I don't recall hearing about or seeing such statements.</s>HARRIS: Well, I imagine you were surrounded by a team of folks that helped prepare you for this nomination hearing. Did they ...</s>BARRETT: I have had - yes.</s>HARRIS: ... let me finish, if you don't mind.</s>BARRETT: Oh, I'm so sorry.</s>HARRIS: Did they inform you of the President's statements and that this might be a question that was presented to you during the course of this hearing?</s>BARRETT: When I had my calls with senators, it came up many of the Democratic senators wanted to know about the Affordable Care Act and to satisfy themselves that I had not made any pre commitments to the President about it.</s>HARRIS: And so you then became aware of the President's statement, is that correct?</s>BARRETT: Let's see, Sen. Harris, in the context of these conversations, I honestly can't remember whether senators framed the questions in the context of President Trump's comments, perhaps so. I think from my perspective, the most important thing is to say that I have never made a commitment. I've never been asked to make a commitment and I hope that the committee would trust in my integrity not to even entertain such an idea and that I wouldn't violate my oath if I were confirmed and heard that case.</s>HARRIS: So just so I'm clear and then we can move on, are you saying that you are now - before I said it - aware or not aware that President Trump made these comments about who he would nominate to the United States Supreme Court?</s>BARRETT: Sen. Harris, what I was saying, I thought you initially framed the question as whether I was aware before this nomination process began and answered to that question.</s>HARRIS: I'm now asking if you are aware - were you aware of before this hearing again like you said.</s>BARRETT: So you're changing - you're asking me now whether I was aware before the hearing began?</s>HARRIS: As a follow up question, I am. Yes.</s>BARRETT: And what I said was that when I had my calls with Democratic senators, this question came up and I don't recall, but it may well have been that they referenced those comments in the course of those calls, even if so that wasn't something that I heard or saw directly by reading it myself.</s>HARRIS: Sen. Leahy asked you earlier today, but I think it bears repeating. Do you think it is important for the American people to believe that Supreme Court justices are independent and fair and impartial? And that is a yes or no answer, please.</s>BARRETT: Yes, Sen. Harris.</s>HARRIS: A number of my colleagues have asked you today whether you would recuse yourself from cases on the Affordable Care Act. You did not directly answer their questions and instead, you described a process by which that would work or happen. And so my question is - isn't it true that at the end of that process, regardless of that process, that it would be you who ultimately would make the decision about whether or not you would recuse yourself?</s>BARRETT: That is true and I can't have you elicit a commitment from me about how I would make that decision in advance, that would be wrong.</s>HARRIS: Right, and what I've asked you is that isn't not correct that that is the process but ultimately it would be you and you alone that would make the decision about whether you would be recused. You've already opined on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and that position satisfied the President's promise to only nominate judges who would tear down the Affordable Care Act. And Senate Republicans rushed this process so that you could rule on this very case. The reasonable question about your impartiality will undoubtedly paying over this Court's ultimate decision in the Affordable Care Act case if you refuse to recuse yourself. I strongly believe that. Supreme Court justices routinely consider the consequences of their decisions on people's lives. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled against President Trump in his effort to repeal DACA protections for dreamers, children, of course, who have arrived in the United States many before they could talk or walk. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for a 5-4 majority that included the crucial vote of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The court rejected the Trump's administration's attempt to end protections for dreamers. Chief Justice Roberts said the administration had not taken into consideration the fact that many dreamers rely on those protections when they started their careers and businesses, when they served in the military of the United States, when they bought homes and when they started families. Sen. Hirono asked you whether it is appropriate for Supreme Court justice to consider real world impacts. But you're sitting judge now, so my question is in deciding whether to uphold government action, do you currently consider the consequences of your rulings on people's lives?</s>BARRETT: Well, Sen. Harris, that's part of the decision of every case.</s>HARRIS: And so you do.</s>BARRETT: Every case has consequences on people's lives. So, of course, I do in every case. That's part of the judicial decision making process.</s>HARRIS: And would you do that as - if you are actually voted on the United States Supreme Court? Would you do that fair as well?</s>BARRETT: Senator, considering how the resolution of a dispute will affect parties, will affect people as part of the judicial decision making process and I will continue engaging in that process to the best of my ability.</s>HARRIS: So if the Affordable Care Act is struck down more than a hundred million Americans with pre existing conditions like heart disease, diabetes and cancer would pay more for insurance or be denied coverage entirely. More than 20 million Americans could lose their health coverage entirely, including nearly 3 million black Americans and over 5 million Latino Americans who received access to health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. Insurers will once again be able to discriminate against that more than 50 percent of African- Americans and nearly 40 percent of Latinos with pre existing conditions. Insurers will be able to deny coverage to more than one quarter of Native Americans with conditions like diabetes, heart disease and cancer. All of this in the midst of a pandemic that is not going away anytime soon. A pandemic that when age is taken into account has been three times as deadly for black, Latino, Pacific Islander and Native Americans. A pandemic that has killed approximately one in 1,000 black Americans, one in 1,200 Native Americans and one in 1,500 Latino Americans. Judge Barrett, would you consider the 135 million people who gave protections under the Affordable Care Act when deciding a case that challenges that law?</s>BARRETT: Sen. Harris, if I were to be confirmed and conclude that I was not - that I was able to sit on the case pursuant to the recusal statute and then if I heard the case and decided the case, I would consider all of the protections that Congress put in place. And as I said earlier during this hearing, the question would be figuring out whether Congress, assuming that the mandate is unconstitutional now, whether that consistent with your intent, this is Congress' law, would permit this act to stand or whether the flawed portion of it could just be excised out. And that is a question not of what judges want, it's not a question of the Supreme Court. It's a question of what Congress wanted in the statute. And that is the statute that you enacted and extended this health care coverage to millions of Americans.</s>HARRIS: Well, would you give the fact that 135 million Americans with pre existing conditions are now depending on the protections of the Affordable Care Act? What weight would you get that?</s>BARRETT: Well, Sen. Harris, as I mentioned to Sen. Hirono, stare decisis takes reliance interests into account, because as I've said before, stare decisis is about keeping stability in the law. So the law often takes into account reliance interests. I can't really say sitting here, how they would play in a way in this case, because that's part of the legal calculus of the case. So I can't really give you the kind of commitment or pre commitment that you're asking for me of how I would weigh factors or how I would structure my decision making process.</s>HARRIS: I would ask you to consider if you are confirmed on the court ...</s>BARRETT: Thank you.</s>HARRIS: ... incredible benefit of the Affordable Care Act and that a destruction of its protections will have a devastating impact on millions, hundreds of millions of Americans. Judge Barrett, you testified yesterday that justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opened the door for many women in law and I certainly believe and know that to be true as a personal matter. She was a trailblazer for women's equality and gender equity. As a law student, as a teacher, as a civil rights lawyer and as the second woman ever to sit on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg broke many barriers for women across the country. We, I believe, all fondly remember her as a person who had patients, she had the will and the vision to make our country a more equal place and a more just place. And one of the things she fought for was a woman's right to control her own body and to make decisions about her own body and health care and reproductive choices. The Constitution of the United States protects a woman's right to choose whether or when to become a parent. And it protects a woman's right to choose abortion. Women of Color, immigrant women, women with low incomes and women in rural areas face significant barriers when attempting to access birth control, cancer screenings and comprehensive reproductive healthcare. Moreover, anti choice activists and politicians have been working for decades to pass laws and file lawsuits designed to overturn Roe and the precedents that followed. The threat to choice is real. Just last year, the court heard a case that gave him an opportunity to revisit and overturn its abortion precedent. In a case called June Medical Services. The Supreme Court struck down a medically unnecessary restriction that would have closed all but one abortion clinic in Louisiana. Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the Court's for liberal members that the court was bound by its own precedent to strike down the Louisiana law, because it was virtually identical to a Texas law that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016. As a result, women in the state were able to receive the full range of reproductive care. But Chief Justice Roberts wrote his own separate opinion in the case to make clear that in the future, he could not be counted on to uphold a woman's right to choose. Justice Ginsburg provided the critical fifth vote to strike down the unconstitutional abortion restriction in June Medical Services. So we must be honest about the impact of her passing and the impact it will have on the Court's decisions in cases regarding women's access to reproductive health care. Now, my Republican colleagues have said that there is a minimal chance that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe. But back in January, 39 Republican senators, including 10 members of this very committee signed their names to a Supreme Court brief that asked the Court to 'take up the issue of rather whether Roe should be reconsidered and if appropriate, overruled'. So let's not make any mistake about it, allowing President Trump to determine who fills the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion for women's rights and a critical vote in so many decisions that sustained the right to choose poses a threat to safe and legal abortion in our country. After all, President Trump said that overturning Roe v. Wade will 'happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro life justices on the court'. Judge Barrett, several times today you have quoted Justice Ginsburg's testimony about not making predictions in future cases. However, she was far more forthcoming at her confirmation hearing about the essential rights of women. In 1993, Justice Ginsburg's confirmation hearing shows that she testified that 'the decision whether or not to bury child is central to a woman's life to her well being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself when government controls that decision. For her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices'. Then Judge Ginsburg went on to say, "It is essential to witness equality with man, that she'd be the decision maker that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex." Now, Justice Ginsburg did not tell the committee how she would vote in any particular case, but she did freely discuss how she viewed a woman's right to choose. But Judge Barrett, your record clearly shows you hold a different view. In 2006, you signed your name to an advertisement published in the South Bend Tribune. It described Roe v. Wade as 'an exercise of raw judicial power' and call for putting 'an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade'. You've signed a similar ad in 2013 that described Roe as 'infamous and expressed opposition to abortion'. Also in 2013, you wrote an article about Supreme Court precedent in which you excluded Roe from a list of well-settled cases that you said, "No justice would overrule even if she disagrees." Suggesting, of course, that you believe Roe is susceptible to being overturned. On the 40th anniversary of Roe, you delivered a speech in which you said that the Court's recognition of the right to choose was 'created through judicial fiat rather than grounded in the Constitution'. And during your tenure on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, you have been willing to reconsider abortion restrictions that other Republican appointed judges found unconstitutional. As the Senate considers filling the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was straightforward enough in her confirmation hearing to say that the right to choose is 'essential to woman's equality'. I would suggest that we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose or make her own healthcare decisions. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the following three documents be entered into the record. A letter opposing Judge Barrett's nomination from the NAACP, a statement opposing Judge Barrett's nomination from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund and a report opposing Judge Barrett's nomination from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Without objection.</s>HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.</s>GRAHAM: Thank you.</s>HARRIS: Thank you.</s>GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Sen. Harris. Sen. Kennedy.</s>SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Mr. Chairman, I have ...</s>ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: And you just listened to Sen. Kamala Harris, vice presidential nominee, of course, questioning and giving her comments to Judge Amy Coney Barrett. I want to get straight to Jeffrey Toobin. So, Jeff, when you look at this overall, obviously, very, very strong there on abortion at the end from Sen. Harris. She also, of course, went very strongly on the Affordable Care Act. How do you think she did? Obviously, this was a mix of mostly - she was speaking. She was sort of giving a speech, but others did as well, including Republicans. That's the way these things go. How do you think she did overall in her half an hour?</s>JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think she accomplished what you wanted to do, which was give a ringing defense of the Affordable Care Act. I think the Democrats in general have made the decision that they really have no chance of stopping Judge Barrett from being confirmed. But they know as everyone knows there's an election coming up and one of the key issues is whether the Affordable Care Act survives. And they have used over and over again, each Democrat has used their opportunity for questioning to defend the substance of the Act and raise the threat that if Donald Trump is reelected and if his judges, including judge Barrett are confirmed, then the Affordable Care Act is in mortal danger. So in that respect, I think Sen. Harris achieved what she wanted to achieve, but I don't think anyone should be under the impression it's going to jeopardize whether she's confirmed to the Supreme Court because it doesn't.</s>BURNETT: Right. I mean, that book is written as we say. So Laura, then at the end, Sen. Harris again sort of making a case. At the end, she didn't even need or give Judge Barrett a chance to respond to her points on Roe vs. Wade. But she laid out a very clear case that Judge Ginsburg in her confirmation hearings never said how she would rule, but she was very clear on a woman's right to choose and she laid that out. And then she laid out Judge Barrett's record over the past decade plus, making it very clear that Judge Barrett's point of view on abortion rights is very clear, she opposes them. That was a very lawyer-like case she made.</s>LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it was that moment when she said let's not pretend which frankly has been part and parcel of many Supreme Court nomination processes, where everyone adheres to that so called Ginsburg rule of no previews, no forecasts, no hints. But, of course, as you know and you noted as Sen. Kamala Harris noted, although she did say that and she is noted for that pithy phrase, she actually did demonstrate what she believed at the time of the confirmation hearing. But these confirmation hearings are largely have been and morphed into being able to adhere to a script that demonstrates and says her impartiality that she refused to be a political Marionette for any reason and you will only abide by the law and you forget and ignore the aspect that one of the reasons you have been nominated by whatever president you've been nominated by, is for your personal beliefs and your ideologies.</s>BURNETT: Right.</s>COATES: And so she pointed that out just saying I'm not going to ask the question, because we already know what you stand for and what scripture will give, and then gave the script via letter of so many organizations who devote their lives to these issues and said, none of them buy it either.</s>BURNETT: Yes. Right. That part there at the end, ending it with I'm submitting this not with a question. Kirsten, what stood out to you?</s>KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think that this is really about the election what Sen. Harris was doing, it's not, as Jeffrey was saying, the Democrats know that she's going to get confirmed. And so everything that she was saying was with an eye towards voters. The two issues that she focused on, the Affordable Care Act which is something that most Democratic voters or moderate Democratic voters or modern independents, that would be leaning Democratic, it's a top issue for them. And Roe v. Wade which has the support of the majority of Americans, these are two issues that are very important in terms of voting, even voters who may be personally pro life, most of them or many of them, I should say many of them don't support overturning Roe v. Wade. So I think that she had a real eye towards people who are voting and that was really her target audience.</s>BURNETT: So Jeff, to that front, we have seen her doing our cross examinations. We saw it on the debate stage with Joe Biden. We've seen it with her questioning of Justice Kavanaugh. But what you saw tonight was very different and she was very aware that she's on - in the evening when Americans are watching.</s>TOOBIN: Right. And this was - I mean, Judge Barrett was really a spectator for the vast majority of the time Sen. Harris was speaking. And that it was a free half hour of wide coverage and she used it to make Democratic talking points in the election, BECAUSE that's what she's focused on. That's what the Democratic Party is focused on, because they know that this issue - that this Supreme Court nomination looks like a done deal. But at the same time, I don't want to talk about the Supreme Court nomination as if it somehow doesn't matter and is just a sideshow to the presidential election. This is about whether Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned. This is about a nominee who is more outspoken on the abortion issue than any nominee in the history of the court. So there's never been a Supreme Court nominee before who had signed petitions about ...</s>BURNETT: Ending the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.</s>TOOBIN: Right. So this crazy, you know, pretense that she somehow has an open mind about whether abortion should be legal or not, I mean, I don't think anyone should be fooled by that. So the stakes of this Supreme Court nomination are enormous, even though the Democrats are focusing much more on the presidential elections, because they at least have a chance in that one.</s>BURNETT: And, Laura, she did also refuse to answer the questions that Senator Harris was putting right about the Affordable Care Act. Senator Harris again, most of that, was making the case, as Jeff points out right, for the Affordable Care Act to Americans. But that it was very clear she was not going to get any clear answer on the issue of justice -- you know, Barrett, did she even know that President Trump said I won't nominate anyone who said they're going to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, right? There was a little bit of verbal semantics going on. I don't know who mentioned what to me on phone call. That was a moment that seemed a bit more trademark Kamala Harris.</s>LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It seemed a bit more trademark in terms we heard from William Barr as well about when you say "suggest," what was the issue suggest, what does that word mean, or with Brett Kavanaugh, when she was confirmed about the notion of who he had spoken to at a prior law firm in any context whatsoever. And you see, what happens there is when you essentially refuse to admit the obvious, you undermine your even credibility. She could have simply said, well, yes, I'm aware that the president has made these statements. But as she tried to articulate in the past, she's not seeking to be something beholden to the president, rather than the rule of law. She could have easily dismissed that statement had she been paying attention perhaps to exactly what it was that she was going to concede. So I heard that and thought, that's a very easy question, as is earlier in the day when she was asked the question about why you won't showcase your hand, what would you do if the president of the United States tried to say you could move or delay the action. And se said, well, I'm not a legal pundit, and I was offended by that particular statement, being a legal pundit, I am. But the idea of saying instead I want more information and research. Well, this is a very easy answer. Congress is the one who has to change it. When she says I don't want to answer or show my hand or previews or forecast when the Constitution and the law already does it for you, it's a little absurd and disingenuous.</s>BURNETT: And now, this is all about to go behind closed doors, so there's two questions. One, what we learned about Justice Barrett. And two, Kirsten, Senator Harris and how significant tonight was with her making the case to the Democratic base. But you're pointing out, you think it was more broad than that, right? When she's talking about 130 million Americans, and, you know, she's clearly trying to make the case to people in the middle, right? Who may have looked at her specifically on the issue of health care, right, as being way more on the left, that this is a much more important issue for people who are in the middle type of voters.</s>KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah. The Biden campaign is laser focused on those voters. So I think that she -- I don't think she was coming here to thrill the Democratic base necessarily. I think she was coming here to say look, Roe v. Wade is almost definitely going to be overturned. Or this person sitting in front of us wants to overturn it. And the majority of voters don't support that. And so, I think that's something that people don't need to be reminded of that this is what the Republicans want to do, and when it comes to health care, that, you know, there are very serious consequences to what's happening here and it's a really stark contrast between the Republicans and the Democrats. And, you know, Amy Coney Barrett saying I haven't made any assurances to anybody is a meaningless statement. They don't have to ask for assurances. She's been vetted thoroughly by the Federalist Society. They would not have -- would not be supporting her, Republicans would not be supporting her if they didn't believe very strongly that she was going to overturn the ACA and that she was going to support overturning Roe v. Wade.</s>BURNETT: And as you point out, Jeff, right, to be on, you know, the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to say it was created by judicial fiat on that day, right? We know where she stands on that, that's very clear. She was asked earlier today by Senator Graham, people say you are a female Scalia. What do you say? And what I thought was interesting, Jeff, is the bottom line is she said, you would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett. But that's not what she said. Tell me why.</s>TOOBIN: Because what she said was, you know, that she suggested perhaps there was a sexist implication that she wasn't thinking for herself. But including when she spoke at the super spreader event at the White House, and today when she talked about originalism -- I mean, she went the whole way with originalism. She said, you know, I believe the Constitution means what people in the 18th century understood it to mean. You know what people in the 18th century didn't understand it to mean? It didn't mean anything about women's rights. It didn't believe anything about gay people's rights, it didn't believe anything about abortion. So if the people in the 18th century didn't believe in those, I'm not going to rule in favor of those rights. That's a big deal. That's a very different view of the Constitution than the majority of the -- even the more conservative members like John Roberts have held. They have seen how the meaning of the Constitution has changed. But Justice Scalia didn't, and Justice Scalia did if the people in the 18th century didn't believe it, I'm not ruling that way, and neither is Judge Barrett. And that's a very consequential thing.</s>BURNETT: Incredibly consequential and people think about the right of privacy, such as anyone believes it exists. Obviously, it's not in there. Thank you all very much. I appreciate your time. And as Judge Amy Coney Barrett continues to take questions from senators, President Trump is here, rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Live pictures here, thousands of people. Another day, another thing of the same, right? The camera has been there. Very few masks. There is no social distancing. The president today announcing he's going to be holding a lot more rallies like this across the country, even as Dr. Anthony Fuci made it clear he thinks they're a danger and warned a resurgence of coronavirus is coming.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: We're seeing an uptick in test positivity, which is highly predictive of a resurgence of cases, which historically we know leads to an increase in hospitalizations, and then ultimately an increase in deaths.</s>BURNETT: Well, Pennsylvania, where the president is tonight, is a state seeing an increase in cases, and like every other Trump rally, when the cameras are turned on and they focus on the president, the supporters behind him, mostly, almost all wear masks. That is not a coincidence, as our Jeremy Diamond reports, it's all for show, a dangerous reality show, one which includes launching a new attack on the nation's top infectious disease expert. Trump tonight tweeting about Fauci, quote, Tony's pitching arm is far more accurate than his prognostications. Fauci, though, not backing down.</s>FAUCI: I'm certainly not going to give up. This is too important a problem. I mean, I've devoted my entire professional life to fighting infectious diseases.</s>BURNETT: Jeremy Diamond is traveling with the president, OUTFRONT live in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where, of course, most of the people in that audience behind you are not wearing masks. What are you learning about why we see people behind the president with the masks on, but when you're in the crowd and you walk through, and you see cameras, we don't see any?</s>JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Erin. Listen, we have -- we've heard President Trump even as recently as last night mocking Joe Biden for putting social distancing measures in place. He has not required nor has his campaign required the attendees attending his rallies to require masks. But one thing that the president understands perhaps is optics. And that is why the campaign asks every person who is behind the president, who is in that VIP area, to actually wear a mask during the duration of the rally. They are actually given special masks that have the campaign's own branding on it. So, clearly, the president understands the value of the optics. But it's an illusion, Erin, because the overwhelming majority of the thousands of people who are at this rally or any of the recent rallies I've been to in the last several weeks, they are not wearing masks and they're certainly not social distancing, either. What is clear, Erin, is that this is how the president is going to forge ahead for these next three weeks. He has promised to gather thousands of thousands of people for the next three weeks between now and Election Day in person for these rallies where there's no social distancing or masks are not required. And they're nowhere perhaps more than in the state of Pennsylvania, Erin, the president has visited Pennsylvania six times in the last month and a half. And a campaign source telling me today that the president will visit this state perhaps more than any other battleground state the most between today and Election Day -- Erin.</s>BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Jeremy. So, you see what you see tonight, and you could be seeing more of this in Pennsylvania than any other battleground state from this president. Joining me now, Pennsylvania's Democratic lieutenant governor, John Fetterman. What's your reaction to that? You see the crowd and, you know, you hear the reporting, right? So behind them they get the MAGA masks and in front, we all see for ourselves very few masks. And now, we're hearing that he's going to go to Pennsylvania a lot between now and Election Day and keep doing the same thing. What do you say to the president?</s>LT. GOV. JOHN FETTERMAN (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, I just -- I saw that scene and I just thought back to less than two weeks ago, I was with Vice President Biden in Johnstown. And we had an event, too. And all of us were wearing masks, all of us were practicing social distancing, and Vice President Biden has been successful in avoiding contracting coronavirus or turning any of his events into spreading events. You know, the president understands what I've been saying for a long time now, is that Pennsylvania is going to pick the president, so it's not a surprise that he's going to be coming to our state many, many more times. But it's also true that he is going to behave the way he behaves because there's three weeks left, and he's certainly not going to change course on a lot of what I would describe personally as reckless kind of public health measures at his rallies.</s>BURNETT: So, you know, what do you say, though, given your state, right? The trend lines are not good. New cases are on the rise, you hear the warnings from Dr. Fauci. And yet, it's very clear that you're going to see, you know, thousands and thousands of people shoulder to shoulder, maskless at these sort of rallies. What risks do they pose?</s>FETTERMAN: It's -- it's an unfortunate risk. The tragedy in all of this, and the death and the economic destruction is that we have made each other the virus -- I mean, excuse me, we've made each other the enemy, not the virus. The virus is the true enemy. And this is only going to get settled on November 3rd. And I'm optimistic Pennsylvania is going to return to the blue column, whether it's the polling or the energy you see on the ground. But I'm not going to underestimate the president's strength in Pennsylvania for a second. But what I can say is that Pennsylvania respects science. You know, the governor and I do. We have made important steps to make sure that Pennsylvanians stay safe. And our results on the long-term demonstrate that. But the president's rallies contradict that. But I think he's going to get checked on November 3rd. And we both agree that Pennsylvania is going to likely pick the next president.</s>BURNETT: So, let me ask you about one other thing, Lieutenant Governor, the pretty disturbing thing that happened to you, your family personally. But in the context of what we're seeing across this country, it's important to talk about. Your wife Gisele at the grocery store, a woman recognizes her, begins to scream at her, telling her she doesn't belong, calling her the "N" word. And here's the end of the incident which Gisele captured on video.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dude, you're a</s>BURNETT: So how did you feel when you heard about this, when you saw that video?</s>FETTERMAN: I obviously was sad and concerned for my wife, first and foremost. And she called me immediately afterward and was shaken up. But she's gotten over that. And I just want to thank everybody for their love and support, both, you know, here and locally in western Pennsylvania, across Pennsylvania, across the country, the incident has really resonated. But like her, I'm also calling for a measure of, you know, compassion or at least understanding for that woman. She's obviously dealing with a lot of issues. And she is certainly not reflective of the great people of Pennsylvania. It was an isolated incident. But it is undeniable there is -- there is an energy out there, and I think that energy -- I think we can all agree isn't helpful. It's toxic and it's destructive. Once again, I think a lot of this is going to be settled on November 3rd here in Pennsylvania.</s>BURNETT: Lieutenant Governor, I appreciate your time. Thank you.</s>FETTERMAN: Thank you for having me.</s>BURNETT: All right. And now, Dr. Jonathan Reiner, director of the cardiac cath lab at George Washington University Hospital who also advised the White House medical team under President George W. Bush. So, Dr. Reiner, another night, another Trump rally in a state where the trend lines are moving in the wrong direction. And obviously, we just pointed out he's going to be going to Pennsylvania a lot. He's going to do everything he can to get as many images like what we just saw on people's screens, right? So they're not going to look at the polls. They're going to see those numbers, right? He's trying to use that to energize his base. So what do you say to that, given the resurgence in cases across this country?</s>DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: I say that the president is doing a lot of the virus' work. He's like the caddie for the virus. If you look at the battleground states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, the virus is surging in all of those states. And the president is going to go to all of those states. If you think about unmasked people in mass gatherings, it's like dry brush in a forest fire. The -- when the fire encounters that dry brush, it ignites and intensifies the fire. That's what happens in a pandemic when you put together unmasked people. The president is making it easier for the virus to spread those states. It's -- you know, maybe this helps him electorally. I don't understand the politics here. But it's very damaging to the public health.</s>BURNETT: So, President Trump today again, attacks Dr. Fauci, even though he's also using Dr. Fauci in a campaign ad to say that Dr. Fauci endorses him. So, putting that completely aside, the sort of hypocrisy of that, today, Trump tweeted that Fauci's pitching arm is, quote, far more accurate than his prognostications, which was a reference to Dr. Fauci's first pitch at an MLB game. So, where does this go, this Fauci-Trump issue? And Fauci has made it clear, he's not going anywhere, certainly not by choice.</s>REINER: Right. Well, I'll remind everybody that the president never threw out that first pitch that he promised to throw in New York this year. So I await his pitching prowess. This is so unnecessary. And so, what a distraction. Forty-seven thousand new cases today. Another almost 700 deaths in the United States. There are 38,000 people hospitalized with this virus. I don't want to hear this nonsense about the president talking about Dr. Fauci's pitching arm. I want to hear policy. I want to hear the president talking about masks and testing.</s>BURNETT: Yeah.</s>REINER: I want to hear that. I don't want to hear this. It's too much of a distraction.</s>BURNETT: So, we have a couple of big trials halted, and this is something that matters to all Americans here. Johnson and Johnson's vaccine, right, due to an unexplained illness, that they're trying to figure that out, right, before they proceed. Ely Lilly's antibody treatment, we're not sure why that was paused. Now, it's not uncommon for things to happen, right? It's par for the course. Dr. Fauci has pointed that out. That's why it takes time, right, they usually get resolved. You can move ahead.</s>REINER: Right.</s>BURNETT: But when it comes to Eli Lilly, this is a treatment the president has touted recently. Even though it is, and I want to be clear, not the actual treatment he received. Here he is.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Regeneron was -- I view it as a cure, not just a therapeutic. I view it as a cure because I took it. And Eli Lilly has a great drug. So we have these drugs, Eli Lilly and the others that are so good. Eli Lilly has something very comparable. It's phenomenal.</s>BURNETT: Is he -- is he setting up false expectations for people?</s>REINER: He always has. He's the quick fix president. There are no quick fixes here. This is why we have to do science. I'm not actually discouraged by these, you know, pauses. This is why we do clinical trials. We'll get it right and we'll have great therapeutics. I'm not really worried about these, you know, speed bumps.</s>BURNETT: All right. Well, Dr. Reiner, thank you.</s>REINER: My pleasure.</s>BURNETT: And an alarming development to a story that we've been following here. Another sitting Democratic governor, this time Virginia's governor, Ralph Northam, has been targeted by the same extremist group allegedly plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Sara Sidner is OUTFRONT.</s>SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): New disturbing details about the alleged plot in Michigan to take over state governments. In federal government, an FBI agent testified in June, the suspects discussed kidnapping not only the Michigan governor but the Virginia governor, as well. They specifically had the issues with the governors of Michigan and Virginia, he said, because of various coronavirus-related lockdown orders. Those also happened to be two of the Democratic governors who President Trump attacked in April over their stay at home orders, tweeting: liberate Michigan and liberate Virginia.</s>GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER (D), MICHIGAN: We know every time that this White House identifies me or takes a shot at me, we see an increase in rhetoric online, violent rhetoric. And so there's always a connection.</s>SIDNER: The president responded denying any role in citing extremists. But yet again attacking Whitmer, saying she's doing a terrible job. Attorney General Bill Barr has failed to speak publicly about the case, even as more details emerge. In the federal preliminary hearing, another new detail came to light in the alleged plot against Whitmer that was not spelled out in federal or state charges against 13 men accused in the plot. The FBI testified part of the plan to kidnap Governor Whitmer included snatching her from her north Michigan lakefront vacation home, taking her out to the middle of Lake Michigan and leaving her stranded in a boat. The agents said the plot wasn't all talk. There was plenty of action, and even video of the men firing their rifles fashioned with silencers. We traveled deep into the woods to an area residents say the FBI raided in Michigan.</s>CLIFF DEMOS, LUTHER RESIDENT: Guns, semiautomatics, small IED bombs, those kind of things is what they were using up here. (on camera): And that isn't the norm?</s>DEMOS: No.</s>SIDNER (voice-over): A hundred seventy-five miles away, the FBI raided another area agents say training took place. (on camera): That house there with the Confederate Flag here in Munith, Michigan, is one of the homes the FBI raided in this alleged plot to kidnap the governor. Now, we were able to talk to several neighbors who said they noticed something unusual a day or so before the FBI showed up. They heard a massive explosion emanating from this property. They said it rattled their floors and knocked their pictures askew. (voice-over): The FBI agent testified they have evidence one of the suspects attempted to make an improvised explosive device to blow up the bridge near the governor's home to keep police at bay. There was also video played from inside the basement where one of the alleged plot leaders, Adam Fox, lived. Prosecutors say the men are caught on video speed loading their weapons in case there was a gun fight. The whole alleged plot has folks in these villages concerned about self-style militias they know are still operating around here.</s>DEMOS: Are there other militia groups here? You bet they are.</s>SIDNER (on camera): And are people beginning to be afraid of them?</s>DEMOS: They are beginning to be a little more concerned.</s>SIDNER: Now, we're learning that the Trump campaign ended up canceling a rally at a gun range here, after learning a former employee of that range was arrested in this alleged kidnapping plot. It turns out that really has now been moved to another venue, Erin.</s>BURNETT: Sarah, thank you. I want to go straight now then to the former FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe. Deputy Director McCabe, so, you know, according to court documents, you know, the people planning this, discussed taking action again against multiple state governments that they believe are violating the U.S. Constitution, right? So, now, you are hearing Whitmer and you're hearing Northam in Virginia. Do you think this plot could be even bigger?</s>ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It certainly could, Erin. I think it's really important to concentrate on the words that the FBI agent used. You know, he described in court today that on June 6th, that Adam Fox and Barry Croft, two of the individuals who are now facing federal charges for their involvement in the Michigan plot, met with about 12 or more other militia members, from 5 different states. They talked about grabbing governors and they specifically mentioned, of course, the Michigan and Virginia governors. But that doesn't -- that language doesn't rule out any other activities that are being thought about or possibly considered or planned, in any one of those other three or four states. So I think it's, that's what we really need to look at first. And then you overlay on to that, Erin, the fact that these militia groups, these right ring anti-government groups, have been multiplying in the last few years. There is not a state in this country that doesn't have some of this militia presence in the state. They are all very different. Some of them are obviously more extreme than others. So, I'm quite sure that my former colleagues in the FBI are spending a lot of time looking at those groups right now, in kind of on the lookout for planned acts of violence.</s>BURNETT: So the FBI agent, you know, when you say pay attention to the words, also testified that the motive of the plot was to target a sitting governor over shutdown orders during the pandemic. Now, we know Trump tweeted in April about the shutdown orders, all caps: Liberate Michigan, liberate Virginia, right? Specifically telling those two states to be open. So, now, you have those two states governors obviously specifically named here. Correlation may not be causality but this is quite something.</s>MCCABE: Yeah, it really is. I mean, look, I can tell you, as a 21 year FBI agent, the FBI agents, we don't believe in coincidence, right? So, the fact that the president specifically called out the governors of -- specifically called out to liberate Michigan and Virginia, now you have plots in Michigan in Virginia, that would really be hard to explain that as a coincidence. I'd also like to point out, Erin, that President Trump was very specific and has made a bunch of comments about the Virginia governor's impact on people's Second Amendment rights. And Second Amendment right is something that are very, very important to these militia members, the anti-government folks, like the Boogaloo Boys, things like that. So, that is a specific kind of triggering language that will get the attention of these groups and could certainly cause some of them to take violent action.</s>BURNETT: Right. Deputy Director, I appreciate your time, thank you.</s>MCCABE: Thank you.</s>BURNETT: And as President Trump holds a rally tonight in the must-win state of Pennsylvania, Joe Biden is another swing state, Florida. [19:55;06] He's telling voters, quote: We win Florida and it's all over. Biden with a similar message in Ohio yesterday.</s>JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: If we win Ohio, the game is over. I think we win just -- Ohio and Florida are two critically important states are very close, that Trump won significantly the last two times and we feel really good. The polling data, I don't count on that, but I'm going to try to earn all the votes them. Ohio I think is a -- is a toss-up right now.</s>BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, John Kasich, the former Republican governor of Ohio. And, Governor, I've stood in your state in a very cold election night. We know there's been no Republican who has won the White House within Ohio. And in 96 years, no one Republican has won the White House without Florida. So, Biden's point about taking those states would hold. It's crucial. But the latest poll shows Biden and Trump neck and neck in Ohio. Right? They are -- it seems completely tied. What do you see and feel?</s>JOHN KASICH, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Erin, it's independent men who are beginning to move towards Joe Biden. Our seniors who would normally be locked down with the incumbent are now moving away from him. And, of course, women in the suburbs have had it with him. So, you put those kind of things together and you have why this thing is so close. But I must also tell you, Erin, in a way it's a little bit maybe bragging on my part, but I won 86 out of 88 counties a couple of elections ago.</s>BURNETT: Yeah.</s>KASICH: And it demoralized the Democratic machine. As a result of that they're having a hard time being able to carry out the basic things that they need to do. It is extremely close. I probably would still give this to Trump in Ohio, but nothing would surprise me here.</s>BURNETT: So, but that's interesting. You're saying despite what you're seeing with seniors, despite what you're seeing with certain groups of white men, right now, today election, you still would give Ohio to Trump?</s>KASICH: And it's because the Republican machine has been -- people have been pretty happy with Republicans, and the Democrats, they just weren't winning anything. Obama won. But then this blow out that they suffered when I ran for reelection was literally 86 out of 88 counties. It's sort -- the debate (ph), the machinery is not there. And you need machinery. I think these things come together is making this close. Again I wouldn't be surprised if Biden won Ohio. The same thing is happening in Florida, you know, with seniors moving the other way, independent men and, of course, the suburbs. So, the women in the suburbs have had it and demonstrated it through to two midterm elections. So, you know, this is really -- this is really something. Now, you know, you mentioned Pennsylvania. Again it's pretty close. I would give that one to Biden. Michigan -- Michigan is gone. Biden is going to win Michigan. Then you look at Minnesota and Wisconsin, two critical states, and interestingly enough in the state of Wisconsin, we're beginning to see Biden open up the lead. So, look, there are no landslides in American politics today, Erin. The country is too split right now.</s>BUIRNETT: Polarized.</s>KASICH: I would give the edge in this election to Joe Biden</s>BURNETT: So let me ask, you when you talk about seniors, is that related to coronavirus and the president's handling of coronavirus?</s>KASICH: Yes, yes, it is. And the one thing that Joe Biden had a show in that last debate, is -- was he -- is he strong going to be able to carry out the job as president? The seniors were looking at that. And he passed that test. And that's why seniors have not totally settled down yet. But they are moving away from Trump, undecided, trending towards Biden. And a lot of it has to do with that. The other thing that the Trump people have missed out on, Erin, is they're not talking about the most important issue and that's jobs. And, you know, we have a COVID economy now. You hear Biden talking about it. You hear Harris talking about.</s>BURNETT: Yeah.</s>KASICH: You don't hear Trump saying much about it. He's been an attack dog, you know, the Democrats are socialists and all that. I don't think that's very effective. He's been off message and, you know, he's talking about the virus but he's not reassuring people on the virus, and secondly, he's not talking about jobs. It always gets down to jobs.</s>BURNETT: It does. And, of course, obviously, you have endorsed Biden. Let me just ask you one thing, though, in terms of this whole thing with the voting, right?</s>KASICH: Yeah.</s>BURNETT: They said Biden voters vote early. And Trump voters vote on Election Day.</s>KASICH: They have.</s>BURNETT: So you're going to hear Trump winning on election night, but then the votes may change. Ohio can start counting up before Election Day on absentee ballots. Could we know an election night or early the day after which way Ohio went?</s>KASICH: Yeah. We -- well, we could because they can process the ballots and then quickly count. Then we've been absentee balloting here for 15 years. So, there's -- we're really used to doing. So, it's very possible, we will know on election night. But, you know, you get to count the ballots a couple of days after election day as long as they were postmarked before the election. So, it's something, Erin.</s>BURNETT: Depends who close it is.</s>KASICH: It's why you're doing well in the news. It never ends.</s>BURNETT: All right. Governor Kasich, I appreciate your time, as always sir, thank you.</s>KASICH: OK, Erin, thank you.</s>BURNETT: And thanks to all of you as well. Let's hand it off now to Anderson.

Texas's Limited Drop-off Locations Upheld

CAMEROTA: Developing overnight, a federal appeals court upholding Texas Governor Greg Abbott's order to allow just one ballot drop off box per county in the state. I should say drop off location. To put that in perspective, Harris County has 4.7 million people. More residents than 20 states. Meaning, that those 4.7 million people must now use only one ballot drop box location. CNN's Kristen Holmes is tracking that and other election issues. Wow. Tell us what's happening.</s>KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Alisyn, and, of course, as we know from our own CNN reporting, they drove throughout the country from the farthest area to that drop box. And for some residents of that country, it will take more than an hour to get there to drop off their ballot. And, of course, these drop boxes have been a big point of contention in this state. Voter groups have said that his -- Governor Abbott's decree to only have one per county was tantamount to voter suppression because it did severely limit access to voting. Now, a judge on Friday agreed with those critics, saying that this didn't serve the public. But now, as you say, an appeals court is upholding that rule to only have one box per county. I want to read to you the ruling here. It says, under the governor's expanded policy, a voter can deliver the ballot anytime until Election Day. That effectively gives voters 40 extra days to hand-deliver a marked, mail-in ballot to an early voting clerk and the voter still has the traditional option she has always had for casting a mail-in ballot, mailing it. But, of course, as we know, a lot of people feel that the mailing system right now is under a lot of pressure. We have heard from President Trump saying that it's a failure. So people are afraid to cast that ballot via mail. This -- this is detrimental to this community because it severely limits them in their access to voting.</s>JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump is wrong, just to be clear, there's no evidence at all for what President Trump says right there.</s>HOLMES: Right.</s>BERMAN: We need to be clear about that.</s>HOLMES: Absolutely.</s>BERMAN: So, Kristen, ballot drop boxes, it's an interesting phenomenon around the country. For many people it helps them get their ballot in more easily. And California there's something very odd happening, though, which is that the Republican Party has admitted to placing these unauthorized ballot boxes around the states. What's that about?</s>HOLMES: Yes, this is really weird, John. So, essentially, just so you know, the secretary of state in California, the Department of Justice, they've both now issued a cease and desist letter to the California Republican Party to get them to remove these boxes. But this started late last week when an operative in the state posted a picture on Twitter of him in front of a box, a ballot box, saying that he was voting, to DM him, send him a direct message, to find other locations like this. The box looked like a legit box. It said drop box. It said official box on it. But the problem was, it was not actually an official drop box. Now the secretary of state says that they've heard cases about this in three counties, in multiple locations in three counties across the state. And I want to show you one of the boxes here. This is a photo taken by a self-proclaimed activist and they show you the box. And you can see it almost looks like a cardboard box here. There is not any sort of security. But it says ballot drop. Republicans say that they're following the law, that Democrats are being hypocritical, that in California you can have someone actually collect your ballot and bring it into the election office, which is true. But the secretary of state of California said on our air last night, I think it's the best way to describe this, that there's no chain of command. How are anyone supposed to know what happens in -- to these ballot boxes when this happens? And this is coming at a time where there is unprecedented interest in voting. I want to show you one picture here before I go. This is Georgia yesterday. Look at these lines. They were hours long. Some people had to wait in line for ten hours to vote. And, John, while, again, unprecedented interest, no one should ever have to wait in line for ten hours to vote in a democracy.</s>BERMAN: Yes, the lines there are simply amazing. A lot of people gutsing it out there. And 120,000 people voted yesterday in Georgia. That sets a record, shatters all records there.</s>CAMEROTA: That is incredible. Yes. Just because you write ballot box on a box doesn't make it a ballot box. That's what I just took away from that, Kristen. Thank you very much.</s>HOLMES: Yes.</s>CAMEROTA: It's like your homemade graphics. Just because you write it on paper doesn't make it legit. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is working to fast track President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, though he refused to confirm Merrick Garland, as we all know, when President Obama was president. And that was from far from his only blocking of judges. We take a look at McConnell's long history of power grabs in a "Reality Check," next.

Pennsylvania's Second Lady Target of Slur.

BERMAN: Developing this morning, the wife of Pennsylvania's lieutenant governor is speak out about a racist attack she says she was subjected to at a grocery store. The commonwealth's second lady posted this video which captures the end of the incident.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dude, you're a</s>BERMAN: Joining me now is Gisele Fetterman. Listen, thank you so much for being with us. And we're so sorry that you went through this. Explain to us, if you can hear me, what happened. You went to the grocery store to buy, I guess, kiwis, and then this.</s>GISELE FETTERMAN, PENNSYLVANIA'S SECOND LADY: Yes. Thank you for having me. It was an evening I didn't expect. I made a quick run to pick up the golden kiwis that were their last day on sale. And I'm in line to pay. Just waiting for my turn and this woman passes me and she stops. I can telling immediately that she had recognized me. And that's where it began. It continued into the parking lot. But it began at the checkout lane.</s>BERMAN: And what began? I -- you know, I don't want you to say anything you're uncomfortable saying on morning television, but explain to me what happened.</s>FETTERMAN: So she repeatedly told me that I do not belong. She called me a thief. She said there's that n-word, that Fetterman married, referencing my husband marrying me.</s>BERMAN: And then she followed you outside and said it again, and that's where we see it on the video. And I'm -- again, I'm so sorry you went through that. So what are you thinking when you're in the checkout line at the grocery store with this woman saying these things?</s>FETTERMAN: I -- you know, I was pretty frozen in time. When I witness injustice in -- to someone else, I'm able to have all this courage and step in. When it's directed towards me, I kind of just freeze up. I think at that point I was crying, you know. I know by the time I got my car I was like full-blown sobbing. And it's not something you're prepared for. I don't think you can prepare for that moment. And it just all happened so fast, in my mind.</s>BERMAN: Why do you think it hit you like that? Why do you think you were crying at that time?</s>FETTERMAN: One, I'm a big baby. But, also, you know, I'm a former dreamer. I came as a child, as a young immigrant. My family lived undocumented for over a decade. And those were really scary times. You know, if I had a knock at the door that I wasn't expecting, it would be fear that my family was going to be sent back to a country we fled because of violent conditions. So even though I'm 38 and I'm second lady and I have a family and a career, I was immediately, again, a scared, you know, nine-year-old undocumented little girl at that grocery line.</s>BERMAN: Well, first of all, I don't think you're a baby. You're speaking out about this and you're letting the people know what happened there and I think that's important because no one should be treated like this. You have three children, right?</s>FETTERMAN: Uh-huh. Right.</s>BERMAN: Three children at this point. What have they witnessed in terms of attacks like this as they've grown up with you?</s>FETTERMAN: They've seen a lot. You know, they've seen how their father is treated differently than I am. For years, before we were at this kind of level of public, like, I was repeatedly mistaken for the nanny. And this happened in front of my kids. And for me, you know, I'm raising these three kids to be really kind, good kids in this world, and I'm raising them for this world. So they know that the world can be cruel. They know there's also amazing people. But that we have to do our part every day to be part of the good to combat the cruel that is out there.</s>BERMAN: What does it tell you that someone felt emboldened enough to do this, to say these types of things out loud in a public place?</s>FETTERMAN: You know, it's heartbreaking. And I know that I'm certainly not the last and certainly not the first. And I -- I have a platform where I can talk about this. And so many people have to suffer through this without that. And no one deserves to feel unsafe going anywhere, not to the grocery store, not out in public. But it was like a hard reminder for me that it doesn't matter what I've overcome, what I've achieved in my life, that to some I will always be viewed as inferior simply because I was not born in this country.</s>BERMAN: Do you think there's a permissiveness now? Do you think there's a notion that these things are OK to say?</s>FETTERMAN: I think that we're at a place where we're so divided that people are kind of proud. And, you know, she seemed happy when I finally was able to figure out my phone to catch a recording. She didn't hide from it. She was very clear that I was recording her at that point and I think people are more comfortable now being so bold in their bigotry or their hatred. And to me that's very sad knowing that I have three young kids that are going to go into this world with children that this woman may have raised, order grandchildren that she may have influenced.</s>BERMAN: Three weeks until Election Day, until people can finish voting in America, including Pennsylvania. What do you want to happen out of this? What do you want to have come from this incident?</s>FETTERMAN: Well, I want maybe her at least to see herself in a way that maybe she doesn't like anymore and wants to make a decision to -- to unlearn whatever she has learned along the way. But I want folks to maybe see themselves. You know, maybe you have that uncle that you see in her or that cousin that you see in her, and these are people you may be with around the table at Thanksgiving later on and we should be having these conversations. And they're difficult and they're comfortable. But nothing is going to change unless we -- we try to work with these people, right? I don't want -- I want her to be met with compassion, but I want there to be someone in her life who cares about her, who wants to help her change.</s>BERMAN: Gisele Fetterman, we can see the goodness in your heart and we can see the bravery to bring this forward so people can see. Thank you so much for being with us this morning. Sorry you went through that. And I hope you and your kids never have to experience anything like that in the future. Appreciate it.</s>FETTERMAN: Thank you.</s>BERMAN: NEW DAY continues right now.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A new warning as new cases nationally are up 40 percent.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NIAID: I hope these numbers jolt the American public because it's on a trajectory of getting worse and worse.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Johnson and Johnson is now the second drug maker to pause human trials for the coronavirus vaccine.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You expect a few pauses. We've got to let the process play out.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden hitting the campaign trail.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I went through it.

Trump Mocks Coronavirus as Pandemic in U.S. Worsens; Johnson & Johnson Pauses Vaccine Trial Over Unexplained Illness.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A new warning as new cases nationally are up 40 percent.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I hope these numbers jolt the American public, because it's on a trajectory of getting worse and worse.</s>JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Johnson & Johnson is now the second drug maker to pause human trials for the coronavirus vaccine.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You'd expect a few pauses. We've got to let the process play out.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden hitting the campaign trail.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I feel so powerful. I'm walking better (ph).</s>JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: The longer Donald Trump is president, the more reckless he gets.</s>ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.</s>JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to to our viewers in the United States and all around the world. This is NEW DAY. It's Tuesday, October 13, 6 a.m. here in New York. And this morning, asking for trouble. Dr. Anthony Fauci may be the most trusted man in America when it comes to battling the coronavirus pandemic; says the president is asking for trouble this morning. The country, in some ways, asking for trouble. Cases are rising in 33 states. All the states you see there in red, including Michigan, which just recorded its second highest number of new cases since the pandemic began. Five states are reporting record hospitalizations. Thirteen states have a positivity rate above 10 percent. That means that community transmission is accelerating. One of those states is Florida. Asking for trouble. The president held his first rally there since himself becoming infected, dozens of others connected to the White House infected, as well. But their health aside, what about these people? What about the thousands of people in attendance? No social distancing there. Few masks. Who is protecting them? In fact, if you ask, they tell us they would behave differently if the president only asked them to.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me ask you this. If President Trump at the rally said, Everyone put on their masks.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would put it on.</s>ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Well, there you go. Joe Biden also heading to Florida today. He'll hold a drive-in voter mobilization event designed to keep supporters socially distanced. Three weeks now until the election, and voter enthusiasm is high.</s>BERMAN: It's zero days until the election.</s>CAMEROTA: Well, not for everybody, John.</s>BERMAN: It's 21 days until voting is over. It's not 21 days until election day.</s>CAMEROTA: OK. You make a good point. But not everybody can vote. But look at these lines.</s>BERMAN: Forty-six states in the District of Columbia they can vote, as of today.</s>CAMEROTA: OK. Those are high numbers, I guess I would say. You're -- you're making a good point. This is Georgia, OK? Georgia yesterday set records on the first day of early voting, which John is very excited about. People waited in hours there -- I mean, sorry, in line for hours. Look at that. I mean, I just can't stop staring at the screen. That's some voter enthusiasm for you right there. OK, also breaking overnight, Johnson & Johnson announcing it is pausing their Phase 3 vaccine trial because of an unexplained illness in one of the study's volunteers. We have more on that for you in a minute. But let's begin with Joe Johns. He is live at the White House this morning. Hi, Joe.</s>JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Alisyn. The president and Joe Biden both back out on the campaign trail today with millions of ballots already cast in early voting. The president last night in Florida giving a preview of what at least part of his message on the campaign trail might be for the next three weeks. Mocking efforts to control the spread of coronavirus while holding re- election events that could potentially increase it.</s>JOHNS (voice-over): Both presidential candidates on the campaign trail with just three weeks left until election day. President Donald Trump back on the campaign trail for the first time since his coronavirus diagnosis ten days earlier, holding a rally in Sanford, Florida. At the rally, few masks and no social distancing.</s>TRUMP: I went through it. Now they say I'm immune. I can -- I feel so powerful. I walk into that audience. I'll walk in there. I'll kiss everyone in that audience.</s>JOHNS: Former Vice President Joe Biden called the president's actions risky.</s>BIDEN: Just reckless personal conduct since his diagnosis, as well, has unconscionable. And the longer Donald Trump is president, the more reckless he gets.</s>JOHNS: At the rally, Trump spoke for a little over an hour and still does not seem to be taking the coronavirus seriously. Trump continuing to claim, without evidence, that he's now immune from the virus, criticizing lockdowns and mocking social distancing measures taken by Biden's campaign.</s>TRUMP: The cure cannot be worse. But if you don't feel good about it, but if you want to stay. Stay, relax, stay. But if you want to get out there, get out.</s>JOHNS: Trump arriving in Florida less than two hours after his physician, Dr. Sean Conley, said the president had tested negative for the coronavirus on consecutive days without saying which days. Meanwhile, Biden set to campaign today to Florida following a visit Monday to Ohio, where he courted voters whose state went to Trump in 2016.</s>BIDEN: Ohio matters. You elected me and Barack in 2008 and '12. I'm asking for your support.</s>JOHNS: The Biden campaign heavily focused in these last few weeks of campaigning on flipping states Trump won in the last election. Meanwhile, back in Washington, Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, dismissing requests to keep his mask on while talking to reporters.</s>MARK MEADOWS, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Let me do this. Let me pull this away.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, pull away.</s>MEADOWS: And then that way I can take this off to talk. Well, I'm more than ten feet away. I'm not -- well.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.</s>MEADOWS: I'm not going to talk through a mask.</s>JOHNS: And Dr. Anthony Fauci slamming the president's campaign for using his words without permission and out of context in a campaign ad, saying he never publicly endorses any political candidates. Fauci said this when asked what would happen if the president's campaign made another ad featuring his words?</s>FAUCI: That would be outrageous if they do that. In fact, that might actually come back to backfire on them.</s>JOHNS: The president heads out for Johnstown, Pennsylvania, later today for his event. Joe Biden is going to the state of Pennsylvania later this week, as well. Meanwhile, back here at the White House, we saw a touch of irony as the Trump administration started using information from the World Health Organization to explain why it thinks lockdowns are not a good idea. As you know, the president withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization earlier this year. Alisyn, back to you.</s>CAMEROTA: There are many touches of irony, I would say, in the past few months. Thank you very much, Joe. All right. Breaking overnight, Johnson & Johnson announcing it is pausing their Phase 3 human coronavirus vaccine trial because of an unexplained illness with one of the study's volunteers. CNN's Elizabeth Cohen is live in Atlanta for us with more. So what do we know about this, Elizabeth?</s>ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, all we know is that something happened to one of these study participants. We don't know what. We don't know exactly what happened, but there was enough concern that this illness might -- and I emphasize might -- might be related to the vaccine. They have put the whole thing on hold. They are not going to dose anybody. Nobody else is going to get another shot in this trial until they figure out, was it because of the vaccine or was it not? Let's take a look at a statement from Johnson & Johnson. They say, "Serious adverse events" -- which is a fancy word for when a participant gets sick -- "Serious adverse events are not uncommon in clinical trials, and the number of serious adverse events can reasonably be expected to increase in trials involving large numbers of participants." Basically, what they're saying is when you, know, give a shot to a whole -- to tens of thousands of people, someone is going to get sick. Now, let's take a look at the status of where these vaccine trials are at in the United States. Johnson & Johnson on pause, as we just said. AstraZeneca also on pause, similar. Participant got sick. They're still trying to figure that out. Been on pause for more than a month. Moderna is still up and running. They started July 27. Pfizer also up and running. They started July 27. Now, I want to add here that, of course, this is the right thing to do. When a study person gets sick and you think that it might be because of the vaccine, of course you put the trial on hold. However, experts tell us it is unusual for this to happen. It is unusual for there to be so much concern about a participant's illness that they put the trial on hold -- Alisyn.</s>CAMEROTA: That is really interesting context. Thank you very much. We'll be talking about that for the rest of the program. Meanwhile, the pandemic in the U.S. is getting worse. So we'll show you how your state is doing, what you should do starting today to stay safe, even when President Trump does not model safe behavior. We discuss all that next.

Trump Mocks Coronavirus as Pandemic in U.S. Worsens; Johnson & Johnson Pauses Vaccine Trial over unexplained Illness

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN NEW DAY: We want to welcome the viewers in the United States and all around the world. This is New Day. And this morning, the fall resurgence of coronavirus that so many doctors and experts feared has arrived. Cases are rising in 33 states across the country. You can see that on the swath of orange and red on your screen. Five states are reporting record hospitalizations this morning. 13 states have a positivity rate above 10 percent, and that means the community transmission is accelerating. One of those states is Florida. That's where President Trump had a rally, this rally on Monday. You can see that the crowd was packed, mostly unmasked. He hopes to hold a rally every day this week. Dr. Anthony Fauci, just one of the experts trying to grab us all by the shoulders and tell us this is dangerous.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: We know that that is asking for trouble when you do that. We've seen that when you have situations of congregate settings where there are a lot of people without masks, the data speak for themselves. It happens.</s>JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEW DAY: Joe Biden heads to Florida today for a drive-in voter mobilization event. Supporters, we are told there, will be socially distanced. And 46 states and in Washington, D.C., there are zero days until Election Day. Voting is now, it is on, 21 days until it's over, three weeks from today. Millions of votes have already been cast. Georgia set records on the first day of early voting. People had to wait in line for hours.</s>CAMEROTA: look at this. I mean, we had to speed it up or we would have never have gotten through the show.</s>BERMAN: I mean, obviously, in some cases, they had to work out some glitch there, you shouldn't have to wait that long, but enthusiasm incredibly high. And breaking overnight, Johnson & Johnson announced it is pausing its face phase three vaccine trial because of an unexplained illness in one of the study (ph) volunteers. We'll have much more on that in just a moment.</s>CAMEROTA: Okay. Joining us now, CNN Washington Correspondent Ryan Nobles, CNN Political Analyst David Gregory and CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Rochelle Walensky, she is the Chief of Massachusetts General Hospital's Division of Infectious Diseases. Great to have all of you here this morning. Dr. Walensky, I think that we start many mornings by showing the map. We start many mornings by giving the death count. We start many mornings by saying what the cases are up to. And I think that for viewers, it can all blur together, somewhat. And so I just want to take a moment to say that something different is happening. Something different is happening in the country. It's what you and so many doctors that we talked to predicted. This is the moment that it's time for to us have different conversations in places like the northeast where we had let our guard down, it's time to start adjusting our behavior.</s>DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Good morning, Alisyn. Yes, it's time. I mean, we see this map, 33 states all going up. We see the numbers, you know, just about a month ago we were at 30,000, 35,000 new infections a day. We're now at about 50,000 new infections a day. We see more people heading indoors. I am so very worried that we are in for a cold, dark, winter that is really riddled with death. So, yes, I am worried. Now is the time to act. Now is the time do something about it. We still have it in our power. We continue to have it in our power and we just need to distance and wear masks.</s>BERMAN: Well, given what Dr. Walensky is saying, given what you just said, Alisyn, it's farcical that the president held a packed rally in Florida last night with thousands of people there not socially distanced. It's farcical. It's completely antithetical to what Dr. Walensky is saying needs to happen. And, again, this isn't a bug of what the president is offering. It's the feature, it's the non-socially distanced feature of the message he's promoting. I also think we haven't seen this yet. We have video of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. So, again, Ron DeSantis gets to this event. And if we can play that so people can see --</s>CAMEROTA: He takes it a step further.</s>BERMAN: Here he is.</s>CAMEROTA: He's high-fiving people, you know, a mini little handshake there.</s>BERMAN: There you go. There you go. Touch me please with your hands and I will touch you with mine. There's a pandemic on, a positivity rate of about 10 percent in Florida. Again, David Gregory, this isn't a bug. It seems to be the feature of the message that the president is sending.</s>DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALST: Well, and what it does is it amplifies such a reckless attitude. You have the president of the United States, you have these rallies that project a picture of what the doctor is talking about. If people beyond letting their guard down, just refusing to follow the rules. But I do think it can be distorted. Look, I traveled over the weekend. And one of the things that I found is that most people do follow the rules in the airports, on airplanes, in public spaces. If they're dining outdoors, I think we have to remember that most people are following the rules and doing all they can. We've also seen a big spike in people getting their flu vaccines, trying to take seriously the idea that we have a more dangerous flu season ahead, potentially. Maybe we don't, according to a lot of experts as well. So the difficulty, I think, is people who are going through that fatigue or on the other side, the economic ruin that we're seeing that people are saying, look, I can't live in isolation forever, how do they live but do it safely by continuing to follow the rules? And as Dr. Fauci says are not complicated. Don't go to those rallies or even if they're outdoors, unless you're wearing a mask and you should stay away regardless. That's what I think gets lost in all of this is that the rules are still simple enough to follow.</s>CAMEROTA: Yes, but I take your point, David, but I think, Ryan, that what we've learned is that people will follow the rules if they know the rules, if they get the rules. But so we're so divided, so many people are getting their information in places that are not talking about the rules. And, you know, I think another thing we've learned is that people like to follow their leader. They believe in their leader. If the leader models something, people, I would say a majority of Americans, will mimic that. But, Gary Tuchman, our Gary Tuchman, went to one of these rallies and talked to people about just explain to me why you're not wearing a mask. And it was pretty revealing. I think we have that. Listen.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A mask can honestly do more harm than good to individuals.</s>GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It can do more harm?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It can. Because people can faint because there's too much carbon dioxide going back into their system.</s>TUCHMAN: You think people are fainting all over the country from masks and dropping dead?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, just enough. Enough people are getting ill because they're wearing a mask. So, yes.</s>TUCHMAN: Where'd that come from?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Common sense.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've also seen the numbers drop every single day.</s>TUCHMAN: The numbers are going up now though.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here?</s>TUCHMAN: And Mr. Trump says it's disappearing, but it's not. That's not the truth.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I'm debating on what the truth is for that because of what I can see. It's -- all the numbers that I've read have been down and I'm seeing that the flu is taking more people.</s>TUCHAMN: So, that's what you believe?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.</s>TUCHMAN: Let me ask you this. If President Trump at the rally said everyone put on their masks --</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would put it on.</s>CAMEROTA: Okay, let's just -- let me just remind what she just said. Ryan, he said if President Trump wore a mask, she said I would put it on. I mean, that's so telling listening to voters from yesterday.</s>RYAN NOBLES, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, having been to many of these rallies, what I heard there in that peace room, Gary, is not surprising at all. They are taking their cues from President Trump. President Trump mocks people who wear masks on a regular basis. He picks on Joe Biden for wearing a mask at these rallies and it's often some of the biggest applause line he gets at the rallies when he picks on people for wearing masks. I've had a similar experience because often at these rallies, the only group of people wearing masks are those in the press pen. And I've had Trump Supporters actually scream at us, telling us that we are fools for wearing masks and the masks are actually detrimental to our health as opposed to protecting ourselves and those around us. And, you know, Alisyn, my own experience say good one in terms of how effective they have been. I've been to a dozen Donald Trump rallies. We've seen many reports of levels of infections that come as a direct result of these events and I have yet to test positive for coronavirus. Now, that could change at any moment, but I never enter one of those events without a KN95 mask to make sure that I'm protecting myself and others around me, and so far it's been okay. And this is a direct result of the president's message himself, if his supporters heard a message from the president that were different, they would act differently. And what I always go back to that I think is so mind-boggling is that if the president had encouraged his supporters to wear masks back in March, we may be in a different situation. The economy may be better. He himself may have not contracted coronavirus. It seems to be hurting his own effort in terms of defeating the virus and his own effort politically, but yet he chose to go a different path.</s>CAMEROTA: And all the models do show that 100,000 lives would have been saved if we had done that early. Thank you for that.</s>BERMAN: I mean, again, at this point, it's just so clear he doesn't want people to wear masks. Mark Meadows in a crowded hallway in the Capitol yesterday, I mean, small hallway, refused to speak to reporters with his mask on. Again, this is not a bug. It is the feature of the policy we're getting from the top levels of the government right now. Dr. Walensky, Jake Tapper had an remarkable interview with Anthony Fauci yesterday that covered a wide range of things. Dr. Fauci is talking about this rally, the likes of which we saw last night. And let me just play one bit of sound so we can hear Dr. Fauci.</s>FAUCI: We know that that is asking for trouble when you do that. We've seen that when you have situations of congregate settings where there are a lot of people without masks, the data speak for themselves. It happens.</s>BERMAN: You also heard Dr. Fauci express frustration that he has appeared in a Trump campaign ad out of context and he warned that if it happens again there will be -- it will backfire. It's almost as if he's threatening the Trump campaign, don't do this again. But there is -- I sensed with Dr. Fauci there exasperation, Dr. Walensky, and I'm wondering why you think that is at this point.</s>WALENSKY: Well, I think many of us are exasperated because we are sending this message and it certainly is not being heard. With regard to the rallies, on June 20th, the president had an indoor rally in Oklahoma, and three weeks later, Oklahoma surged. Their cases went up six times what they were a few months prior. Two weeks ago, we saw an event in the Rose Garden with 200 people, you know, two weeks later we have at least 34 cases from that event. One thing is very clear from these events of gathering, and the president has said he feels so powerful. He has the power to protect his people. And what I think is clear is every time there is an event, he is leaving a lot of COVID in his wake.</s>CAMEROTA: David Gregory, let's talk about --</s>GREGORY: Can I just point out --</s>CAMEROTA: Yes, quickly.</s>GREGORY: All you need to do -- and I always say this. All you need to do to understand the potency this virus is look at the case numbers on college campuses. Who are the most reckless among us are teenagers who are around 20 years old who want to go and party and don't care about the rules. And you're seeing the impact of that. You look at Georgia, Alabama, around 3,000 cases on each of those campuses. You can just see how easily it is for the virus to spread.</s>CAMEROTA: You could also look at the White House outbreak, I mean, how fast that spread like wildfire. David, I want to talk about what former V.P. Joe Biden has been doing as well. So on the campaign trail, he -- again, hit his message of how different his roots are, he's trying to say, from Donald Trump's. So, listen to this.</s>JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Like a lot of you, I spent a lot of my time with guys like Trump looking down on me, the Irish Catholic kid in the neighborhood. Guys who thought they were better than me because they had a lot of money, guys who inherited everything they ever got and still managed to squander it. I still have a little bit of chip on my shoulder about guys like him.</s>CAMEROTA: The polls suggest at the moment, I know they're just a snapshot, that Joe Biden is doing very well. Is that because, David, he's not Trump or is he doing something that is particularly effective on the campaign trail?</s>GREGORY: Well, I mean, think there's a lot of being not Trump that's helping right now because there's so much focus on the virus, the response to the virus, and people, older Americans, women, suburban voters are making a judgment about that. I think this is a particularly good appeal that Biden has to working class voters, particularly in the upper Midwest where he's leading right now in a lot of those state polls in addition to the national lead. I think there's the idea of Trump fatigue overall. I think that one of the things that Biden is benefitting from is that people would like to calm things down a bit. I think we've seen this before in our recent political history. It's my sense that there's a desire for that now. And then even people who liked Trump shaking up the system and all the rest might be tired of it by now. And a key difference, I just think that Biden doesn't have the negatives that Hillary Clinton did. You may think he's not up for the job, you may think he might be too liberal, but I don't think there's the kind of animus toward Biden. And here, he's a guy who's appealing to voters with the idea that, hey, I'm like you in so many ways and I can paint this contrast as kind of a little guy that's getting looked down on. And he thinks that's got a particular reach right now.</s>BERMAN: But, David Gregory, he said two things we have coming up. Number one, Harry Enten will be on a little bit showing us the numbers of how 2020 is different than 2016. It illustrates exactly what David is talking. And later, Kate Bolduan, went to Pennsylvania and spoke to some women who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and finds out where they are now. And it is so revealing along the lines of what David just said. David Gregory, Ryan Nobles, Dr. Walensky, thank you all very much for being with us. Breaking overnight, Johnson & Johnson announced it has paused its phase three trial of a coronavirus vaccine. Theirs is a single-dose vaccine because of an unexplained illness with one of the volunteers. CNN's Elizabeth Cohen now joins us with the detail of this. This isn't the FDA stepping in, it was Johnson & Johnson doing itself. Still, it's on pause.</s>ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. So, Johnson & Johnson apparently had a study participant who got sick. And, John, this is the really important part, got sick with something where there was enough of a concern that it might be because of the vaccine. And I emphasize the word, might, that they decided to put the trial on pause. Let's take a look at a statement that Johnson & Johnson put out. They said, serious adverse events, which is a fancy way of saying a participant getting sick, are not uncommon in clinical trials and the number of serious adverse events can reasonably be expected to increase in trials involving large numbers of participants. So let's unpack that a little bit. Essentially, what Johnson & Johnson is saying, look, when you start vaccinating or including in your trial tens of thousands of people, somebody is going to get sick. It's just a numbers game. You're pretty much including in your trial kind of like a small town, somebody is going to get sick. But to be clear, these trials only get paused when there's a concern that that illness might be related to the vaccine. If somebody, for example, gets breast cancer, you don't pause the trial, the breast cancer wasn't cause of the vaccine. So this is something where there's enough concern that it might be related to the vaccine that they decided to pause the trial. Now, this is not the first trial that's been paused. Let's take a look at what's happening with other clinical trials in the United States for a coronavirus vaccine. Johnson & Johnson, as we've just said, has paused. AstraZeneca also paused. They actually had two participants who had adverse events and it's been paused in this country for more than a month while they try to figure this all out. Moderna is still up and running. They started on July 27th. Pfizer also started on July 27th. Now, an interesting note here is that AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, the two that are now paused, they used -- their vaccines are similar. They used very similar what are called platforms. It would be interesting to know the nature of this illness at Johnson & Johnson. We don't know, the company hasn't said. John.</s>BERMAN: I know you're digging. Please keep us posted. I really appreciate the report, Elizabeth. So, record-breaking turnout on the first day of early voting in Georgia. What does this tell us about what we might expect for the next three weeks of voting? That's next.

Georgia Sees Record Turnout on First Day of Early Voting.

CAMEROTA: Zero days until Election Day in Georgia. You can see people waiting in lines for hours to cast their ballots in Georgia yesterday. This was the first day of in-person voting in the state. Right now, some form of early voting either in-person or by mail is under way in 46 states and Washington, D.C., as we said, zero days until Election Day. Joining us now, CNN Analyst Jessica Huseman, she's a reporter for ProPublica covering voting rights. Jessica, thank you so much for being with us now. We saw those lines in Georgia and they broke records, I mean, shattered records for the first day of in-person early voting in that state, 120,000 people voted. But we hear that some people had to wait in line for up to 11 hours and there are those who look at it and say, this is horrible, it shows how broken the system is. And while it's clearly not a good thing that people had to wait that long, you look at it, perhaps with a more sanguine attitude. Why?</s>JESSICA HUSEMAN, CNN ANALYST: I think that there's a consensus across political science that long lines on the first day of voting are not indicative of problems to come, they're simply indicative of enthusiasm. You know, in the same way that people line up for the opening of a store that they're very excited about and then that store closes in six months. Turnout on the first day is not necessarily indicative of problems going forward or lines being long for the entirety of the election. So I think that if we see long lines on day two and day three, then certainly we have reason to worry. But, you know, turnout on the first day of early voting, that happens to be on a holiday in major counties is not hugely surprising to me. It is on-face terrible that someone waited 11 hours in line to vote. But that was not the majority, the vast majority of voters Georgia barely waited at all.</s>BERMAN: So let's wait a few days, see how it goes and count in the meantime how many people are showing up early to do this. So I need to ask you about what's happening in California, because there's been in discussion about ballot drop boxes across the country in Texas, the state you're in right now, there's a whole separate type of battle where the governor is trying to severely limit the number of them. But in California, the Republican Party there has put its own ballot drop boxes and made them look like the official ballot drop box. They even say, official ballot drop box. Now, the Democrats who run the state, the secretary of state and the attorney general there, they look at this and they say, this is bad, they think it's illegal. What exactly is going on here? What do you see here?</s>HUSEMAN: This is the most bizarre I have read in four years of covering elections administration. I genuinely don't understand what the Republican Party in California is trying to do. But they have distributed these boxes, that some of them say official that are specifically to cast -- to gather ballots and they put them at places like churches gun stores convenience stations. And they argue that it's not illegal because in California, you can collect other people's ballots and turn people for them. But the state, I think, correctly says, no, we also have laws around drop boxes and how secure they must be and how many times a day the ballots are taken out and the type of monitoring that they need to have. And so they're sort of skating this odd line. And a couple of Republican officials in a couple of counties have already rolled it back and said they're going to be removing some of these boxes. So we'll see how this plays out. They've been sent a cease and desist letter by the secretary of state and the attorney general. So if they don't remove the boxes soon, I anticipate we'll have some legal action.</s>BERMAN: One of the things I know you're watching very closely is there's three weeks left until people can finish voting as it were across the country in 46 states and Washington, D.C. they're already voting. In 21 days, the final votes will be cast. But you're watching some of these court cases because these states have to figure out pretty darn soon, if not already, what process they are going use to count the votes. And I think this is what concerns you most as we sit here today. Why?</s>HUSEMAN: Because lawsuits are not -- don't happen in a vacuum, right? In order to accommodate the ruling of a lawsuit, often election administration training has to change, the way that poll workers function have to change and the way that the ballots are counted have to change. So, overnight, in Texas, the Fifth Circuit overturned an appeal based on the number of drop boxes in Texas, for example. So, overnight, it was maintained that Texas can only have one drop box per county. That dramatically shifts the way that places like Harris County and Dallas County are collecting mail-in ballots. And the closer and closer we get to Election Day, the more tumultuous those changes will make this election. Right now, we have some time to accommodate for changes, but in just a couple of days, we really won't.</s>BERMAN: When they can start counting and when they can finish counting, those are two of the major issues in many states, and still in a few states up in the air. Jessica Huseman, as always, great to have you on. Thank you so much for your expertise. All right, a Texas man racked with guilt after throwing a party that sickened 14 family members, why he says he still supports President Trump despite what he calls a failure on the pandemic response.

President Trump Holds Campaign Rally in Florida Where Attendees Do Not Wear Masks or Social Distance; Johnson & Johnson Pauses Coronavirus Vaccine Trial Due to Unexplained Illness of Participant; Senate Judiciary Committee to Continue Confirmation Hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and the all around the world. This is NEW DAY. Asking for trouble, that is what Dr. Anthony Fauci says this morning. The president is asking for trouble in the coronavirus pandemic. And in some ways, it seems the country is, too, because cases are increasing in 33 states. All the states there in orange and red. Five states are reporting record hospitalizations, 13 states have a positivity right higher than 10 percent at this point, which means community transmission is clearly accelerating. One of these states is Florida, asking for trouble. President Trump held this packed rally. He's throwing masks to the crowd there, they're not wearing them, he's not wearing them, no social distancing. Dr. Anthony Fauci says it's these types of events that are dangerous.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: We know that that is asking for trouble when you do that. We've seen that when you have situations of congregate settings where there are a lot of people without masks. The data speak for themselves. It happens.</s>BERMAN: Joe Biden also with a campaign swing through states this week, got Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.</s>ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Also breaking overnight, Johnson & Johnson pausing its phase three coronavirus vaccine trial because of an unexplained illness with one of the study's participants. It's the second major vaccine trial now on hold in the U.S. We are an hour away from senators questioning President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. We have a live report from the capitol coming up for you.</s>BERMAN: We're going to begin, though, with the pandemic clearly heading in the wrong direction. Joining us now, CNN political commentator Van Jones, and Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the author of "Preventable, The Inside Story of How Leadership Doomed the U.S. Coronavirus Response," 215,000 Americans now dead from coronavirus. Andy Slavitt, the hospitalization rate around the country is rising, and those are people, again, sick enough to be hospitalized. It's not about a lot of testing. That is a clear indication things are heading in the wrong direction. You've been in conversations with people all across the country, including Republican governors, Andy, who tell you they're seeing very concerning things. What are you hearing?</s>ANDY SLAVITT, FORMER ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, what's happening now, and it seems to be in the northern states is a little bit different version of what we saw in the south during the summer. In the south folks headed indoors, people were less cautious, and we saw, as you know, a great outbreak, big outbreaks in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Now I think what we're seeing is a little bit of the reverse of that. People heading indoors in the winter. One of the things that's different is this appears to be primarily concentrating in rural communities now. And the reason for this, or at least the reason according to several of the governors that I talked to, is mask compliance in urban communities is very high, as high as 90 percent in some cities, which is where it should be. In rural communities it's quite low. In rural communities there are a lot of social gatherings, a lot of life is normal, and that's causing outbreaks, it's causing lots of challenges. So our enemy isn't knowing what to do any longer. Our enemy is helping people understand why it's in their best interest and our best interest for people to do it.</s>CAMEROTA: Yes, Andy, except that the enemy is still misinformation, of course, and knowing what to do. There are people -- we just spoke to a man -- who are not getting the real information. Wherever they go for their news or whoever they're talking to, they still think that it's sort of a media hoax. That's the circle that they travel in. And here is an example for you, Van. It would be one thing if the Trump administration were giving the real information to people but saying, hey, you do what you want, you are all adults, I take off the mask because that's how I like to roll. That's not what's happening. Rudy Giuliani met with 75 Trump supporters yesterday and he told them something completely erroneous. Listen to this.</s>RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: People don't die of this disease anymore.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, they don't.</s>GIULIANI: Young people don't die at all. Middle age people die very little, and even elderly people have only a one percent chance of dying.</s>CAMEROTA: He said people don't die of this disease anymore. That's not what the truth is. Look at the numbers on your screen. It goes up by 1,000 a day, 215,000 Americans now dead.</s>VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, it's remarkable. Lies kill. Lies kill. In a pandemic, lies kill. 9/11, the horrible tragedy that we still, you know, mourn every year, 3,000 Americans killed, murdered. We have two or three 9/11s every week in this country. To say that people don't die anymore is such a disrespect, it's literally spitting in the face of people. And, by the way, people are losing loved ones that they can't hold their hands in the last moment, they can't go to the funeral, you are having to have drive-by funerals, Zoom funerals, so the grieving process is interrupted. And we are not talking about 3,000 people. We're talking about 215,000 people. By the end of the week there will be another 9/11 worth of deaths in this country. And so lies kill. And what you have now is a political movement that cannot handle the truth. The sign of being tough is you can handle the truth. You have an entire political movement around this president that cannot handle the truth, that has to create a fantasy world to live in and now to die in because they just will not acknowledge the fact that this pandemic has gotten completely out of control, it's killing more Americans now than it was even a month ago, and we are in real trouble here.</s>BERMAN: It's interesting because his chief of staff yesterday refused to wear a mask talking to reporters in a cramped Capitol Hill hallway. Ron DeSantis, and I think we have that video, the governor of Florida at this Trump rally last night walks in, he's high-fiving people. Not only enough not to wear the mask, but he's got to get right up close to them, close enough to slap skin, which we just know isn't safe, Andy Slavitt. And it's just interesting, because these rallies we're not seeing anything else like this in the country at this point. Even sporting events where they are allowing fans in at this point, they are socially distanced. So there is nowhere you can look in America other than a Trump rally, I don't think, to see thousands of people packed in cheek to jowl.</s>SLAVITT: It's not just America. I think there are very few examples around the world. Not that people aren't tired of the pandemic and they're not exhausted and so forth, but what's different here is -- and according to the Republican governors that I've spoken to -- it's becoming a symbol of defiance, not wearing the mask. When Trump -- people viewed Trump whipping that mask on as he heartily climbed those steps outside the White House, as a signal to them of sorts that said don't listen to the scientists, listen to me. This is about your freedom. And he has made this about the notion of freedom, I think forgetting the fact that Trump inherited a freedom and a set of freedoms that were hard fought for by many people, including lots and lots of sacrifice. And the freedom that he's choosing to wage his battle over, as Van said, is one that's causing people their lives.</s>CAMEROTA: Case in point, our Gary Tuchman went to that rally in Florida to ask people why aren't you wearing your mask, and he got some very interesting responses. Here are some.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A mask can actually do more harm than good to individuals.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They can do more harm?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It can, because people can faint because there's too much carbon dioxide going into their system.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think that's a big problem, people fainting all over the country from masks and dropping dead?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, just enough. Enough people are getting ill because they're wearing a mask.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Really?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where does that come from?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Common sense.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've also seen the numbers drop every single day.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The numbers are going up now, though.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Trump says it's disappearing, but it's not. That's not the truth.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm debating on whether what the truth is for that because of what I can see it's -- all the numbers that I have read have been down, and I'm seeing that the flu is taking more people.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that's what you believe?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me ask you this, if President Trump at the rally said everyone put on your masks --</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would put it on.</s>CAMEROTA: She says she would put it on if the president told her to, Van.</s>JONES: Well, yes, leadership matters. That's one of the things that -- why do you want your kids to be associated with good kids rather than bad kids? Because bad kids can get your kids in trouble. People follow social cues, they follow the crowd, they do what they think is cool and acceptable with their peer group. If you have the leader, the top dog of your political movement, because Donald Trump isn't just the head of state, he's also the head of a mass movement in this country that elected him that he continues to throw red meat to, if the cool thing to do to be a part of that thing is to rip your mask off people will risk their lives. It's unbelievable, the psychology of human behavior. People would literally rather die than be ostracized from a group. That's how death cults and all kinds of stuff can take root. You have got to be very, very careful. When you have got a platform, you have got to use it responsibly. You're seeing now athletes using their platforms more responsibly than the president of the United States when it comes to the social issues of the day, and that's part of the reason that I think Trump's numbers are so bad with older voters, because I think older voters are especially aware of the importance of great leadership. They've seen the Reagans, they've seen the Kennedys, they've seen the Obamas, they've seen these great leaders. And I think older voters are very, very alarmed to see the example he's setting for the next generation.</s>BERMAN: It's so interesting because clearly it's bad public health, but, Van, I think every day that passes there is evidence that what he is doing might be bad politics also. He may be leaning into the exact wrong things that might help him over the next three weeks as people vote. Andy, one bit of scientific news, medical news overnight I want your take on, which is that Johnson & Johnson has paused its large vaccine trial, it was supposed to have 60,000 participants, because one of the people in the trial become ill. We don't know why. It isn't clear it was because of the vaccine or maybe the placebo. But that trial is now on pause. What's the major take away for people there, Andy?</s>SLAVITT: I think the thing that we should think about is, last year how many clinical trials have been paused for an adverse event? The answer is we don't know because it happens all the time and it's not a big deal. These are trials we have been watching closely, and so I think the danger is that it gets blown a little bit too far out of proportion and people start to get too worried about vaccines and vaccine safety. This is exactly what's supposed to happen. It's why trials need to take their time. It's why the idea of Trump rushing one before the election is ridiculous. They take the time they take. These events do not necessarily mean anything. It's actually quite a good fact, it's a comforting fact to me when these events happen and the trials stop and we learn what happened. And it may be a big deal, it may not, it's most likely not a big deal because, as you said, it could be the placebo, it could be someone getting sick for some other reason. But I don't think the public should react to this in any way.</s>BERMAN: Andy Slavitt, Van Jones, thank you both for waking up early for us this morning, appreciate it.</s>CAMEROTA: OK, in less than an hour, senators will begin questioning President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. CNN's Lauren Fox is live on the capitol, on Capitol Hill with a preview. Hi, Lauren.</s>LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Good morning, Alisyn. That's right, in just a little under an hour we expect that this is going to be Democrats' first opportunity to grill Amy Coney Barrett on her judicial philosophy, her writings, speeches that she's given in the past, and expect them to be delving into two key issues. One of them, of course, the question of whether or not she views Roe v Wade as precedent and settled precedent at that. The other issue they're going to be delving into is the Affordable Care Act and her philosophy on that law. Remember, in 2017 in a law review article she basically questioned whether or not Judge Roberts had gone too far in defending the ACA and protecting it. So expect the Democrats are going to be asking her a lot of questions today about how she will rule on any case about the ACA, especially because the week after the election on November 10th the Supreme Court will hear arguments over an ACA case that really threatens the entire law. So that's where Democrats are going. And they gave us a little bit of a sneak peek yesterday on exactly what they want this to be about. Here is what a couple of Democrats and Republicans were fighting about yesterday in their opening statements.</s>SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, (D-MN): The Affordable Care Act protects you from getting kicked off of your insurance. That's on the lines.</s>SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, (D-CA) VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They are trying to get a justice on to the court in time to ensure they can strip away the protections of the Affordable Care Act.</s>CHUCK GRASSLEY, (R) CHAIR, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Republicans are following the Constitution and the precedent. It seems Democrats would rather just ignore both.</s>THOM TILLIS, (R-NC) SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: The hypocrisy is incredible. They ignore a central fact -- Judge Barrett's rulings aren't meant to be for or against a particular policy outcome. She is not a legislator. That's our job.</s>FOX: And you see Thom Tillis there, he will be back on Capitol Hill today after he had tested positive for coronavirus more than a week ago. Of course, Lindsey Graham already moving ahead to scheduling a critical vote on October 22nd to get Amy Coney Barrett out of committee. We then expect a full floor vote on October 29th. There aren't a lot of tools Democrats can use to stop the nomination at this point, so expect that today is really going to be them getting out their message ahead of the election about what this nomination means on health care. Alisyn?</s>CAMEROTA: OK, Lauren, thank you very much for that preview. So this week Joe Biden is hitting the campaign trail. We're going to take a closer look at his strategy to win in battleground states.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) is Interviewed on Biden Targeting Voters with Message of Economic Recovery and About Trump's Supreme Court Nominee.

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: When you see the abuse of power, there's only one way to respond to it, and that's with power, and the only power we have to take on corporate America is union power. That's the only power.</s>ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: That was Joe Biden campaigning in Ohio, stressing an economic message and trying to cast President Trump as abandoning working class voters. So, does he have evidence that that strategy is working? Joining us now is Democratic Senator Chris Coons. He's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who will be questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett today. And we will get to that in a moment, Senator. But because you are such a dedicated Joe Biden friend and supporter, let's just talk about what the former VP is doing on the campaign trial because those white working class male voters are President Trump's biggest base of support. And so, it seems that Joe Biden is going after them and is there evidence that that is working at the moment?</s>SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Yes, one of the reasons I was excited when Joe first came to me and said he was considering getting into the race for 2020 was because of who he is, his background, his character, his faith, his experience growing up in a blue collar working community in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and in Claymont, Delaware. Joe has never forgotten where he is from. He has always stood with the men and women of organized labor and he has always fought hard for the working class. Somehow, Donald Trump persuaded Middle America that this guy who lives in a gilded tower on Fifth Avenue actually now lives in Mar-a-Lago in Florida, actually is on their side. Joe Biden is someone who I think has been on their side his whole life and we're seeing in polling all over the country that that combination of Joe's decency and compassion, the ways in which he has always fought hard for the working men and women of the United States and the contrast, the sharp contrast that shows to Donald Trump's bungled mishandling to this pandemic and the recession that's hurt so many American families means Joe is ahead in all the critical battleground states right now.</s>CAMEROTA: About that polling and about him being ahead there, can you just peel back the curtain a little bit on how the campaign is responding to that? Because I know that Democrats and you hear it everywhere, feel so blind-sided by what happened in 2016 that there is sort of a collective breath-holding, and I can't tell if the Biden campaign feels, you know, buoyancy, or if they're just kind of girding for these next 21 days.</s>COONS: Well, I got a text yesterday from a friend in Georgia who said she was coming out for early voting and surprised the wait was almost five hours. We continue to have real concerns about voter suppression, about ways in which voting has been made needlessly difficult, by lawsuits brought by Republican parties and Republican secretaries of state all over the country. President Trump continues to throw doubt on the legitimacy of mail-in voting. So, I don't take any comfort at all from national polls. What matters is key swing state polls. And while they are moving in the right direction, I agree with you, the 2016 experience cautions -- take nothing for granted, keep working very hard. I'm encouraging everyone who supports Joe Biden to keep volunteering, keep reaching out, keep being engaged because this is far from a done deal, the next 21 days are absolutely critical.</s>CAMEROTA: OK, let's talk about what's going to happen today. Give us a preview. What's your top question for Judge Barrett?</s>COONS: What I'm wearing from Delawareans, Alisyn, is concern about health care, about the Supreme Court case that's going to be heard a week after the election and the key question, why? Why are we doing this hearing now in the middle of a pandemic when the Senate is shut down because there's three senators infected, there's been an outbreak at the White House that's infected more than 35 people, so why this rush? I think the answer is hiding in plain sight. President Trump promised he would only choose a nominee who would overturn the Affordable Care Act, taking away health care protections from a majority of Americans. I will remind you, Alisyn, Justice Ginsburg whose seat we are having this hearing to fill dedicated her life to gender equality and one of the key provisions of the ACA protects women against discrimination by insurance companies just for being women. Insurance companies used to treat pregnancy as a preexisting condition and there's 130 million Americans who have other preexisting conditions. I'll be asking her about her statements, a recent written statement in an article she wrote just in 2017 criticizing Chief Justice Roberts and his decision upholding the ACA on very similar grounds as those that the Trump administration is arguing in the Supreme Court, should justify taking away these critical health care protections from a majority of Americans.</s>CAMEROTA: Is there anything that she could say that would win you over with that answer?</s>COONS: She could say that's absolutely untrue, here is what I meant, and here is what I would do. But I don't expect her to do that. She signaled loud and clear what she will do in this case, that's why President Trump chose her. Now, to be clear, I'm not accusing her -- I'm not suggesting that she had some private conversation with the president where they cut some deal. That would be inappropriate and she specifically said she had no conversation about this case or any other individual case. But as an academic, she repeatedly wrote over and over in opinion and law review article after article what she would do not just with the Affordable Care Act but with precedent more broadly. That's a fancy way of saying she's to the right of Justice Scalia. She has made it clear that she would join Justice Thomas and others in reaching back and overturning long settled cases from 20 or 30 years ago. She is at one end of the spectrum in terms of his expressed willingness to overturn precedent. Even Justice Scalia at times hesitated to do that because of what's called reliance interest. So there's millions and millions of Americans who have ordered their lives based on an expectation that the Affordable Care Act is law. It was settled eight years ago. That's the sort of thing that Justice Scalia in his earlier years might have said, OK, we shouldn't move ahead even if I disagree with this law. Judge Barrett has made it clear things that were decided 20, 30, even 50 years ago, she may well go back and revisit. That's conservative judicial activism.</s>CAMEROTA: As a side issue, Senator Mike Lee was in the chamber yesterday.</s>COONS: Yes.</s>CAMEROTA: And he was maskless for much of it. He tested --</s>COONS: Yeah.</s>CAMEROTA: -- he was diagnosed with coronavirus, I think, ten days ago. Did he give an explanation to you, fellow committee members, of why he was there in person instead of remotely?</s>COONS: Not to me, not that I remember. I'm certainly happy to go back and check. But I was surprised he was present. Senator Tillis has also tested positive, he questioned remotely yesterday. Frankly, Alisyn, I was more alarmed last Thursday when Mike Lee was also in the chamber with us here in the Kennedy caucus room, unmasked for a long period of time and gave about ten minutes of remarks at a very high level of agitation. I went home and got tested the next morning, I tested negative. I'm getting tested shortly here. I think every senator should be getting tested every day and should have to prove that they've tested negative on a reliable test in order to participate. That's the standard all of us Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had suggested was that you should only participate in person if you test negative. It frankly, Alisyn, points to the broader question, why are we doing this at all in the middle of a pandemic instead of focusing on delivering a round of pandemic relief to millions of Americans who are unemployed, whose kids can't safely go to school, whose parents might be in skilled nursing facilities, who they are worried about? Why aren't we doing our jobs? Instead we're rushing through this -- racing through with this partisan nominee.</s>CAMEROTA: Senator Chris Coons, thank you very much --</s>COONS: Thank you, Alisyn.</s>CAMEROTA: -- for giving us your perspective on all of these things. And President Trump is banking on what he calls suburban housewives to carry him to victory, but is his support fading among those must-win swing voters? CNN spoke to women who voted for President Trump in 2016 but now have had a change of heart.</s>KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Do you regret your vote?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where we are today, yes, I do.

PA Women Who Won't Vote Trump This Time

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We have a deeply revealing report for you this morning. In Pennsylvania women voters helped Donald Trump flip that state in 2016. The question is, where are they now? CNN's Kate Bolduan went to find out and Kate joins us now. You talked to a number of voters and they really had a revealing story to tell you.</s>KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, thanks, John. It was fascinating. And look, Trump won Pennsylvania in '16, a narrow victory, 44,000 votes. You know that. We can throw a bundle of facts and figures at you but the point is both campaigns need women to win in 2020 and Donald Trump is facing an uphill battle. Listening to the white women voters, a key demographic that we spoke to, you will understand why.</s>HOLLI GEITNER, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: You all right?</s>HOLLI GEITNER: I'm probably a good example of someone who's gone through a lot of change in four years.</s>BOLDUAN: Holli Geitner -- a registered Republican is a working parent of two kids living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and she wasn't alone. Fifty percent of white women in Pennsylvania did the same, according to exit polls.</s>BOLDUAN: What do you feel today about your vote four years ago?</s>GEITNER: I can tell you how I felt four years ago. Shame.</s>BOLDUAN: Do you regret your vote?</s>GEITNER: Where we are today? Yes, I do. I don't think that this is the "great again " that everyone thought it was going to be.</s>BOLDUAN: So Hollie is voting for Joe Biden and so is Nin Bell.</s>BOLDUAN: What drew you to Donald Trump? Why did you vote for Donald Trump then?</s>NIN BELL, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: For his celebrity, 100 percent.</s>BOLDUAN: It was the brand?</s>BELL: It was.</s>BOLDUAN: The image?</s>BELL: Absolutely. Successful, funny. Like he was funny, I loved his show, "The Celebrity Apprentice." Never missed it.</s>BOLDUAN: Was there a moment when you decided I cannot support him anymore?</s>BELL: It was almost instantly.</s>BOLDUAN: It's not just outside the cities where suburban women are questioning their support for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, it's even out here in Westmoreland County, rural Pennsylvania. Considered Trump Country. We're about to meet two of them.</s>JULIE BRADY, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: She's older.</s>JOAN SMELTZER, FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER: I'm older.</s>BOLDUAN: Oh, you're definitely sisters. Joan Smeltzer and Julie Brady are registered Democrats and both voted for Trump in 2016.</s>SMELTZER: I feel like I've been duped. I got it wrong and it hurts my heart. It truly hurts my heart because the things that I saw I didn't take seriously enough.</s>BOLDUAN: Throughout the campaign he was making sexist, misogynistic remarks and then there was the "Access Hollywood" tape. How did you guys process and digest that, being out there and voting for him?</s>SMELTZER: It was not easy. I look at myself and I think how could I do that?</s>BRADY: I feel like I did a disservice to women by voting for this guy.</s>BOLDUAN: Was there a moment in the last four years when you said, I can't do this again?</s>BRADY: The COVID pandemic, the way he handled it. That that was the absolute last straw for me. He didn't create the virus but he kind of left us all in the dark guessing what was going on. And that wasn't fair to us.</s>BOLDUAN: Among the women we spoke to the coronavirus, the president's handling of the pandemic and the racial unrest following the police killing of George Floyd were the overwhelming driving issues.</s>GEITNER: George Floyd's killing was a pivotal moment for me. And when I read that he was begging for his mom, as a mother myself, it just brought me to my knees. And to see what's happened since, I feel like he's added fuel to flames of hatred. And that really bothers me.</s>CROWD: No justice. No peace.</s>BOLDUAN: Nim Bell who registered as a Republican in 2016 just to vote for Trump in the primaries now protests weekly in her town just outside Philadelphia. Often met by groups she used to consider herself a part of, Trump supporters, setting up counterdemonstrations.</s>BELL: I think Trump kind of thrives on that, on that division. I see it in my own town.</s>SMELTZER: Integrity, that's what we're lacking.</s>BRADY: And accountability.</s>SMELTZER: Yes.</s>BRADY: Being the mom of a nine-year-old, that's one thing that I push with my son all the time is you made a bad decision, it's your fault, you learn from it, you move on. We have a president who nothing that happens is ever his fault, it's always somebody else's fault.</s>BOLDUAN: Well, there are consequences.</s>BRADY: There are consequences. He's about to find them out.</s>BOLDUAN: Now the women we spoke to, of course, don't speak for every woman in Pennsylvania. But what they have to say, John, and why really shows the challenge that the president is up against in this battleground state. The latest polling has him trailing Joe Biden by 23 points among women in Pennsylvania. So no surprise the president is headed to Pennsylvania today.</s>BERMAN: It's such a vivid transformation --</s>BOLDUAN: Right.</s>BERMAN: -- that these women you spoke with went through and it's so interesting they both point -- they all point to the pandemic but also this summer with George Floyd. Something switched, something flipped for so many of those people.</s>BOLDUAN: And I was also struck, John, when we approached them they were really nervous about speaking up. Not just because the TV cameras were showing up at their house but because they had not spoken up publicly about this decision, this transformation, this evolution, if you will, in such a public way. And when I asked them if they were concerned about what it meant because Julie Brady's husband is still voting for Trump, her family is all Trump supporters, they universally, though, said no. They are decided. And they said very clearly we can hold our own.</s>BERMAN: Well, look you are very intimidating, first of all. But secondly, we talk so much about the shy Trump voters, there are maybe shy Biden voters now who are coming out and planning to vote. Kate Bolduan, terrific, terrific report.</s>BOLDUAN: Good to see you, John.</s>BERMAN: Thanks so much for doing this. So moments ago President Trump with a new attack on Dr. Anthony Fauci. Stick around.

Trump Pitches Derogatory Tweet At Fauci; Barrett Confirmation Day Two Begins; CNN Panel On The Impact Of Barrett's Appointment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He was warned but ignored the evidence. Holding rallies indoors, turning a White House into a super-spreader and contracting the virus himself.</s>DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: -- now tested positive.</s>UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Now he claims he's learned about COVID.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I get it.</s>UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But he hasn't learned a thing. Putting us and those sworn to protect him at risk.</s>TRUMP: "Don't be afraid of it."</s>UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Meanwhile, America pays the price. 215,000 dead. No plan. And now another wave is coming. Had enough?</s>JOE BIDEN, FMR. VICE PRESIDENT AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I'm Joe Biden and I approve this message.</s>BERMAN: So this just happened moments ago. President Trump attacked Dr. Anthony Fauci in a new tweet. It reads, quote: "Actually, Tony's pitching arm is far more accurate than his prognostications." Of course, Dr. Anthony Fauci had that unfortunate first pitch at a Nationals game. This comes after Dr. Fauci is displeased, expressed his displeasure that the Trump Campaign took him out of context in a Trump Campaign ad. Joining us now CNN political editor, David Chalian and CNN chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. And, David, I put this in a larger context. The president attacking the most trusted man in America on the pandemic as one of those things that might help explain why the campaign is where it is right now. Leaning into things that don't politically seem to help him. And explains also why the president is where he is --</s>DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Right.</s>BERMAN: -- in this campaign right now and so is Joe Biden. Let's just put up on the screen so people can see the different campaign events, where each campaign is this week. Trump: Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia. Biden, the Biden team: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. When you, with your trained eyes see this, David Chalian, what jumps out?</s>CHALIAN: Well, the president is playing complete defense, right? He's trying to shore up states that his campaign long ago thought would be off the map by now. Places like Iowa or Ohio where Mike Pence was yesterday and where Joe Biden was playing offense yesterday. They didn't think those states that he won by eight, nine points in 2016 three weeks out from election day would still be on the map, but they are. And it speaks to his problem. Because if you look for his path to 270 you see a continuing narrowing path for the president and he's really going to have to start digging into some territory that's already leaning in Joe Biden's direction in a pretty significant way. But that Fauci tweet, John, you are right. It does speak to precisely what the president's most acute political problem is. It is his mismanagement of this pandemic, it is the dismissing of the science represented in Fauci. And this is not new, right? We've seen this Trump taking on Fauci and trying to start a war with Fauci flare up several times over the past eight months. Whether he gets sidelined from briefings or Trump expresses displeasure about him but knows that there is nobody more trusted on the issue that is most front and center for Americans. And so he can't completely just throw him under the bus. But Trump is clearly in the place where you see desperation now on the part of the president, desperately trying to find a path to reelection.</s>BOLDUAN: Are we sure president Trump wrote that tweet? Prognostications?</s>BERMAN: It's a good point. It's a multi-syllabic word.</s>BOLDUAN: Spelled correctly?</s>BERMAN: Alarm bells go off.</s>BOLDUAN: OK. Things that make you scratch your head, Jeffrey. Let's stay on that, in that category.</s>JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.</s>BOLDUAN: Mitch McConnell. Senator Mitch McConnell had a debate last night and he said something curious about what we should all expect about the Affordable Care Act if Judge Barrett is confirmed. Listen to this moment.</s>SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): No one believes the supreme court is going to strike down the Affordable Care Act. What this is really about is trying to change the subject away from this extraordinary nominee who's before the senate.</s>BOLDUAN: No one believes the Affordable Care Act is going to be struck down, Jeffrey?</s>TOOBIN: Yes. Someone ought to tell that to the justice department, Donald Trump's justice department, which has a brief before the supreme court in this case asking the court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act -- preexisting conditions, keeping your kids on your insurance till 26, no lifetime limits. All of that goes out the window if the president's lawyers win their case. So I suppose the representatives of the State of California and the House of Representatives who are representing the defendants in that case should take some confidence in the fact that the president's biggest supporter doesn't think they're going to win. But I think it's very much an open question what the supreme court does. And if Judge Barrett replaces Justice Ginsburg, there is certainly a better chance of the whole law going down the tubes. Because as we know, she has already spoken of how she disagreed with the one time the supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of the Act.</s>CHALIAN: And Jeffrey, isn't --</s>TOOBIN: Go ahead -- sorry.</s>CHALIAN: And Jeffrey -- yes. Isn't Mitch McConnell's timeline here to get her quickly -- to get Amy Coney Barrett quickly on the court because that case is being heard soon? Isn't that part of the rush here is to have her on the court to be part of hearing that case?</s>TOOBIN: Yes. That's part of it and it's also part of it to get her on the court in case there are any disputes about the election itself. That's one reason why McConnell is pushing so hard to get her confirmed before November 3rd. But certainly the fact that she can be there before that case is argued November 10th is another important reason why they're rushing so fast.</s>BERMAN: Look at the two of you promoting CNN's special live coverage of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings which begin right after this quick break.

Five Men Charged in Michigan Governor's Kidnapping Plot to Appear in Court; Michigan Supreme Court Denies Extension of Governor's Virus Executive Orders

BERMAN: So, you have no doubt heard that Job Biden is leading in the polls. You have also no doubt been reminded that Hillary Clinton led in the polls in 2016. So, what can we take from that? How does 2020 compare to 2016? One man has the answer. Joining me now is CNN senior politics writer and analyst Harry Enten. Harry, I was hoping for this to be the sort of official televised explanation of how 2020 compares to 2016. Let's start with the top line number as we sit here right now.</s>HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICS WRITER & ANALYST: Yes, I mean, I don't know how official be, but here's the situation. Take a look at where the polls are right now and compare it to where they were in 2016. Look, Hillary Clinton was ahead at this point back in 2016. She was up by 6 points. But look at where Biden is right now. He's up by 10 points. More than that, look at that, he's above 50 percent, Hillary Clinton was well below 50 percent. And that essentially means that even if Trump wins all the late deciders, those undecided voters, he still won't get enough to catch up to Biden versus where we were four years ago, where all really Trump needed to do was win those late deciders, and he did, and that's why he won the presidency.</s>BERMAN: And underneath those top line numbers, we are also seeing some things that are very different when it comes to support among some sub-groups.</s>ENTEN: Yes, I mean, take a look here among white voters and white voters without a college degree. Both of those groups favored Trump fairly heavily in 2016 in the final pre-election polls. And look at the margins now. Look, Trump's still ahead with both of those groups, but among whites, the lead went from 13 to 2, among non-college white voters, Trump won those by 30, he's only ahead right now by 18. And that transforms itself into some key swing states, right? Like Iowa and Ohio. Ohio, a place that Joe Biden was visiting just yesterday, look at that, back in 2016, Trump won that state by 8. Right now, Joe Biden's ahead by 1 there. Iowa, Trump won by 9, now Biden is ahead by 2. So, Biden is the one who is expanding the map, he is on offense.</s>BERMAN: Yes, this is really key because it explains why Joe Biden was in Ohio yesterday and why the president's going to Des Moines, Iowa. Those are not the types of things you saw by and large four years ago. Again, a key difference. Also, a key difference, you know, we had David Gregory on earlier in the show and Alisyn asked, are we seeing more of an anti-Trump vote or a pro-Biden vote? There are some signs that Biden has done well for himself recently.</s>ENTEN: Yes, I mean, you know, I often hear people say, oh, people are just voting for Biden because he's the anti-Trump. Here's the facts, if you look at the numbers, you actually see that Joe Biden is a well- liked individual compared to where Hillary Clinton was four years ago at this point. Look at this, Joe Biden's favorable rating, 53 percent, his unfavorable rating just 41 percent in the recent average of polls. Compare that to Clinton, who was very much disliked, her favorable rating was 42 percent, her unfavorable rating in fact was over 50 percent. And that essentially meant that all Trump needed to do was win the groups of voters who didn't like either candidate. He won those -- won that group by 17 points in the exit polls. Right now, even if Trump wins the voters who don't like either candidate, that won't enough because Biden's favorable rating is over 50 percent.</s>BERMAN: And that is a huge difference. Trust also a big difference, Harry.</s>ENTEN: Yes, I mean, look, Donald Trump is going to -- the president is going to say a lot of weirdo things over the next final three weeks. Rightly, we heard it last night at his rally, he says a lot of things about the coronavirus. But the fact of the matter is, when it comes to the honest and trustworthy issue -- look at this, who do you believe is more honest and trustworthy? Joe Biden in our recent CNN poll, with a 25-point lead on who is more honest and trustworthy, compare that to four years ago where Trump was the one who actually had that slight honesty edge. So, as we enter into the final two weeks and the two candidates are basically going to say, that candidate is not telling the truth, right now Joe Biden is the one who most voters believe is telling the truth, and it's a big reason why he's ahead.</s>BERMAN: Trump had an edge on honesty four years ago. Think about how much has changed during his time in office. Also, when it comes to the biggest issue of the day, Harry, you're seeing some stuff there.</s>ENTEN: Yes, I think this is rather important, right. It's not just about personalities, right? It's about issues and who you trust most on them. Obviously, the big issue of the day right now is coronavirus, but essentially Gallup asked late last month, who do you trust more to handle the nation's most important problem? They basically said what is the nation's most important problem? Which party do you trust more to handle it? Right now, Democrats hold an 8-point lead on that particular question. Now, compare that to 2016 where Republicans, in fact, held a 4-point advantage. So when it comes to personalities, and when it comes to the issues we're just not seeing the picture that we saw in 2016, right now, Democrats are ahead on the personalities, on the trust, and on the most important problem, and when you add that all together, that's a big reason why you're seeing Joe Biden with a much bigger lead than Hillary Clinton had --</s>BERMAN: And look, three weeks to go until people can finish voting, we don't know what will happen, but I think people have such selective memory about 2016, they remember that Donald Trump was losing in the polls overall, but what they don't remember, and I think what you just pointed out so successfully, Harry, he had a lot going for him. He had a lot of advantages underneath those numbers that ultimately prevailed on election day. They don't exist as we sit here today. Harry Enten, thank you so much for being with us.</s>ENTEN: My pleasure. Always a nice cup of coffee with you, my friend.</s>CAMEROTA: Thank you, Harry. All right, five of the men charged in the plot to kidnap Michigan's Democratic governor will appear in court today for a bond hearing. Thirteen men are charged with conspiring to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Officials say the group was trying to retaliate against Whitmer for restrictions that she imposed amid the pandemic. They face a life sentence if convicted.</s>BERMAN: At the same time, Michigan's Supreme Court ruled against the governor there, ending her executive orders related to the pandemic. Governor Whitmer had extended the state's emergency declaration by executive order back in April after the Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill that would not have renewed it. Her executive orders included an expansion of unemployment benefits from 20 to 26 weeks. Russia smashing records for coronavirus cases and deaths. Now Vladimir Putin going to extraordinary lengths there. We have a live report next.

Russia Smashes Records for Coronavirus Cases And Deaths.

CAMEROTA: Russia reporting record high coronavirus cases and deaths. The country added more than 13,000 cases and 244 deaths yesterday. CNN's Frederik Pleitgen live in Moscow with more. What have you learned, Fred?</s>FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Alisyn. What comes as in a general spike here, coronavirus cases in Russia over the past couple of weeks. You can see or you could see on that graph how the numbers have been going up pretty much every single day. And the worst place that's been hit actually has been where I am right now, is the capital, Moscow. They had 4,600 new cases in the span of 24 hours. And you guys, remember that the Russians came out and they approved a vaccine against the coronavirus without actually going through the main testing. But now, the mayor of Moscow has acknowledged that it's actually going to be quite a while before that vaccine is going to be available to most of the people here in Russia. He said, he thinks it's going to be several months before the vaccine is going to be available on an industrial scale, and he's urging people to play it safe until then. And one of the people who is definitely playing it safe is the president, is Vladimir Putin. He's taking a very different approach than President Trump, who of course, has been very much out there over the past couple of months. Vladimir Putin has been inside an absolute bubble. Apparently, there are some people in his staff who are cleared to work in his residence, but even his closest ministers, everybody who needs to see Vladimir Putin has to self-isolate for two weeks. So, popping in and getting that quick signature certainly isn't going to be happening. And as far as that vaccine is concerned, Vladimir Putin also so far has not taken that vaccine yet, John.</s>BERMAN: Interesting to see if Donald Trump takes any lessons from Vladimir Putin whom he so admires there. Frederik Pleitgen, thank you so much for being with us, appreciate it. So one city in China administering millions of coronavirus tests after only a dozen or so people test positive. CNN has reporters around the world covering the pandemic.</s>DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm David Culver in Beijing. China's government now testing millions of people for COVID-19 after only a handful or so tested positive for the virus in the city of Qingdao. This latest cluster outbreaks led to health officials testing all of the city's roughly 9 million residents. On Tuesday, authorities announced that they had already tested more than 3 million people and they've processed about a million of those tests. They claim no new confirmed cases have surfaced. This follows last week's major travel holiday here, and if the numbers spike, it could challenge China's strict containment efforts.</s>PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Paula Hancocks in Seoul. From today, South Korea is making mask-wearing mandatory across the country on all public transport. These are rules that had already been in place in the capital Seoul and other cities. But also now across the country and places like cafes and restaurants when you're not eating and drinking, medical facilities, rallies, you have to wear a mask. There will be a 30-day grace period, but from November 13th, if you're caught not wearing a mask or wearing it incorrectly, you can be fined the equivalent of $87. Now, it comes at the same time as social distancing rules have been relaxed across the country. From now on, churches and sporting events can have a 30 percent capacity.</s>NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: I'm Nic Robertson in London where the British Prime Minister is facing push-back from the government's scientific advisors after the Prime Minister's press conference Monday night where he announced new lockdown measures for the country. They released minutes of a meeting from three weeks ago where they recommended the government back then take tougher measures. This indicates they're not satisfied with the measures the Prime Minister is taking now. Indeed, England's chief medical officer said at that press conference, Monday night, that the measures that the government is taking right now alone do not go far enough.</s>BERMAN: Our thanks to Nic Robertson and all our reporters. NEW DAY continues right now. All right, welcome to our viewers in the United States and all around the world, this is NEW DAY. Asking for trouble, that is what Dr. Anthony Fauci says this morning.

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Continue.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And right this minute, Judge Amy Coney Barrett continues to face questions on Capitol Hill as part of her confirmation process to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. Judge Barrett has refused to say how she might rule on upcoming cases, including the Affordable Care Act and abortion rights, saying to weigh in would be inappropriate. But did she give any hints as to how a Justice Barrett might vote? CNN's Jessica Schneider joins me now live. And, Jessica, the hearing is still going on. Walk us through what's happening -- happened so far.</s>JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, really, Jake, the takeaway has been the Democrats are really frustrated by Amy Coney Barrett's refusal to weigh in on how she might rule on some of these cases and these issues, like same-sex marriage, abortion, health care, gun rights. Amy Coney Barrett's response to all of these questions has really been the same, saying that she will not weigh in on precedent, she will not pre-commit to any outcome, and that she has no agenda. In fact, she was pressed by Senator Leahy about President Trump's comments that he needs a ninth justice on the court in case any election dispute comes before the court. Here's how Barrett answered.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINEE: I have had no conversation with the president or any of his staff on how I might rule in that case. It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case and how I would rule. Let me be clear. I have made no commitments to anyone, not in the Senate, not over at the White House, about how I would decide any case.</s>SCHNEIDER: And Barrett also really pushed back on this idea that she would be an automatic vote to eliminate the Affordable Care Act if she's on the court when it comes before them on November 10. Jake, she really said that any past comment was just in academic writing. And then she also talked about the fact that the Supreme Court will really be weighing in on two different ideas and subjects and issue matters than they actually addressed in previous cases, Jake.</s>TAPPER: Jessica, one of the most high-profile questioners, Senator and Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris, she's going to get her turn to speak in a few hours. What do you expect tonight and tomorrow?</s>SCHNEIDER: Well, Kamala Harris really drilled in on COVID issues, health care coverage when we saw her yesterday. Of course, she's appearing virtually, instead of being in that committee room, all because of COVID. But Kamala Harris is a prosecutor. She's known for these sharp questions, and she even had a little bit of a zinger the last time we saw her in this setting back in 2018 with Brett Kavanaugh. She asked the now Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she said, are there any government regulations that regulate male bodies? And that, there was a little bit of banter back and forth. And, finally, Justice Kavanaugh relented, saying, I can't seem to think of one, Senator. So, expect those sharp questions from Kamala Harris, and perhaps even a zinger or two -- Jake.</s>TAPPER: All right, Jessica Schneider, thanks so much. Joining us now to discuss, former federal prosecutor Laura Coates. Laura, what's your biggest takeaway from what you have heard from Judge Barrett so far?</s>LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, she seems to be following, ironically enough, what's known as that Ginsburg rule of no preview, no forecasts, no hints, although Ginsburg herself did not actually do that, remember, back in '93, when she infamously address head on the issue of Roe v. Wade, and made her opinions known. But you see -- on this particular occasion, you see Judge Amy Coney Barrett deciding not to give a full context or her reasoning or her rationale, where her thought process might be going forward on a number of issues, including one I found very odd, Jake, which is the answer of what would happen if the president of the United States tried to delay the election? That's not a -- as she called it, a conversation for legal pundits to sort of opine over. It's pretty clear-cut. It should be an act of Congress. Otherwise, the president has no action and no basis in order to delay it. And she wouldn't answer that. So, she almost abided by this principle, almost to a fault, in not showing her hand at all, frustrating a lot of the Democrats.</s>TAPPER: Judge Barrett would not answer about how she might potentially rule in future cases, including on the Affordable Care Act. There's going to be a Supreme Court hearing on that on November 10, on Roe vs. Wade. Did you hear any hints in her answers that might signal how she might rule?</s>COATES: Well, of course, you can go not only her answers, but to her actual academic writings. And one of the things that the Affordable Care Act is that a -- there was a big discussion between herself and Senator Coons about this issue, and Senator Klobuchar. But, remember, the Affordable Care Act, she talks about, well, listen, I can't address those claims, because, frankly, when I wrote about these things, it wasn't about the nuance that's going to be before the court, disingenuously speaking, of course, however, Jake, because think about it. It's not a nuance about the ACA that's on the line. The entire act is on the chopping block. So any writings she may have said criticizing a strain that she called it or a not-natural interpretation by Justice Roberts is relevant. And so that almost showed to me that she was unwilling to admit even though what she'd already written. On the issues of the Second Amendment, she went to great lengths to describe her views on Heller, but then recoiled at the fact of Senator Amy Klobuchar asking for further clarification. So, she was selective in what she wanted to be forthcoming about, which I find to be a little bit disingenuous and hard to read.</s>TAPPER: Well, let's dive into the one about the ACA, about the Affordable Care Act. She wrote a book review, basically, not as a legal matter, but as -- just as journalism almost, in which she criticized Justice Roberts' ruling and this and the majority ruling that basically said that the individual mandate was OK for the Congress to pass because it was a tax. Her argument is that this -- the issue coming before the court coming up, that has to do with whether or not -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you're the expert here -- if something in the Affordable Care Act is found to be unconstitutional, whether or not that kills the entire Affordable Care Act. Is that right? So, that's her argument?</s>COATES: Yes. It's an issue of what's called severability. Think about it in terms of, say, a lizard who can drop a particular limb and still scurry away. Can these actual -- can the actual Affordable Care Act exists with a very fundamental limb or tail missing? The entire reason why Justice Roberts looked at the issue of the Affordable Care Act and said, listen, this is a valid exercise of constitutional authority by Congress because of the taxing power of Congress, and so as long as you have this tax-mandated penalty, essentially, you were exercising under your constitutional power. Well, of course, the Republican coalition of attorney generals have come back to say, well, now that the penalty is now reduced to zero, it is symbolic and not really a tax. So, if that's the only linchpin that kept this alive and floating, well, then it can no longer be held to be constitutional. That is the issue before the court a week after the election to figure out if removing this particular substantive penalty is enough to invalidate everything. Can it be a lizard they can scurry away without a consequential limb? She did not want to address that because she said, well, I was talking about a very different context. But, again, we're talking about the overall viability of the Affordable Care Act. Can it exist, nuances aside, without that tax- imposed mandated penalty?</s>TAPPER: And it's something that obviously has a huge impact, theoretically, on tens of millions of Americans.</s>COATES: Yes.</s>TAPPER: Laura Coates, thank you so much. Appreciate it.</s>COATES: Yes.</s>TAPPER: Why -- what do Oprah and Willie Nelson have in common? I'll tell you in our 2020 lead -- next.

Barrett Won't Say If Roe V. Wade Was Wrongly Decided; Barrett Says You Wouldn't Be Getting Scalia, You Would Be Getting Me; Trail for Antibody Cocktail Praised by Trump Paused Over Safety Concerns

TAPPER: We have some breaking news on our HEALTH LEAD for you now. Drug maker Eli Lilly is pausing the trial of its antibody cocktail for safety reasons. The antibody cocktail has been praised by the President since his coronavirus diagnosis after he took a similar cocktail made by a different company, Regeneron. CNN's senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen joins us now to talk about it. Elizabeth, do we know exactly what caused Ely Lilly to pause their trial?</s>ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Jake, you know, what's interesting is that we don't. When we've seen other pauses recently, companies have said, oh, a participant became ill. We need to check and make sure whether it was related to the vaccine or whether it was just a fluke. But Lilly actually did not get into that. They just said that we've paused it. What's interesting, Jake, is they didn't say that they just sort of did this on their own. They said something called the Data Safety and Monitoring Board, which is this independent board that reviews safety data to make sure that everything is going the way it should, that this board actually suggested that they pause. So that's pretty telling. If this board says, you know, you need to pause, that means that there is reason to pause. Now, Jake, it's unclear what affect this will have. Lilly has actually applied for Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA to put this medicine on the market, so does it really matter if they have to pause the trial? They've already applied to the FDA so maybe they have sufficient data already from their trials for the FDA to be considering authorization -- Jake.</s>TAPPER: Now Elizabeth, the President took a similar cocktail, not the exact same thing, but a similar cocktail from a different pharmaceutical company, Regeneron. He's been calling it a cure. It's not a cure, it's a treatment. But he has been promising including last night to voters and supporters in Florida that this exact one, this antibody cocktail's going to soon be authorized for emergency use in hospitals, he wants to give it to everyone. Do you see that happening any time soon?</s>COHEN: You know, it's interesting, Jake, when I hear you say that, in the past other presidents and politicians have been very clear. I'm not going to comment on the status of any drug application because they want the science to tell the story, not politics. President Trump doesn't seem to care. He doesn't seem to care that he's out there advocating for a drug approval when maybe this drug shouldn't be approved. The scientists at the FDA need to review it. Now, whether or not they can get approval, let's say, by election day in the next three weeks, you know, that's actually a good question. For vaccines, you know, all the experts that I've talked to agree, there's no way a vaccine is going to get approved between now and election day. But this is a little different. This is a medicine. Sort of the bar for that, it's just a little bit easier. And so is it possible? Sure, it is possible. However, you know, it may not happen because there's a lot that goes into these reviews. I mean it's a lot of data to look at, it's a lot of things to weigh. The fact that they now have this hold certainly would, you know, have an influence for Lilly because Lilly has applied as well. You know, they would have to take that into consideration.</s>TAPPER: When Eli Lilly puts a hold on a treatment that is similar to one that a different company, in this case, Regeneron has, does that cause Regeneron to rethink whether or not they should go forward? Should President Trump, who didn't take the Eli Lilly cocktail but took the Regeneron antibody cocktail, should he be worried about his own health?</s>COHEN: You know, usually when you see reactions to medicines like this, it's much more immediate. I mean the President took this some time ago now. So usually when you see reactions that would cause a pause in a trial, it's pretty immediate. It's viewed typically not this long afterward. So I don't think the President would have reason, really, to worry about his health from what we know. As far as what Regeneron would think? It's a really good question. These are not exactly the same. They're both antibody drugs, but they work differently, they use different antibodies. But certainly as the FDA reviews both Regeneron and Lilly, they will certainly consider, wait a minute, something happened with the Lilly one. You know, we're guessing, somebody got sick enough because they paused the trial, somebody got sick enough that they're concerned. I would think the FDA would keep that in mind. They're both antibody drugs even though they are somewhat different.</s>TAPPER: Yes, I sure hope it's just an aberration. Johnson & Johnson has also paused its trial of a vaccine, not a treatment, a vaccine, during Phase III, this final phase. Do we have any idea why that happened?</s>COHEN: You know, for that one we do. They said that a participant had an unexplained illness, and so they decided to put this trial on pause. They were very clear to say the FDA didn't make us pause, we decided to pause. They said, look, we don't know if this participant got the vaccine or got the placebo. They even said they're not sure what kind of illness or what exactly happened to this participant, but they were concerned enough that they said, you know what, let's put a pause on this. And this trial hasn't been going on for very long. It's only gone on for sort of a week or two since late September. So, they decided to pause it and sort of look into it to see what happens. Let's read a statement from Johnson & Johnson because I think that talks about, addresses what they're talking about here. They say that serious adverse events are not uncommon in clinical trials and the number of serious adverse events can reasonably be expected to increase in trials involving large numbers of participants. So that's a fancy way of saying, look, when something goes wrong in a trial, sometimes it's just because people get sick. You're going to start enrolling thousands of people, somebody is going to get sick. They're human beings. The thing here is though, is that apparently this illness was of enough concern that maybe it was related to the vaccine that they decided to stop down and review it. It may be that this person didn't even get the vaccine. Maybe they got the placebo. It may be that they find, you know what, this illness had nothing to do with the vaccine. We just don't know at this point -- Jake.</s>TAPPER: I hope so, but that's two major pharmaceutical companies now, Johnson & Johnson you were talking about and also AstraZeneca, that have both had to pause their vaccine trials. What might that mean for the timeline for a vaccine?</s>COHEN: Well, it means that these two aren't going anywhere fast. AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, they're not enrolling anyone at the moment. Now there are two others that are going ahead and are going as they would say, full speed ahead, so that's Pfizer and Moderna, so those are going at a much more rapid clip. And they also started earlier. They started at the end of July.</s>TAPPER: All right, Elizabeth Cohen, thank you so much, really appreciate it. Coming up there's an eight-hour wait to vote early at one polling location, eight-hours. A look at the record breaking turnout so far. Next.

Trump's Supreme Court Pick Faces Senators' Questions; Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Continue.

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Let me, if I could, put up another poster that may make this a little sharper in a way, that is, the political branch is not the judicial branch. The Supreme Court's going to hear arguments -- as I've said -- in this case a week after the election. And most Americans are probably surprised to even hear about it. When I talked to a constituent, Carrie (ph), who has a pre-existing condition, she was surprised this was even in front of the court. She said, "I thought that was settled." Carrie (ph) owns a small business, she has a daughter she's raising. And before the ACA, she had to spend $800 a month for insurance that she described as "junk," left her afraid of even going to the doctor's office or needing drugs. And because of the ACA, she's been able to get better quality insurance that she can afford and she's got both type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. But the ACA guarantees she can't be denied insurance or made to pay higher premiums either because of her gender or because of these pre- existing conditions. She expressed to me astonishment. Many of us are engaged and interested in this because we care about the Constitution, we care about constitutional law and the ways in which it impacts a majority of all Americans -- frankly, all Americans. Help me explain to her how is it that the Affordable Care Act, settled eight years ago, is back in front of the Supreme Court?</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, Senator, I spent some time with Senator Sasse talking about how a case winds its way up, and it's because litigants chose to challenge the law again. And you know, it went through the district court and the 5th Circuit, and now the Supreme Court has granted certiorari on it and is answering the question. But as to the broader question -- which I think is a political one, which is, "Why are people fighting the Affordable Care Act?" -- you have to ask the litigants. I don't -- you know, I don't know why they're fighting the Affordable Care Act.</s>COONS: Well, two things on that. Yes, there are no advisory opinions, as you said in your exchange with Senator Sasse. And you have to have standing, the courts are reactive. But as Senator Whitehouse laid out, there's a whole network of groups that fund and develop and present test cases over and over and over. And this is an issue that'll be before the court just a week after the election that is really not distinguishable from NFIB v. Sebelius. I mean, they are essentially about the constitutionality of the mandate, whether it's a legitimate exercise of the taxing power. You don't get to the question of severability if you haven't already determined the question of constitutionality.</s>BARRETT: But I think the question of severability, even if the now- zeroed-out mandate provision is a penalty, it doesn't affect the acts (ph) at all if that position -- if that provision can be severed out and the whole rest of the act would stand. And so I actually think that severability is sort of the -- you know, I think severability is one of the most important issues in the case. I don't think the question of characterizing it as a tax versus a penalty, you know -- NFIB v. Sebelius also is interpreting a different provision, it was one that wasn't zeroed out that actually had money attached to it.</s>COONS: But if I could, this is the filing of the Department of Justice in the Supreme Court, as you well know. The Justice Department is supposed to defend the constitutionality of federal laws if any reasonable defense can be made. And the Trump Justice Department has sided with those advocates who are trying once again to strike the law down now in the courts when they couldn't accomplish that here. In fact, I'd argue that they're denying the will of the voters that clearly in 2018, in deciding control of the House on health care, want this to stay. And the administration's arguing that this now-toothless mandate, which imposes no payment on anyone, is unconstitutional and they're arguing the entire act must be struck down as a result. I frankly think the DOJ's embarrassed by this brief. They rarely even talk about it. But it's in black and white and the quote's over my shoulder that the mandate is unconstitutional and must go, and so the parts of the law that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions that prevent discrimination against women, all of it must fall as a result. It seems to me that Americans who are watching deserve to understand that this is somehow back up in front of the court, the posture the administration is taking, the ways in which it really does follow some of the contours of NFIB v. Sebelius and the ways in which, bluntly, while I know you won't talk about this pending case, what you said in that 2017 article, what you wrote is highly relevant. Just as a preliminary point, the vote to uphold the ACA in NFIB v. Sebelius was five to four, correct?</s>BARRETT: Yes.</s>COONS: And Justice Ginsburg was in the majority and Justice Scalia in the minority?</s>BARRETT: Yes.</s>COONS: So if you were to replace Justice Ginsburg with someone who followed precisely Justice Scalia's analysis on the linchpin question of constitutionality, one could expect it would be overturned.</s>BARRETT: No, Senator Coons, because if there were a direct challenge to NFIB v. Sebelius, there would be precedent on point and (ph) the law's stare decisis is a whole doctrine that binds judges itself. So, no, I don't think one could assume that in a separate point in time, that even Justice Scalia would necessarily decide the case the same way once there was precedent on the books.</s>COONS: I agree, and I look forward to discussing that in some more detail tomorrow. I have just I think six minutes: Your views of precedent, Justice Scalia's views of precedent and the ways in which they may diverge, I think, are important and important for us to spend some time on. Let me just recap this point. For President Trump, for Republican politicians, the argument about tax and about whether or not the mandate is a tax is the gateway to knocking down the entire Affordable Care Act. And that's also the line of attack being taken by the Department of Justice. You've already said it's not plausible to interpret the mandate as a tax. You didn't think it was a tax when it was raising billions of dollars in revenue. You certainly, I think, are unlikely to believe it's a tax when it raises no revenue. And the thing that might distinguish it from NFIB v. Sebelius is reliance interests and precedent. And when I have more time tomorrow, we'll go through that. But I just wanted to connect some dots, that Trump has repeatedly vowed to get rid of the ACA, has campaigned on it, has criticized the chief justice, has said his nominees would do the right thing. His administration is in court right now arguing in a case to be heard in just four weeks, that it should be invalidated. And a person you've criticized -- Chief Roberts, a person whose opinion, whose decision you have criticized, Justice Roberts -- means in many ways that you've signaled, I think. You were added to the Supreme Court short list after you wrote that article. And today, my Republican colleagues, who themselves have promised to repeal the ACA, are rushing through your nomination so you can be seated in time to hear this case. It concerns me greatly that that's the circumstances we're in. Let me ask one last line of questioning, if I might, in the five minutes I have left. There's another subject on which President Trump has been, I think, unfortunately very, very clear about what he hopes for from a Supreme Court nominee. Just days after Justice Ginsburg passed, the President was asked why there was such a rush to fill her seat before the election and he responded, and I quote, "we need nine justices, you need that. With the millions of ballots that they" -- and he meant the Democrats -- "are sending, it's a scam, it's a hoax. They're going to need nine justices." The next day, he told reporters -- again, he doubled down -- "I think this" -- and he means the election, from the context -- "will end up in the Supreme Court. It's very important. We must have nine justices." Our President has also been asked whether he'll commit to a peaceful transition if he loses the election. He's been asked directly and repeatedly, and instead of responding in the way we'd expect of any leader of the free world, with a clear and simple "yes," he's tried to sow confusion and distrust in the potential results. So Your Honor, I -- I'm concerned that what President Trump wants here couldn't be clearer, that he's trying to rush this nomination ahead so you might cast a decision, a vote in his favor in the event of a disputed election, and he's doing his level best to cast doubt on the legitimacy of an election in which literally millions of votes have already been cast, most of them by mail. I was very encouraged, again, to hear from you specifically, you have not had any conversation with him about this topic, and that's not what I'm suggesting. In fact, you repeated promptly 28 U.S.C. 455 -- you're quite familiar with the recusal statute and its considerations -- but I think the (inaudible) in the court -- the -- the core issue in recusal is that any judge or justice should recuse themselves from a case in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Given what President Trump said, given the rushed context of this confirmation, will you commit to recusing yourself from any case arising from a dispute in the presidential election results three weeks from now?</s>BARRETT: Senator Coons, thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this, cause I want to be very clear for the record and to all members of this committee, that no matter what anyone else may think or expect, I have not committed to anyone or so much as signaled -- I've never even written -- I've been in a couple of opinions in the 7th Circuit that have been around the edges of election law. But I haven't even written anything that I would think anybody could reasonably say oh, this is how she might resolve an election dispute. And I would consider it -- let's see, I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people. So that would be on the question of actual bias and you asked about the appearance of bias -</s>COONS: Correct.</s>BARRETT: -- and you're right that the statute does require a justice or a judge to recuse when there is an appearance of bias, and what I will commit to every member of this committee, to the rest of the Senate and to the American people is that I will consider all factors that are relevant to that question -- relevant to that question that requires recusal when there is an appearance of bias, and there is case law under this statute and as I referenced earlier, in describing the recusal process of the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg said that it is always done with consultation of the other justices. And so I promise you that if I were confirmed and if an election dispute arises, you know, both of which are "if," that I would very seriously undertake that process and I would consider every relevant factor. I can't commit to you right now, for the reasons that we've talked about before, but I do assure you of my integrity and I do assure you that I would take that question very seriously.</s>COONS: Thank you, Your Honor. Just on the question of consultation, the Chief Justice -- former Chief Justice Rehnquist, because this question came up in 2004, wrote a letter actually to members of this committee, that there's no formal procedure for court review of a decision by a justice in individual cases. It's just something -- Justice Ginsburg did say that there was a practice of consultation. I do think at the end of the day, what matters is removing any potential conflict here. Ensuring that there is confidence in our election, in the Supreme Court and in its role is critical. I have reached out to a number of my colleagues to implore them to step back from the timing of this confirmation, to consider the possible confluence of three different factors here -- an election, an ACA case and a rushed timing in the middle of a pandemic -- and I would just urge them one more time to think seriously about stepping back from this timing of this confirmation. That's not meant to impugn you or suggest that, in some way, you've engaged in some inappropriate conversation, that's just the confluence of these events at this time and this place. This election will have enormous consequences. I am troubled by what you've written about the Affordable Care Act. I am more concerned that the President has tried over and over and over to get rid of the ACA and that the American people have consistently said no and that the consequences for a majority of Americans who rely on the ACA in the middle of a pandemic would be significant, and that the President has refused to embrace the American people's wishes and deliver some compelling alternative plan and instead has taken the battle back to the Supreme Court, where it will be heard in just a month. I think to reach out and to strike this critical statute down now would be the worst example of judicial activism, which my colleagues say they don't want and which I hope will not happen, but I am gravely concerned by what I see. Your Honor, I believe your views are sincere but I also think you genuinely think the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional -- that's my reading -- and you are entitled to that view but this body and the American people, we shouldn't kid ourselves. Bluntly, if -- if our President and the majority are able to swing the court out of balance by replacing Justice Ginsburg by someone whose views may be significantly to the right, the health of a majority of Americans may well be in peril. Thank you, Your Honor.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Thank you, Senator Coons. Judge, if it's OK, we'll do Senator Hawley's 30 minutes and take a break.</s>BARRETT: Sure.</s>GRAHAM: Is that OK with you?</s>BARRETT: Yep.</s>GRAHAM: So Senator Hawley, you -- you're on deck. We'll try to take a 15 minute break. And just one observation -- really, a lot of good questions, good interchange. Not one time has a senator and the judge talked over each other. I hope the American people understand that this is the way that it should be. Senator Hawley?</s>SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'd like to begin by asking consent to enter two letters into the record supporting the Judge's nomination, the first from the Family Research Council, and the second from a group of state attorneys general, including the state attorney general of my home state of Missouri.</s>GRAHAM: Without objection.</s>HAWLEY: Thank you very much. Judge, it's good to see you again. I - I - I have been so impressed with your answers today. It - it's really quite extraordinary. I look forward to visiting with you a little bit here. Can we just start on the topic of independence, picking up where Senator Coons just was questioning you? I - I've heard my Democrat colleagues over and over again suggest that because, I guess, you clerked for Justice Scalia that you'll automatically vote however he did. They attribute his opinions to you, his decisions to you, his method to you. Did Justice Scalia tell you what to do in your career? I mean, have you been in the habit in your life - of doing exactly what Justice Scalia told you to do in your professional career?</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator Hawley, as I said earlier, if you confirm me, you're getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia. I share his method of interpreting the text, but you know, I didn't agree with him in every case, even when I was clerking. I mean, then he could tell me what to do, and even if I disagreed, I had to go his way. But the fact that we share the same approach does not mean that we would always reach the same result.</s>HAWLEY: And you make up your own mind, don't you?</s>BARRETT: I do make up my own mind.</s>HAWLEY: And you have your own views, I think is fair to say, is that accurate?</s>BARRETT: Indeed I do.</s>HAWLEY: And you're a very accomplished jurist in your own right, is that fair to say?</s>BARRETT: Well (inaudible) a little immodest to opine on that.</s>HAWLEY: Well I'll say it is. You're very accomplished. So I think this one way attribution that you must just be a -- whatever Justice Scalia did, you would automatically do, I have to say, frankly is a little bit demeaning. Let me ask you about some other attacks that you've endured today. Now I noticed yesterday, we were assured that you would not be attacked on the basis of your faith, I noticed that didn't last 24 hours, but Im not surprised because for 3.5 years, we have heard consistent attacks from the Democrat side, on -- on nominees of the basis of their faith, including of course you, Justice Barrett, and we talked about this some yesterday. Today, the second Democrat senator to speak questions, criticized you for speaking to a Christian legal group that has a program -- a summer program for Christian law students were you gave, I think it a lecture once or twice on constitutional and statutory interpretation. So let me just ask you about that. You've talked about your faith, this has been well established. You accepted an invitation to speak to a group of Christian law students on the topic of -- of your specialty. Tell us why you accepted the invitation?</s>BARRETT: I had several other colleagues who had participated in the Blackstone (ph) program lecturing, and I hear great things about it from them. We had a contingent of students from Notre Dame regularly attend this program, and they were among our most engaged and smartest students. And I went and did it. The first time I did it, I really enjoyed it, the students were very, very engaged. So I did it -- I don't know, I might have done it four or five times. Each summer I would go and just give a lecture on (ph) originalism that was one hour of the -- Blackstone (ph) is a summer long program, so I went and gave my one hour lecture at the beginning of it, and I really thought it was -- it was a fun talk about the Constitution to an engaged group of students. It was fun for some who's a law professor.</s>HAWLEY: Are you aware of anything in the Constitution or our laws that say that it is a disqualification for office for a believer religious faith, to -- to go on lecture to law students of the similar faith in her area of expertise?</s>BARRETT: I certainly -- I want to be careful that I'm not veering into answering hypothetical questions, but I certainly didn't think there was anything wrong with my going to speak to a group of Christian law students about my expertise.</s>HAWLEY: Let me ask you this. Senator Leahy also raised a pledge, a statement that you signed regarding abortion. You told us -- you told the committee in response to this question, you and your husband both signed it, I'm looking at the advertisement in question right here, the portion that you signed. You said that you signed it on your way out of church, if I remember correctly.</s>BARRETT: I did. That was almost 15 years ago. On at the back of church, there was a table set up for people on their way out of mass, to sign a statement validating their commitment to the position of the catholic church on life issues. The ad that was next to it, I don't recall seeing the ad at the time, and upon just looking at it, looks to me like that was an ad by the St. Joseph County Right to Life group. The statement that I signed, it was affirming the protection of life from conception to natural death.</s>HAWLEY: And you just made reference to the fact again, that was it was in church. Can you just -- why would have been in -- in the back of church? Why would -- would signatures -- why would this have been available to sign or not, as you so chosen, in the back of church?</s>BARRETT: Well, because that is the position of the catholic church you know, on abortion. So I feel like I should emphasize here as I emphasized to others asking me the questions, that I do see as succinct, my personal moral, religious views and my past of applying the law as a judge.</s>HAWLEY: Is it safe to say following that distinction you just made, of the signature that you, Lance, your husband also reflects your understanding of your church's teaching and -- and your own personal views? I mean, that's what this says, that you signed.</s>BARRETT: So what I would like to say about that is, I signed that almost 15 years ago in my personal capacity when I was still a private citizen. And now I'm a public official, and so while I was free to express my private views at that time, I don't feel like it is appropriate for me anymore because of the cannons of conduct, to express an affirmative at this point in time. But what that statement plainly says is that when I signed that statement, that is what I was doing at that point as a private citizen.</s>HAWLEY: And I'm not aware of any law or provision of the Constitution that says that if you are a member of the Catholic Church and adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church, or you have religious convictions in line with those of your church teachings, that you're therefore barred from office. Are you aware of any constitutional provision to that effect?</s>BARRETT: I would think that the religious test laws would make it unconstitutional--</s>HAWLEY: Well let me just ask you about the test clause, since you bring it up. Article 6 says no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Can you just give us your sense as a constitutional expert, scholar and judge now, of the significance of -- of article 6 for our constitutional scheme?</s>BARRETT: So the religious test clause prohibits this body, it prohibits the government generally from disqualifying people from office because of their religious beliefs.</s>HAWLEY: And it guarantees, does is not that the freedom of religion -- I mean, it is a -- article 1 -- I'm sorry -- amendment one -- the first amendment, will go on to talk explicitly -- and I want to ask about that in a second, about religious liberty. But article 6 is significant in that it sets out the one cannot be -- no American citizen can be kept out of office based on his or her belief. You don't have to go and get someone's approval -- certainly not somebody in government -- their approval over what you believe, does not meet this test or not, do they like it or not. You don't have to get any sign off. In fact, any kind of sign offs are explicitly ruled out by the Constitution. Is that a fair characterization?</s>BARRETT: The religious test clause makes plain that nomination or beliefs can't be a reason to disqualify someone.</s>HAWLEY: And that is why I continue to say it is -- it is vital that we underline in the Constitution, that this -- this test clause and that we insist that it be applied in the context of your confirmation, judge, and every nominee for every high office who comes before this committee. There are no religious tests for office, and the attempt to smuggle them in even in the midst of this committee's hearing to date, it has -- it must be resisted on the basis of the Constitution itself. Let me ask you about the First Amendment, about the free exercise of religion. That's of course how the First Amendment begins, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Tell me what you think this says about the place of religious observance in American life and its significance? Why is it -- why is it protected like this in the first amendment? What do you draw from that?</s>BARRETT: I mean, I think its presence in the Bill of Rights, like all of our rights, shows that it was one that the people, for generations, beginning in 1791, considered central to a being a free people.</s>HAWLEY: And there's no indication from the Constitution that religious believers are a second class citizens in any way, is there?</s>BARRETT: Well, the free exercise certainly suggests to the contrary.</s>HAWLEY: And in fact, the free exercise clause and First Amendment suggest that the exercise of religion, worship, religious belief gets special protection. I mean, it's singled out here for protection along with and immediately after speech, the press, right of the people peacefully to assemble. Religion is given a special place, which the United States Supreme Court has recognized. Let me just ask you about attempts to disfavor religious believers on the basis of faith. Is it your understanding, can a government -- at any level, federal government, state government, municipality, whatever -- can they treat religious believers differently? Can they single them out for disfavor versus a nonreligious group? Is that permissible in our constitutional order?</s>BARRETT: Well, Senator Hawley, that's a complicated question because you know there's a lot of doctrine surrounding that. And there aren't bright-line rules, and so that question would come up in a case with facts and you know, it would require the whole judicial decision- making process, so it's not a hypothetical that I can answer.</s>HAWLEY: Let me ask you about the court's decision --</s>JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: All right, you have been watching Judge Amy Coney Barrett before the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath taking questions from Democrats and Republican, senators, on Capitol Hill today, as part of the her confirmation hearings to be the newest Supreme Court justice. Judge Barrett would not answer if she would recuse from the pending Affordable Care Act case, which goes before the High Court one week after the election. That would be November 10. She would not answer if she would recuse herself in any decisions about the election, Judge Barrett also giving no indication in how she might rule on future abortion cases. She did say multiple times she has had no conversations with the White House about any future rulings. All of this, of course, is in keeping with the Kabuki of Supreme Court hearings, Supreme Court confirmation hearings, where nominees act as though they don't have opinions on these issues and refuse to answer as to what they think about things that they obviously have been thinking about for decades. CNN's Manu Raju is live for us on Capitol Hill. Manu, have there been any major surprises so far?</s>MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They really have not. She has not been pinned down on virtually any of these major issues. A couple of things that she did say, though, undoubtedly Democrats will point to, however. One of these is Roe vs. Wade. While she would not describe her views of whether or not the abortion rights should be overturned in any way, despite having a position promoting -- raising concerns about Roe vs. Wade before she became a federal judge, right now, she wouldn't say how she views that. But she did say she does not believe that that landmark ruling is so- called super precedent, which, of course, means something that cannot be touched. She said that there are challenges to that ruling. And so she would not want to weigh in one way or the other about what and how it needs to be changed in any way, because the contours of that landmark ruling will be -- are being discussed and being challenged moving through the court system. So that clearly is something that Democrats will point to. She did say that she would very seriously consider recusing herself from any election-related disputes after the election, if anything goes to the Supreme Court and she's a sitting justice, but she would not commit to recusing herself from that as well, despite the president himself saying he needs to have nine justices on the Supreme Court to essentially resolve the election. She said that she would not be used as a pawn by anybody to determine the outcome of the election. But she also would not commit to recusal. And there are just a number of things, Jake, that she would not specify her views, including whether or not she believes that poll watchers can intimidate voters at the polls, whether federal law prohibits people from being intimidated as they go to the polls and cast their votes. Amy Klobuchar tried to ask her if she believes that. She said, "I can't characterize the facts on a hypothetical situation" Klobuchar was referring to. Of course, the president has repeatedly called on his supporters to go and monitor the polls very closely. And you mentioned it, a range of issues too. Same-sex marriage, she would not express her point of view on the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. And on the Affordable Care Act, that 2012 case that upheld the law, her criticism of John Roberts's ruling in that, she said the case that's coming before the court after the election, she said it turns on a different issue, said she will not weigh in one way or the other how she may come down on that.</s>TAPPER: That's right. Senator Coons, a Democratic senator from Delaware, trying to make the issue -- trying to make the case that she has hostility to the Affordable Care Act. She insists that she does not. And her book review in which she mentioned Justice Roberts' view and ruling on that issue, she said, was not specifically germane to the upcoming case. Let's discuss all of this with our panel. Jeffrey, what's your reaction? You have said that you didn't think we'd get many answers from Judge Barrett about how she views certain issues. I mean, this is -- to be fair to Judge Barrett, this is not unusual. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are exercises in deftly avoiding answering the questions. But did you get any sense of how a Justice Barrett might rule on the court?</s>JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think you have to look at her history. And I thought Senator Coons really got to the point quite well, because several times through the course of this hearing, she has been presented with the fact that she has spoken out against abortion and been part of groups that were against abortion rights. And she wrote this law review article, which you just mentioned, that criticized Chief Justice Roberts' opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act. And each time she has been confronted with that, she said, well, that was just me as a private person. It's not -- it's not a legal opinion that I offered. My legal views are different from my personal views. And what -- the point I thought Chris Coons made that was a good one was, but these opinions are why you were appointed. It's because the people around the president who want conservatives on the Supreme Court, they read that article in the law review. They saw that you signed petitions against Roe v. Wade.

Interview With Former Acting CDC Director Dr. Richard Besser; Another Vaccine Trial Halted; Trump Continues Holding Campaign Rallies

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Also breaking, new setbacks and safety concerns for coronavirus therapies, Eli Lilly pausing a trial right now of its antibody treatment due to illness, this after a second U.S. vaccine trial was suspended because a participant became ill. Let's first go to our White House Correspondent, Kaitlan Collins. Kaitlan, another night, another rally for the president in a state where COVID-19 infections are rising.</s>KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: They certainly are, Wolf, but that doesn't seem to be something that is on the president's mind as he's attending these rallies, since he now is back on the trail after being at home, after being released from the hospital. And, Wolf, some aides around the president were hoping this would be kind of a reset, for the president to seem relatable to voters who so far have rejected his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, since he himself was diagnosed with it. But they are not getting that. And, instead, what we heard from the president last night and what sources say we can expect to hear tonight is the same thing that he's been doing for months, which is downplaying the pandemic, while mocking those who are taking it seriously.</s>COLLINS (voice-over): After his own COVID-19 hospitalization, President Trump is back on the campaign trail tonight in a state where infections are rising.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience.</s>COLLINS: The president holding a rally in Pennsylvania after tossing out masks to supporters in Florida who mostly weren't wearing them or social distancing.</s>TRUMP: I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and the -- everybody. I'll just give you a big fat kiss.</s>COLLINS: Trump's doctor says he's tested negative, though Dr. Conley has stayed away from the cameras for over a week now, leaving his patient to spin his own health, while insisting he's immune, even though the science is still out.</s>TRUMP: I went through it. Now they say I'm immune.</s>COLLINS: White House officials are touting the president's return.</s>BRIAN MORGENSTERN, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: As we saw from last night, he's got his dance moves ready to go in every swing state from now to the election.</s>COLLINS: But they haven't explained why they will release some of Trump's test results, but not others. (on camera): Why can the president's doctor release his negative results from this week, but he can't release the negative result from...</s>MORGENSTERN: I'm not going to get into that.</s>COLLINS (voice-over): After being forced off the trail, Trump is trying to make up for lost time with rallies in Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, and even Georgia, an unusual stop for a Republican three weeks out from the election. Tonight, President Trump is also reviving his criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci, after he objected to being used in one of the president's campaign ads he says took him out of context.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, NIAID DIRECTOR: I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more.</s>COLLINS: Instead of responding to Fauci's request to take that ad down, the president mocked his pitch at a baseball game and said his arm is more accurate than his COVID-19 prognostications. Trump's tweet ignoring how the campaign is using Fauci's likeness to appeal to voters, as Fauci says he won't leave his job over the public presidential dispute.</s>FAUCI: I'm certainly not going to give up. This is too important a problem. I mean, I have devoted my entire professional life to fighting infectious diseases.</s>COLLINS: Trump is trailing Joe Biden in many polls and his support with seniors has been hurt in part by his response to the pandemic. His surrogates, including his daughter, are now claiming he didn't downplay coronavirus early on, but others did.</s>IVANKA TRUMP, ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: At a time when most people, except through the lens of revisionist history, most people were not taking it very seriously on the Hill or elsewhere.</s>TRUMP: I think that's a problem that's going to go away.</s>COLLINS: Today, Senator Mitt Romney issued a blistering statement about the state of politics in the U.S., saying: "The world is watching America with abject horror and it's time to lower the heat." Though he singled out Democrats, Romney was especially critical of the president and said: "Many Americans are frightened for our country, so divided, so angry, so mean, so violent."</s>COLLINS: Now, Wolf, even just three weeks to go before the election, some Republicans are trying to give the president free messaging advice, like Senator Chuck Grassley, who tweeted today, the president needs to have a card with five things that he's accomplished and five things that set him apart from Joe Biden at the beginning of these rallies, instead of sticking to the usual script that he's had for the last several months. But it's unlikely that will happen. And, Wolf, we will wait to see if the president is actually going to take questions from reporters for the first time, at least from the White House press corps, in some time, when he's about to leave the White House any moment now to go to Pennsylvania.</s>BLITZER: We will see if he answers reporters' questions. We'd love his physician to answer reporters' questions as well. It's been more than a week now since he was answering questions, the doctor. All right, Kaitlan, thank you very, very much. There's more breaking news we're following on the pandemic. Our CNN National Correspondent, Erica Hill, is in New York for us. Erica, as we're seeing very disturbing trends moving across the United States right now, there's also a setback. We're in the issue of the race for new treatments.</s>ERICA HILL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. We learned from Eli Lilly today, Wolf, that they are pausing trials with their antibody treatment. This is one that the president has touted. Keep in mind, they have already applied for emergency use authorization with the FDA. In a statement, the company told CNN, safety is of the utmost importance, but they didn't give exact reasons for pausing that trial. We should note this is not the antibiotic treatment that the president took. That one is made by Regeneron, which has also filed for emergency use authorization, but all of these headlines adding up as we continue to see cases, hospitalizations, and deaths rise.</s>HILL (voice-over): More than seven months into this pandemic, the U.S. is sliding backwards.</s>DR. PETER HOTEZ, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: This is going to be a very tough winter. We may see a rise in new cases that exceeds what we saw back in March and April.</s>HILL: Thirty-three states now seeing new cases rise over the past week, nearly half of those also posting their highest seven-day averages for new cases since the pandemic began.</s>DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Now is the time to act. Now is the time to do something about it.</s>HILL: COVID-related hospitalizations at record highs in five states. Positivity rates, which ideally should be at 3 percent or less, are climbing.</s>FAUCI: We're starting to see a number of states well above that, which is often and, in fact, invariably highly predictive of a resurgence of cases.</s>HILL: In New York, hefty fines and tickets, as the city tries to contain clusters by enforcing masks, limiting gatherings and closing nonessential businesses.</s>BILL DE BLASIO (D), MAYOR OF NEW YORK: We're now in day four of the pause in those areas. And we are seeing some results.</s>HILL: It's not just New York clamping down. Across much of Europe, restrictions are returning, as new cases and anxiety grow.</s>TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, DIRECTOR GENERAL, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: Each of the last four days has been the highest number of cases reported so far.</s>HILL: Eli Lilly pausing its trial of an antibody treatment today, one touted by the president, telling CNN safety is of the utmost importance, though without offering specifics. Johnson & Johnson just paused phase three of its vaccine trial because of an unexpected illness in one of the volunteers.</s>DR. ASHISH JHA, DIRECTOR, HARVARD GLOBAL HEALTH INSTITUTE: To me, it's reassuring that companies are acting responsibly and pausing when they need to.</s>HILL: AstraZeneca's U.S. trials remain on hold, pending an FDA investigation. Meantime, in Dallas, a big moment for Major League Baseball.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is amazing.</s>HILL: Spectators, more than 11,000, allowed in for game one of the</s>NLCS. FREDDIE FREEMAN, ATLANTA BRAVES: It's just great to have baseball fans in the stands again.</s>HILL: The Philadelphia Eagles will welcome a limited number of fans to the stadium this Sunday.</s>HILL: And now we are seeing some signs, like we just saw with those major league sports. I have to point out, Wolf, here in New York City, the New York Philharmonic just canceled its entire season through June of 2021 for the first year in its 178-year history. And in New Mexico, the governor said things are not going in the right direction. They're actually rolling back some measures. Starting Friday, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol have to close by 10:00 and mass gatherings limited now to just five people -- Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Very, very important, indeed. All right, Erica Hill in New York, thank you. Joining us now, Dr. Richard Besser, the former acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Besser, thanks so much for joining us. And I want to get to the breaking news right away, the drugmaker Eli Lilly pausing trials right now for an experimental antibody treatment after an illness in a volunteer. This is similar to the antibody cocktail treatment that the president credits with his coronavirus recovery, that cocktail treatment coming from Regeneron. Is this a concerning setback, or do you think it's a sign that the system is actually working?</s>DR. RICHARD BESSER, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION: I think it is a sign that the system is working. And it points to the critical importance of doing these kinds of trials, and not rushing drugs or vaccines out to general use until we truly know that they're safe and that they work. When one person has an experience with a with a drug, there can be a sense of, wow, we have to get this out to everyone. But until you do a true trial, you don't know whether an individual patient's improvement is from that medication or from something else and whether it's generally safe. So this is a positive sign.</s>BLITZER: Let me also get your thoughts on this Johnson & Johnson decision to pause their vaccine trial after an unexplained illness in a volunteer, the second vaccine trial pause in just over a month. What do you make of that decision?</s>BESSER: Well, two things. One is, again, it's a sign the system's working. When you have a large trial, there are going to be events that happen in people's lives. And you have to see, are they related to the vaccine or to something else? But it also points out, Wolf, the critical importance of following the lead of public health right now. There's no guarantee that we will have a vaccine that's safe and effective and, if we do, when that will be here. And as the numbers are going up around the country, we need public health to be in the lead investigating what's happening in each state and providing guidance in terms of whether anything needs to be rolled back, or whether things can proceed as they currently are taking place in different places.</s>BLITZER: Looking at the big picture, Dr. Besser, it's obvious the U.S. right now, if you look at all the number, all the data coming in, the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction once again. Just about every indicator is getting worse. So, how concerning is that, especially as we head into the flu season?</s>BESSER: Well, this is what everyone in public health has been talking about for months, that, as the weather gets cooler, viruses are going to do better. They survive longer in cooler air, in less humidity. They stay in the air longer. As children go back to school and young adults go to college and businesses open up, the number of cases are going to rise. And public health has to be on top of that, investigating cases, doing contact tracing, providing safe places for people to isolate and quarantine. If they do that, then you can open in a way that is relatively safe. But if people are still fighting over whether you wear a mask and whether you wash your hands and whether you stand six feet apart, there's absolutely no way we're going to be able to roll back the kinds of restrictions that people would like to see rolled back. So, the challenge here, Wolf, is getting everyone on the same page with following public health, because when CDC is undermined, every state local public health department in the nation is undercut as well.</s>BLITZER: Dr. Fauci says he's especially concerned right now by the rising test positivity rates. Is that a sign of a significant surge, potentially, in new cases?</s>BESSER: Well, it can be. You have to look at the percent positive, but also the number of tests that are being done. And as we have talked about before, you have to break it down further. You have to look by neighborhood, by race, by ethnicity, because, as we know, this pandemic isn't hitting every community in the same way, black, Latino, Native Americans being hit the hardest, lower-income Americans being hit hard, now rural America being hit very hard. And if you're not looking at that level, you could miss major trends and major things that you could intervene and change the course for large parts of the population.</s>BLITZER: The president is at once again attacking Dr. Fauci, tweeting this. He tweeted that: "Tony's pitching arm is far more accurate than his prognostications." What's your reaction to that attack?</s>BESSER: Well, when I was at CDC, I worked very frequently with Dr. Fauci. He is one of the smartest people in public health. And I truly respect his opinion. And I think anything that undercuts people in public health is a disservice to the nation and puts us all at risk. Over the course of a pandemic, recommendations are going to change as you learn more, and that's the norm. But without public health out front leading, explaining what they're learning, then it can look that the changes that you hear, the new guidance is frivolous or capricious. But it's not. It's based on learning. And that's a good thing.</s>BLITZER: And all of us are grateful to Dr. Fauci for, what, five decades of service to the American people in this one area.</s>BESSER: Incredible.</s>BLITZER: He's really an amazing, an amazing doctor. Thanks so much, Dr. Besser, for joining us.</s>BESSER: Thanks, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: All right, just ahead: President Trump's apparent desire to be seen as a sort of Superman after his COVID-19 infection. We're going to have the latest on the confirmation hearing also under way for the president's Supreme Court nominee, and the questions that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is refusing to answer.

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Continue; Democrats Drill Down On Health Care As Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Faces Day-Long Questioning By Senators

BLITZER: We're back with the breaking news on a marathon day of questioning for the president's U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee pressing her for answers they sometimes did not get. Our congressional correspondent, Phil Mattingly, is up on Capitol Hill. Phil, so how has Judge Barrett been doing?</s>PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, she is still well on track for confirmation before the election, still on schedule, based on everything at least the chairman and Republicans have seen over the course of nine hours today. Now, they're on a dinner break right now, will return shortly. But even the inevitability, as at least it seems at this point, hasn't stopped Democrats from digging in, trying to find out any views they possibly can, most notably on issues like Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, on issues like abortion, and on issues about what might happen should she receive a case on the Supreme Court after the election. Take a listen.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINEE: I have the integrity to act consistently with my oath and apply the law as the law, to approach the ACA and every other statute without bias. And I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that. I'm not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law. No matter what anyone else may think or expect, I have not committed to anyone or so much has signaled. I have never even written -- I've been in a couple of opinions in the Seventh Circuit that have been around the edges of election law, but I haven't even written anything that I would think anybody could reasonably, say, oh, this is how she might resolve an election dispute.</s>MATTINGLY: So, Wolf, whether it's the Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court will take up and potentially invalidate or have the opportunity to invalidate just a few days after the election or potential election cases come across the board, Amy Coney Barrett falling precedent to some degree, as past nominees not answering questions about cases that may come up, not delving too deeply into the details. Democrats plan to keep going on the questioning both tonight and tomorrow, but even they seem to acknowledge that this point in time this is a foregone conclusion in terms of the confirmation. But raising those issues to public awareness, that is something they plan to continue to press on throughout the course of the next few days.</s>BLITZER: You know, Phil, Senator Kamala Harris is a member of the judiciary committee. Her turn to question the judge for 30 minutes is coming up, I understand, right after this dinner break. What can we expect there?</s>MATTINGLY: Yes, it's a great question, Wolf, and one we've all been trying to figure out. Obviously, we saw Kamala Harris, her opening statement yesterday. We've seen her in past Judiciary Committee hearings, including in past Supreme Court nomination hearings, kind of become the interrogator in chief, in some degree, going viral with some of the questions that have stumped witnesses throughout the course of the last several years in the Judiciary Committee. What will be interesting to watch is Senator Harris is now a vice presidential nominee. She's in a different position right now than she was when she was just the sitting senator from California. And how she decides to operate in her 30 minutes of questioning, one thing you can take over the course to have last nine hours from Democrats is the Affordable Care Act has been a primary focus. The actions of the president while Amy Coney Barrett has not responded to them have also been things that have been delved into. So keep an eye on both of those issues and also keep in mind, she's a former prosecutor. She likes to point that out. She'll have an opportunity for a full 30 minutes, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Yes, it should be a fascinating 30 minutes of questions from her, answers from the judge. We're going to have live coverage coming up here on CNN. I'm anxious to see how that unfolds. So, thanks very much, Phil, for that. Let's continue the conversation right now with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat who serves on the Judiciary Committee. He participated in today's Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Senator, thank you so much for joining us. Many of your fellow Democratic colleagues, they're focusing their questions on Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Affordable Care Act. Barrett says, she's not hostile to that law. Does that give you any comfort?</s>SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): No, it does not. There has been too much said about the Affordable Care Act first by the president, who said he wants to use the litigation that she's being rushed on to the court to participate in to, quote, terminate health care under Obamacare. The Republican Party platform specifically says it wants to reverse the Obamacare cases and will appoint judges who will do that. Over and over again, you have these strong statements of intent. And I think it's important that we take them seriously and I think it's also important that voters take them seriously. And since they can't hold Judge Barrett accountable, hold account the Republican senators who have written briefs saying the Affordable Care Act should be knocked down in the middle of a pandemic and hold accountable the Republican senators who are voting for the swing vote that might take down the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic.</s>BLITZER: Today, it was the first opportunity for senators on the Judiciary Committee like you to publicly question Judge Barrett. But during your allotted 30 minutes time frame, you didn't ask a single question. Why not?</s>WHITEHOUSE: Because I wanted to make the case to the public of something that we've been looking at in the Senate for quite some time, which is role of big special interest dark money that is circulating around the Supreme Court that now controls the selection of Supreme Court justices, that pours huge checks, like a $17 million doing nation into funding T,V, ad campaigns to support the nominees, and then to show how the same groups fund artificial front groups that turn up before the court the file briefs as if they were separate, but it's an orchestrated chorus funded by the same interests that are putting their people on the court. There are some real problems at the Supreme Court. And I think if we just look at what's happening in this puppet theater of a judiciary hearing, we're disserving the American people.</s>BLITZER: Judge Barrett repeatedly insisted she does not and will not allow her personal and her religious beliefs to affect her U.S. Supreme Court decisions, assuming she'll be confirmed. Your take on her word?</s>WHITEHOUSE: Everybody says that in these hearings. It's become so wrote (ph) that it's almost automatic. They say that they'll follow president. They say they won't let their personal views intrude. They say that they are simply going to read the law and follow it and recite what it says. It is the confirmation hearing equivalent of pabulum, baby food. It's not meaningful.</s>BLITZER: Yes, almost all of the nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court, whether nominated by a Democratic president or a Republican president, have uttered the same line over and over again during these confirmation hearings. Senator Whitehouse, thanks so much for joining us.</s>WHITEHOUSE: Good to be with you.</s>BLITZER: Just ahead, I'll speak with the New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, as he says New York City is entering a decisive week in its fight against the new coronavirus clusters. Plus, more on those massive lines at polling stations across Texas and Georgia with some voters facing lines that are hours and hours long. We'll be right back.

New York City Mayor Says, A Decisive Week in Fight Against New COVID Clusters.

BLITZER: The mayor of New York says the city's battle against the new COVID clusters is entering a decisive week as it limits gatherings and closes non-essential businesses in those areas to prevent a much feared full resurgence of the coronavirus. Let's discuss with the mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio. Mayor de Blasio, thank you so much for joining us. I know you have a lot going on. When you say this will be, in your words, a decisive week for New York City, explain precisely what you mean.</s>MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO (D), NEW YORK CITY, NY: Yes, look, Wolf, the most important thing I can say is there's a threat of a second wave, but I am absolutely convinced we can stop a second wave from happening here in New York City. We've had a set of neighborhoods where we've seen increases. We've put really strong restrictions in place. A lot of outreach in those communities, a lot of testing, a lot of enforcement, I believe we can contain the situation. And even if we see a crop up in some neighborhoods, we have the pieces in place to contain it. But this is the week we have to do it. This is the week where we have to turn the tide and make sure there is not a second wave because Lord knows this city was the epicenter and we will not let that happen again. So it's really about everything we're throwing at it this week coming to its full impact and engaging the people intensely. That's what we keep learning. If the people are bought into the solution, that's what makes the difference. And I really think New Yorkers realize everyone has to participate at this point to stop a second wave.</s>BLITZER: Yes, these are life and death decisions. Mayor, what's the situation like now in what you call those red zone cluster areas?</s>DE BLASIO: Well, we've seen some leveling off in the test data. And, you know, we are very devoted here in New York City to the data and the science. This is what helped us fight our way out of being the epicenter. We had three or four very good months because we stayed devoted to the actual facts and we're doing it again now. So the facts tell us, Wolf, that a week or so ago when things were trending very much in the wrong direction in a set of neighborhoods, not by any means the majority of the city, a small part of the city, but still a very, very big area of concern. The last few days, the data, we see some leveling off, we see some improvement. We are not out of the woods, but something is starting to work and people are coming out and getting tested in much bigger numbers. And that's a crucial piece of the equation.</s>BLITZER: The city, I understand, handed out, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, about $150,000 in fines over the weekend. Is that the type of enforcement it's going to take to keep things under control through this fall surge?</s>DE BLASIO: Yes. Look, it's never something you want to do. Everyone has been through a tough time, humanly, economically. We don't want to give fines and we don't have to, but people have to see there are consequences. So we've had some very powerful enforcement efforts. They are being dually noted in all the communities affected. And, hopefully, by showing that that is a real possibility, the vast majority of people are never going to get to the point where they need a fine. What we are seeing is many more people now wearing masks and taking social distancing seriously and we need to make sure that sticks because we got to stop a second wave from happening and then keep it at bay for the long-term until we have a vaccine.</s>BLITZER: You say, Mayor, that the testing across New York City public schools is very encouraging, but the school year got off, I understand, to a rather rocky start. What are you hearing from administrators, from teachers, from parents right now?</s>DE BLASIO: So, first of all, the testing is a very good story, Wolf. A week ago in New York City, we had the highest week of testing in the city's history since this began, over a quarter of a million New Yorkers got tested, that number, I want to keep higher and higher every week. In the schools, we've had a huge testing effort. And what we've seen consistently is very, very low numbers. We had almost 2,000 folks tested on Friday and 56 schools, we got one positive back. So that's really encouraging. It did take us a few weeks to get the school year going. But now it's going full bore all over the city. You know, we have 1,600 schools and except for some temporarily closed in those particular zones, the vast majority are up and running and running well. So the schools have been a positive point, very few examples of tests that are giving us the wrong indicator in school. We were getting overwhelmingly good results from testing at schools.</s>BLITZER: That's encouraging to hear that. As you point out and as you well know better than anyone, New York City was the epicenter of this crisis back in April. How confident are you, big picture, right now, Mayor, that your city will avoid a repeat this fall and winter as the weather gets colder and colder and the regular flu season begins to really disrupt things as well?</s>DE BLASIO: I am confident, Wolf. We have a huge campaign, to going to get the flu shot. We have the strongest testing trace core in the country. That's a huge X factor in our favor. The vast majority of New Yorkers really are observing social distancing and wearing those masks. So, we have a challenge ahead, but I feel very good that we keep doing what we're doing, we can contain this current outbreak, push it back, stop a second wave now and then you know, with everything we've learned, hold this virus at bay during the cold weather months. New Yorkers are ready to come back and make the city strong and vibrant again. And so, I think people are really bought into the fact that up to all of us to follow these rules, to be governed by the data and the science so we can get out of this challenge once and for all, but right now, I see people doing the right thing to help us beat this back and avoid a second wave.</s>BLITZER: So many people are suffering in New York City right now. The unemployment rate is huge. People are desperate. They can't pay the rent. They need food. They got to put food on the table for their kids. How important is it that the Democrats and the Republicans in the House and the Senate get their act together and pass an economic stimulus package that will help all those folks in New York City right now?</s>DE BLASIO: Wolf, it's the only way we truly restart this city and restart our economy and bring people's livelihoods back. We must have that stimulus package. Right now, we are depending, you know, on what little we have to keep basic services going for people. And to give us the possibility of the restart people need, but at some point, if we don't get that federal support soon, we're not going to be able to drive the basic services as a city. We're not going to be able to give people what they need to be able to restart their businesses. There are so many people who have suffered, but with a little bit of timely federal help, this could be a very different story. This could be the story of rebirth. And I got to believe a at some point, maybe it's going to take an election to do it, Wolf, but at some point soon, Washington will focus its energies and get us the support we deserve.</s>BLITZER: Yeah, it's a critical point indeed, for so many millions of Americans out there. Mayor De Blasio, you so much for joining us. Good luck to everyone in New York.</s>DE BLASIO: Thank you, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Just ahead, Senator Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, is set to grill Judge Amy Coney Barrett just a few minutes from now. We're going to have live coverage of that. Stay with us.</s>BLITZER: With Election Day here in the United States just three weeks away from today, more than 10.5 million Americans have already cast their general election ballots. And in Georgia, voters are again braving long lines at polling stations throughout the state. CNN's Amara Walker is at a polling location in Fulton County, Georgia, for us. Amara, how bad have the lines actually been there?</s>AMARA WALKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey there, Wolf. Well, if you think waiting in line to cast your vote for three hours is bad, then yeah, it got pretty bad here at this Fulton County polling site, at the Buckhead Library. In fact, it was actually worse, in just about 30 minutes north of here, in Gwinnett County, where the maximum wait time today was six hours. But you know, all in all, I've been talking to the voters, and they were in great spirits. They were fired up, so to speak, telling me that they know the stakes are high, especially considering that Georgia has become a presidential --</s>BLITZER: We want to go to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Kamala Harris is just beginning questioning of the U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Let's listen in to Senator Kamala Harris and Judge Amy Coney Barrett.</s>SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Thank you. Before I begin, I want to just take a moment to talk directly to the American people about where we are and how we got here. So we are in the middle of a deadly pandemic that has hit our country harder than any other country in the world. More than 215,000 of our fellow Americans have died, and millions more, including the president, Republican members of this committee, and more than 100 frontline workers here at the Capitol complex have been infected. This pandemic has led to an historic economic crisis, causing millions of workers to lose their jobs without warning. And 12 million Americans have lost their employer based health insurance. The Senate, I strongly believe, must be and needs to be laser focused on you, the American people, to help you get through this pandemic. To do so, the Senate urgently needs to pass critical financial relief for those who are struggling because of this pandemic and many are struggling. People need help. They need help to pay their rent or mortgage. Parents need help putting food on the table. The millions of American workers who have lost their jobs need help making it through the end of the month. And small businesses need help so they don't have to close their doors for good. But sadly, Senate Republicans have rushed to hold this Supreme Court confirmation hearing, rather than help those who are suffering through a public health crisis not of their making. As I said yesterday, these priorities are not the American people's priorities. Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, Senate Republicans' number one priority has been to tear it down. And remember, before the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies helped virtually unchecked power over our health care system. They could refuse to cover basic medical expenses like maternity care, like mammograms, like prescription drugs or hospital stays. Worst of all, if you were sick, they could deny you coverage all together and there's nothing you could do about it. For the last nine years, Republicans in Congress have tried 70 times, 70 times to repeal or roll back the ACA in the United States Congress. In 2013, Senate Republicans were so desperate to stop its success, that they shut down the entire government for weeks. After President Trump was elected, Washington Republicans spent nearly a year trying to repeal the ACA. But I will always remember the thousands of Americans from all over our country and all walks of life who crowded into the halls of the United States Capitol to require that lawmakers see their faces and understand how they would be hurt if there was a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Brave activists in the disability community staged sit-ins on the Hill. Seniors protested to keep prescription drugs affordable. Mothers and fathers walked the halls with their children in strollers to show Congress the face of those who depended on the law. And doctors and nurses protested to protect their patient's access to the care they desperately need. Together, with many of my colleagues, I joined civil rights and community leaders to speak to the thousands of people who gathered outside the Capitol as they pleaded, as they begged with lawmakers to do the right thing. All of these dedicated Americans demanding that their voices be heard. And they made a difference. They made a difference. History will remember that late night thumbs-down movement when the great, great John McCain denied Republicans the opportunity to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And now, following a decade of failure, Washington Republicans have realized that the Affordable Care Act is working too well and helping too many people to repeal it without facing serious political consequences. But what are they doing? After suffering the backlash that they provoked by targeting the law in Congress, they decided instead to circumvent voters and try to strike down the Affordable Care Act through the courts. Right now, the Trump administration and Senate Republicans are urging the Supreme Court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act and all of its patient protections. Republicans are scrambling to confirm this nominee as fast as possible because they need one more Trump judge on the bench before November 10th to win and strike down the entire Affordable Care Act. This is not hyperbole. This is not a hypothetical. This is happening. And here is what you have to know. People are scared. People are scared of what will happen if the Affordable Care Act is destroyed in the middle of a pandemic. There are more than 100 million Americans with preexisting conditions, like asthma and diabetes, heart disease, who know that they can be denied coverage, are charged more by insurance companies, if Donald Trump is successful in getting rid of the Affordable Care Act. And because of the coronavirus, more than 7 million people have now a preexisting condition that they didn't have earlier this year. Those who depend on the ACA are afraid of their lives being turned upside down if the court strikes it down. They know what could happen. And, Judge Barrett, I will share with you and the American people a list. No protections for preexisting conditions. Higher costs for health care for women and people over the age of 50. Young adults kicked off their parent's insurance. More expensive prescription drugs for seniors. Insurance companies refusing to cover mental health care. Insurance companies refusing to cover maternity care. No free mammograms, cancer screenings or birth control.

Illness Prompts Suspension Of Antibody Treatment Trial After Second U.S. Vaccine Trial Also Paused Due To Illness; New Jersey Reports 993 New COVID-19 Cases, Seven Additional Deaths

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: During this difficult time his family says they're holding tight to Norman's favorite quote, "It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. May his memory be a blessing. Our coverage on CNN continues right now.</s>WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM. We're following breaking news. Growing evidence that a much-feared fall resurgence of the coronavirus is beginning as the U.S. death toll now tops 215,000 people with 7.8 million cases. And now cases are on the rise in 33 states. That includes Pennsylvania, by the way, where cases are up 63 percent. Despite that, this hour, President Trump will be heading there to hold his second campaign rally in two days. And it's expected the late last night's rally, there will be few masks and no significant social distancing at all. And there's more breaking pandemic news we're following, the drug maker Eli Lilly is pausing its trial of its a monoclonal antibody to treat the coronavirus likely because a volunteer became ill. We'll talk about all the breaking news much more in just a few minutes with the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Standby for that. But first let's go straight to the White House. Our White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins is joining us. Kaitlan, the President is clearly energized by these political campaign rallies, despite the very serious public health threat they pose.</s>KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. And despite his own battle with this deadly disease very little at these rallies has changed. They look a lot like they did before the President contracted COVID-19 as he is trying to defend his unpopular record and response to the ongoing pandemic.</s>COLLINS (voice-over): After his own COVID-19 hospitalization, President Trump is back on the campaign trail tonight in a state where infections are rising.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I feel so powerful. I walk into that --</s>COLLINS: The President holding a rally in Pennsylvania after tossing out mask to supporters in Florida who mostly weren't wearing them or social distancing.</s>TRUMP: I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and everybody. I'll just give you a big fat kiss.</s>COLLINS: Trump's doctors says he's tested negative, though Dr. Conley has stayed away from the cameras for over a week now, leaving his patient to spend his own health while insisting he's immune even though the science is still out.</s>TRUMP: I went through it. Now they say I'm immune.</s>COLLINS: White House officials are touting the President's return,</s>BRIAN MORGENSTERN, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: As we saw from last night, he's got his dance moves ready, ready to go in every swing state from now to the election.</s>COLLINS: But they haven't explained why they'll release some of Trumps test results but not others. Why can the President's doctor release his last negative results but not --</s>MORGENSTERN: I'm not going to get to that.</s>COLLINS: After being forced off the trail, Trump is trying to make up for lost time with rallies in Iowa, North Carolina, Florida and even Georgia, an unusual stop for a Republican three weeks out from the election. Tonight, President Trump is also reviving his criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci after he objected to being used in one of the President's campaign ads, he says, took him out of context.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more.</s>COLLINS: Instead of responding to Fauci's requests to take that ad down. The President mocked his pitch at a baseball game and said his arm is more accurate than his COVID-19 prognostications. Trump's tweet ignoring how the campaign is using Fauci's likeness to appeal to voters as Fauci says he won't leave his job over the public presidential dispute.</s>FAUCI: I'm certainly not going to give up. This is too important a problem. I mean, I've devoted my entire professional life to fighting infectious diseases.</s>COLLINS: Trump is trailing Joe Biden in many polls and his support with seniors has been hurt in part by his response to the pandemic. His surrogates, including his daughter are now claiming he didn't downplay coronavirus early on, but others did.</s>IVANKA TRUMP, DAUGHTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP: At a timeline, most people you know, except through the lens revisionist history, most people were not taking it very seriously on the hill or elsewhere.</s>COLLINS: Today, Senator Mitt Romney issued a blistering statement about the state of politics in the U.S., saying, the "World is watching America with abject horror and it's time to lower the heat." Though he singled out Democrats, Romney was especially critical of the President and said "Many Americans are frightened for our country. So divided, so angry, so mean, so violent."</s>COLLINS: Now Wolf, we haven't actually seen the President today. We've only heard from him on Twitter, but he is leaving the White House here in the next few moments to go to that rally in Pennsylvania. And if he takes questions from reporters, Wolf, it'll be the first time he's done so since he got back from the hospital over -- a little over a week ago.</s>BLITZER: We'll see if he does once he walks out that door heads towards Marine One. Thanks very much, Kaitlan, for that report. Let's get some more of the breaking pandemic news that's unfolding right now. CNN's Brian Todd is working in this part of the story for us. Very troubling numbers as the United States, Brian, moves into the fall and winter.</s>BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right, Wolf. Tonight, more states are moving in the wrong direction regarding new coronavirus cases. Experts are worried about at least two potential super spreader events. And some medical advances that Americans have been counting on have stumbled a bit.</s>TODD (voice-over): Another medical research setback today, a therapy to help people with coronavirus put on hold a trial for an antibody treatment that Eli Lilly is developing similar to what Donald Trump took when he had coronavirus is paused due to a potential safety concern. It comes a day after Johnson and Johnson said it paused the advanced clinical trial of its experimental vaccine because one of its volunteers suffered an illness. The company didn't say what the illness was. This is the second phase three vaccine trial to be paused in the U.S. following AstraZeneca is paused last month. Is the vaccine timetable in jeopardy?</s>DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR, VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: I think it is likely that we will have a vaccine or vaccines by early next year. I think that these clinical pauses do slow things down somewhat, but I think in the long run we will see these as a bump in the road.</s>TODD: But the number of states with increases in new cases keeps going up. Thirty-three states as of tonight trending upward with the country averaging nearly 50,000 new cases a day. Today Dr. Anthony Fauci said he's particularly worried about the central U.S. as uptick in positivity rates.</s>FAUCI: Which is often and in fact, invariably highly predictive of a resurgence of cases, which historically we know leads to an increase in hospitalizations, and then ultimately, an increase in deaths.</s>TODD: In Nashville, Tennessee officials are investigating this religious concert on Sunday, hundreds of people crowding together, many not wearing masks. Another potential super spreader that experts are now worried about, President Trump's crowded rally in Florida on Monday.</s>DR. SEEMA YASMIN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: The problem is that while there are people who have been really responsible and careful when it comes to COVID-19, there were other people who were very cavalier, who were letting their guard down. And that put everybody at risk.</s>TODD: Walmart isn't taking that chance, temporarily closing one of its stores in El Paso County, Colorado, where there's been a new spike in cases. Meantime, the news on young people and school reopenings is mixed tonight. A new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association reports a 13 percent increase in child cases of coronavirus between September 24 and October 8. But in New York City, where all eyes are on the nation's largest school district reopening for in person learning, the mayor says only one person tested positive out of more than 1,700 who went through a recent round of testing. MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO (D), NEW YORK CITy: We've started our monthly sampling in every one of our schools. And this has just begun. It's going to grow, but we're seeing a very encouraging results. And the results that are consistent with what we've seen with the detailed testing efforts outside of schools.</s>TODD: And the mayor does report some other positive news outside of New York City Schools. He said today that in those neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens where they saw those very worrisome clusters of coronavirus spikes recently, they're starting to see those areas level off in new cases. The mayor saying the restrictions they put in place hopefully turning the tide in those neighborhoods. Wolf.</s>BLITZER: We're going to speak to the Mayor de Blasio later in THE SITUATION ROOM. Brian Todd, thank you very much. Let's get some more on all of this. Our Medical analyst, Dr. Leana Wen is joining us. Dr. Wen, thank you so much. I want to begin with your thoughts on this drug maker Eli Lilly pausing its experimental antibody treatment trial after an illness apparently in a volunteer. This the same type of drug are very similar to the type of drug that the President actually credits for his coronavirus recovery. Different in some respects from the Regeneron drug. But he says he's pushing hard, the President says he's pushing hard to get both of them authorized as quickly as possible for emergency use. Is this a big setback for a really promising class of treatments?</s>DR. LEANA WEN, FORMER BALTIMORE HEALTH COMMISSIONER: I don't know that we can say, Wolf, yet that it's a big setback. It is a pause. It's a voluntary pause. And I think it's a reminder to us that we should be following the scientific process that there are safeguards that are put into place exactly for this reason. All we know is that there was some kind of serious adverse outcome, but we don't yet know whether that serious outcome is because of the study drug or something else. I mean, sometimes when you have clinical trials that involve a lot of people, someone could have, let's say a heart attack or it could be diagnosed with a cancer. We don't know that this is what happened here. But serious outcomes do occur. And you have to then figure out using this independent committee to see what that's due to, is this related to the study trial or drug at all. And I think this is just a humbling reminder to all of us, though, that we should let science drive the process and not try to predict timelines and certainly not inject politics into the approval process.</s>BLITZER: The pause in this Eli Lilly, a treatment, it's not a vaccine, it's a treatment follows what happened yesterday, Johnson and Johnson pause. It's a vaccine trial after an unexplained illness in a volunteer, do you see that as a potential setback or an indication? This is the way it's supposed to work, they're taking safety very seriously.</s>WEN: I see it as the ladder. I see this as -- this is -- these are the safeguards that the scientific community has put into place. And again, right now, we don't know what this serious outcome was, if this is related to the vaccine or not. And again, should be a reminder to all of us that we cannot predict the timeline, that we need to let science do its work, that already operation work speed with the vaccine. We're expecting things as much as we can. But we cannot skip steps when it comes to ensuring safety and efficacy.</s>BLITZER: So let's take a look at the big picture, Dr. Wen, the U.S. is clearly heading right now in the wrong direction according to almost every indicator. And we haven't even seen the beginning of the flu season here in North America. How bad could things get over the next few months?</s>WEN: Well, for sure, this is not where we want it to be heading into the colder months. And we always knew that this second surge was going to happen as we had more things that were reopens while there was quarantine fatigue occurring at the same time. And I think we need to be attentive to a new trend that we're seeing, which is it's not so much in formal settings. It's not even so much businesses and schools where these new infections are occurring, it's informal settings. It's gatherings of extended family and friends that's really driving the surge. And so I hope that everyone will remember that there's no face of someone who has COVID-19. Fifty percent of the spread is by people who are asymptomatic. If we're not going to be getting together with random people that we met at the grocery store, we also should be really careful when gathering together with loved ones. See, people outdoors as much as possible wear masks if you're going to be indoors and just use an abundance of caution because otherwise we could see the convergence of COVID together with a flu and other respiratory pathogens. And we could be headed into a very serious winter where we could have hospitals becoming overwhelmed affecting not only patients with COVID-19 but also patients coming in for treatment for other illnesses too.</s>BLITZER: Good advice from Dr. Lean Wen, very important advice could save a lot of lives. Thank you very much for that Dr. Leana Wen, helping us as usual. Appreciate it very much. Up next my one on one interview with the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. There you see here. What's her message to millions of Americans now facing some growing financial hardship because of the pandemic? My interview coming up with her after this. Plus, Senate Democrats drilling down on healthcare as President Trump's Supreme Court nominee faces day long questioning. We'll be right back.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Is Interviewed About Stimulus Bill

BLITZER: Welcome back. Hope have a new economic stimulus bill before Election Day three weeks from today is quickly fading as the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rejected the White House offer of a $1.8 trillion economic package. The Speaker is joining us right now. Madam Speaker, thank you so much for joining us. And as you know there are Americans who are being evicted from their homes, they can't pay the rent, many Americans are waiting in food lines for the first time in their lives. Can you look them in the eye, Madam Speaker and explain why you don't want to accept the President's latest stimulus offer?</s>REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, because -- Thank you very much, Wolf, and I hope you'll ask the same question of the Republicans about why they don't really want to meet the needs of the American people. But let me say to those people, because all of my colleagues, we represent these people. I have for over 30 years represented my constituents. I know what their needs are, I listen to them. And their needs are not addressed in the President's proposal. So when you say to me, why don't you accept theirs? Why don't they accept ours? Our legislation is there to do three things primarily to honor our workers, honor our heroes, our health care workers, our police and fire first responders, our teachers, our transportation, sanitation, food workers, the people who make our lives work, we couldn't be doing what we're doing without them. Many of them have risked their lives so that they -- and to save lives and now they will lose their jobs because --</s>BLITZER: But they really --</s>PELOSI: -- Mitch McConnell says that the states go bankrupt.</s>BLITZER: Excuse me for interrupting --</s>PELOSI: That the states go bankrupt.</s>BLITZER: Madam Speaker, they really need the money right now. And even members of your own --</s>PELOSI: I understand that. But if --</s>BLITZER: But even members of your own caucus --</s>PELOSI: -- you ask me a question --</s>BLITZER: Even members of your own caucus, Madam Speaker, want to accept this deal, $1.8 trillion, Congressman Ro Khanna for example. But let met just quote Ro Khanna, a man you know well. I assume you admire him. He's a Democrat. And he just said this. He said "People in need can't wait until February, $1.8 trillion is significant and more than twice the Obama stimulus. Make a deal, put the ball in McConnell court." So what do you say to Ro Khanna?</s>PELOSI: What I say to you is, I don't know why you're always an apologist. And many of your colleagues, apologist for the Republican position. Ro Khanna, that's nice. That isn't what we're going to do and nobody's waiting till February. I want this very much now because people need help now. But it's no use giving them a false thing just because the President wants to put a check with his name on it in the mail, that we should not be doing all we can. Tell people pay the rent, put food on the table, then enhanced benefits that they don't lose their jobs if they're state and local. That they -- that this -- we're talking about the consequences of a pandemic, that the symptoms of a problem that the President refuses to address. And that is --</s>BLITZER: But you know, Madam Speaker --</s>PELOSI: And that is the coronavirus.</s>BLITZER: We know --</s>PELOSI: That is the coronavirus.</s>BLITZER: We know the problem out there, but there are millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, they can't pay the rent, their kids need the food --</s>PELOSI: That's right. And that's what we're trying to get done.</s>BLITZER: One point eight trillion dollars and the President just tweeted "Stimulus go big or go home." He wants even more --</s>PELOSI: That's right.</s>BLITZER: -- right now. So why not --</s>PELOSI: That's right.</s>BLITZER: -- why not work out a deal with him?</s>PELOSI: That's right.</s>BLITZER: And don't let the perfect, as they say, here in Washington be the enemy of the good?</s>PELOSI: Well not let the wrong be the enemy of the right.</s>BLITZER: What's wrong with a $1.8 trillion?</s>PELOSI: You know what, do you have any idea what the difference is between the spending that they have in their bill and that we have in our bill? Do you realize that they have come back and said all these things for child tax credits and earned income tax credits are helping people who have lost their jobs are eliminated in their bill? Do you realize they pay no respect to the fact that childcare is very important for people whose children cannot go to school, because they're doing remote learning, and yet they minimize the need for childcare, which is the threshold with which people, mothers and fathers can go to work if they have that? Do you have any idea of how --</s>BLITZER: That's precisely why, Madam Speaker --</s>PELOSI: -- they're concerned?</s>BLITZER: That's why it's so important right now. Yesterday, I spoke to Andrew Yang who says the same thing, it's not everything you want --</s>PELOSI: Yes. But you know what --</s>BLITZER: -- but there's a lot there. Participant: OK. Honest to God, you really -- I can't get over it. Because Andrew Yang, he's lovely. Ro Khanna, he's lovely. They are not negotiating this situation. They have no idea of the particulars. They have no idea of what the language is here. I didn't come over here to have -- so you're the apologist for the Obama, excuse me, God forbid.</s>BLITZER: Madam Speaker --</s>PELOSI: Thank God for Barack Obama.</s>BLITZER: -- I'm not an apologist, I'm asking you serious questions, because so many people are in desperate need right now.</s>PELOSI: I'm saying to you --</s>BLITZER: Let me ask you this.</s>PELOSI: OK.</s>BLITZER: When was the last time --</s>PELOSI: Let me respond to you --</s>BLITZER: Well, let me ask you --</s>PELOSI: If you're going to answer your own question --</s>BLITZER: -- when was the last time you spoke with the President about this?</s>PELOSI: I don't speak to the President. Speak to his representative.</s>BLITZER: Why not call him and say, Mr. President, let's work out a deal. It's not going to be everything you want. Not going to be everything I want. But there are so many Americans right now who are in desperate need. Let's make a deal.</s>PELOSI: What makes me amused if it weren't so sad, is how you all think that you know more about the suffering of the American people than those of us who are elected by them to represent them at that table. It is unfortunate that we do not have shared values with this White House, and that they have in their bill, why don't you talk about their bill, a tax break for the wealthiest families in the country while they cut out the earned income tax credit for the poorest families in our country and the poorest children in our country. That we have to fight with them to get them to address the coronavirus crisis, because they have said it was a hoax, it was magical, its miracle was going to cure it, it hasn't. And that's why we find ourselves in this situation. I feel very confident about the knowledge that I bring to this. But more importantly, the knowledge that my chairs, our chairs of jurisdiction, science based, academically documented, institutionally suggested in terms of what the cost would be to do it, and to do it that way. And about say, we talk about childcare, yes. We talk about safety in the workplace, safety in the workplace, that's a very important issue especially in the time of pandemic. So what I say to those people is, we're going to get a deal, and when we do, it will be retroactive. It will be retroactive.</s>BLITZER: Here's what you wrote in a letter to House Democrats, Madam Speaker, and I asked these questions only, as you know, so many millions of Americans are suffering.</s>PELOSI: But you quote two people who know nothing about the agreement.</s>BLITZER: Well --</s>PELOSI: There is no agreement. But what the suggestions are as if there's some authority on the subject. Please, give equal way to 12 to all of the chairman on the committee who have written this bill.</s>BLITZER: But so many of your fellow Democrats in the House, they want a deal right now.</s>PELOSI: No, there isn't --</s>BLITZER: The problem solvers, they all want to deal right now. And here's what they're complaining about because you wrote a letter to House Democrats and you said this.</s>PELOSI: Yes.</s>BLITZER: Let me read a line from the letter you wrote. "The President only wants his name on the check to go out before Election Day and for the market to go up." Is that what this is all about, not allow the President to take credit if there's a deal that will help millions of Americans right now?</s>PELOSI: No, I don't care about that. He's not that important. But let me say this with all due respect, with all due respect, and you know we've known each other a long time, you really don't know what you're talking about. If the plural of anecdote is not data, yes, there's some people who said this or that, overwhelmingly, my caucus wants, what is right for the American people. Overwhelmingly, our chairman who wrote the bill, read their statements, they'll put out their own statements, when they saw what the White House was proposing. So do a service to the issue, and have some level of respect for the people who have worked on these issues, written the bill to begin with. Now, let me just say this in terms of the numbers, I want people to do the math, we had 3.4, which would meet the needs of the American people for a sustained period of time, so that there was some certainty and what would happen. The Republican said, no. And so we took it down a trillion dollars, by cutting the time. We took it down another $2 trillion 200, excuse me, $200 billion, so we're now 1.2 hundred billion dollars down. We came down to 2.2. At the same time, since tomorrow will be five months since we passed the bill, at the same time, the small -- because there was no resolution, Mitch McConnell said, let's pause, the virus didn't pause. And now we're at a place where we need more money. We need more money for PPP for our small businesses. We need more money for our airlines. We need more money for our schools. So we have absorbed nearly a half a trillion dollars more of expenses still within the 2.2 --</s>BLITZER: I understand all of that. And I have only the greatest respect to you.</s>PELOSI: -- by cutting that. So do the math. We have come down --</s>BLITZER: Madam Speaker, I have only the greatest respect for you.</s>PELOSI: -- we have come down 1.6 or seven trillion dollars.</s>BLITZER: I just want to point out $1.8 trillion, $1.8 trillion is a lot of money. The American people need that money ASAP, because they're suffering right now. And I'm not saying it's perfect, but I'm saying --</s>PELOSI: And you don't care how it's spent? And you don't care how it's spent.</s>BLITZER: I care of course how it's spent. But why don't understand is why not --</s>PELOSI: Well, you don't even know how it's spent.</s>BLITZER: Why not --</s>PELOSI: You don't even know how it's spent.</s>BLITZER: -- talk to the President, personally call him up and say, Mr. President, let's get a deal tomorrow.</s>PELOSI: Look, let me say this, the President has sent Mr. Mnuchin to negotiate. That's what we've done with the other presidents. This isn't unusual. With President Bush, we had -- we did this quite a bit, because that's how you negotiate. And then you take it to the President. This, Mr. Mnuchin, I think he has integrity representing his position.</s>BLITZER: Who wants a deal.</s>PELOSI: May I finish, please? But he has integrity representing his position. But his position has no integrity. They do not share our values. Have a little respect for the fact that we know something about the subjects. And there's a big difference between Democrats and Republicans and whether they want to give a big tax cut to the wealthiest people in the country in their bill. In the CARES Act, we tried to take it out in this bill. Instead they took out earned income tax credit, child tax credit, expanded health benefits to UI benefits to the extent that it was agreed to before.</s>BLITZER: All right.</s>PELOSI: So this is -- I have every confidence in what -- in the arguments that we make, because it's based on science and documentation. Our chairs know their stuff. They know what they're doing, with all due respect to the kind of people you were referencing. And I welcome their enthusiasm. I welcome their interest. I welcome their originality of their thinking. But the fact is, we have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people in a retroactive way so they're not at a total loss, they are at a loss because the President has ignored the virus. I wish he would spend time on the fact that if he had not ignore the virus, we wouldn't be in the position we're in. But we are at what we are. And let me say about that also, I hope that -- I'm pleased that these pharmaceutical companies are taking the responsible position to halt and hopefully then resume because we want the public to have confidence in whatever therapies or whatever vaccines come along that they will take that.</s>BLITZER: All right.</s>PELOSI: And do people say well, I don't trust Trump on that. If we trust the Food and Drug Administration for what they are doing, the scientists, they've been working 24-7 for months and months and months. Excellent science, the science would call the shot. And when they do, we should all trust it.</s>BLITZER: And let's hope they get more treatments. Let's hope they get a vaccine. And Madam Speaker --</s>PELOSI: Yes.</s>BLITZER: -- I certainly respect you, but I also respect Ro Khanna, I respect Andrew Yang, I respect members of the Democrats, who are members of the problem solvers. They want a deal because so many people right now are suffering.</s>PELOSI: Well, the problem solvers, by the way, don't have any earned income tax credit or child tax credit in their proposal either. But let's not go into that.</s>BLITZER: But it doesn't -- yes, we've gone through that.</s>PELOSI: You evidently do not respect the chairman of the committees who wrote this bill.</s>BLITZER: I respect all of you.</s>PELOSI: And I wish you would respect the knowledge that goes into getting the -- meeting the needs of the American people. But, again, you've been on a jag (ph) defending the administration all this time with no knowledge of the difference between our two bills. And I thank you for giving me the opportunity to say that to you in person, --</s>BLITZER: All right. Madam Speaker --</s>PELOSI: -- virtually.</s>BLITZER: -- these are incredibly difficult times right now and we'll leave it on that note. Thank you so much for joining us.</s>PELOSI: Yes. No, we'll leave it on the vote that you are not right on this, Wolf, and I hate to say that to you.</s>BLITZER: All right.</s>PELOSI: But I feel confident about it and I feel confident about my colleagues and I feel confident in my chairs.</s>BLITZER: It's not about me, it's about millions of Americans who can't put food on the table, who can't pay their rent, who were having trouble --</s>PELOSI: And represent them, and we represent them.</s>BLITZER: -- who are trouble getting by --</s>PELOSI: And we represent them.</s>BLITZER: -- these long food lines that we're --</s>PELOSI: And we represent them.</s>BLITZER: I know you were --</s>PELOSI: We know them.</s>BLITZER: I'm just saying --</s>PELOSI: We represent them and we know them.</s>BLITZER: As we say --</s>PELOSI: We know them. We represent them. Yes.</s>BLITZER: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as they say --</s>PELOSI: It is nowhere near perfect.</s>BLITZER: Madam Speaker --</s>PELOSI: Always the case, but we're not even close to the good.</s>BLITZER: All right, let's see what happens because every day is critically, critically important. Thanks so much for joining us.</s>PELOSI: Thank you for sensitivity to our constituents needs.</s>BLITZER: I am sensitive to them because I see them on the street begging for food, begging for money, Madam Speaker, thank you so much.</s>PELOSI: Have you fed them? We feed them, we feed them.</s>BLITZER: We'll continue this conversation down the road for sure. We'll take a quick break, we'll be right back.

Dems Drill Down On Health Care As Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Faces Day-Long Questioning By Senators

BLITZER: We're keeping a very close watch on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's marathon question and answer session today which is part of the Republicans efforts to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible. Let's go to our Senior Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju up on Capitol Hill. So, Manu, have there been any surprises?</s>MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not quite. In fact, just moments ago, Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham told me that he believes that she is on track to get confirmed by the end of the month and that will be one of the quickest confirmation proceedings in American history, certainly in modern times. And one reason why is that she has avoided getting pinned down on so many hot button issues, whether it's the Affordable Care Act case that could come before the court soon after the elections are not saying whether or not she would recuse herself from any case involving an election dispute. If one were to arise, and she's the justice, she said that you she could not say that at this moment. And also not going as far as she has gone as a private citizen when she raised concerns about the Roe versus Wade case that legalized abortion rights. In fact, when she was asked about that, she said that she couldn't weigh in on this because it's a matter that could come before the court, although she said that it was not a, quote, super precedent, which means that it's something that potentially could be touched by the Supreme Court.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn't fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury versus Madison and Brown versus the board that no one questions anymore. I haven't even written anything that I would think anybody could reasonably say, oh, this is how she might resolve an election dispute. And I would consider it -- let's see, I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people. I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that. I'm not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.</s>RAJU: And that last part came out in regards to a article that she wrote before she became a federal judge raising concerns about John Roberts, the Chief Justice, his decision upholding the Affordable Care Act. She said that that does not apply to the -- this next case that's coming up before the Supreme Court because as she said, it turns on this completely different issue. And she did not want to weigh in on that issue. And that left Democrats, in particular, very frustrated and Republican still confident that she'll get the seat on the court. Wolf.</s>BLITZER: All right, Manu, thanks very much. Manu Raju up on Capitol Hill. Let's bring in our Chief Legal Analyst, the former Federal Prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin. He's the author, by the way, of the new book entitled, "True Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Investigation of Donald Trump". So, Jeffrey, you've been watching closely, as Judge Barrett takes questions from senators today. Have you learned anything about what type of justice she would be assuming she's confirmed that all indications are that she will be confirmed? Or has she adeptly avoided tipping her hand?</s>JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: No, I think she's reinforced the record that we knew she had. Look, she's extremely thoughtful, intelligent and presents herself very well. She explains legal concepts in plain English. And I thought one of the most revealing moments was when she was asked to explain what is originalism mean. And she said, look, what -- the Constitution, the words of the Constitution should be understood, as the people of the 18th century understood them. When they used words like due process, when they use words like freedom of speech. That's what the -- that's what we should -- that's what we should follow. But it's important to remember what the implications of that are. Because it is true that in the 18th century, they were not thinking of the rights of women, they were not thinking about abortion, they were not thinking about the rights of LGBT people, they -- and so, if you are an originalist, you do not believe that the Constitution protects those groups. And that's the kind of justice she appears that she's going to be.</s>BLITZER: You say, Jeffrey, that Judge Barrett is minimizing the significance of the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, as it's called. That case, will come before the U.S. Supreme Court a week after the election. Explain what's at stake here. And why you say she is downplaying?</s>TOOBIN: Well, the point she made in answering the question is, she said, the challenge that's going to be argued on November 10th, is only about the issue of severability. And what that means is there's a part of the Act that the plaintiffs claim is unconstitutional. And the issue she says in the case is it, does that mean, just that part is unconstitutional, or the whole statute is unconstitutional. And she said, well, this is just a case about severability. It's not about pre-existing conditions, it's not about, you know, lifetime limits on benefits. But it is about that, because if the court decides as the Trump administration is urging them to decide, that you have to get rid of the whole statute that the -- that provision is not severable, it all goes. The whole statute gets struck down. So, that's what's at stake in this case. It's not just an arcane dispute about severability.</s>BLITZER: Jeffrey Toobin, as usual, thank you very much. We're also following breaking news on the coronavirus pandemic. New Jersey is now reporting almost 1,000 new cases and seven additional deaths as coronavirus cases are surging across the United States right now. Joining us now to discuss, the Governor of New Jersey, Phil Murphy. Governor Murphy, thank you so much for joining us. And as you know well, new cases arising all across the Northeastern United States, including your state of New Jersey, what are you doing to try to tamp down these outbreaks in your state before, God forbid, they grow out of control?</s>GOV. PHIL MURPHY (D-NJ): Amen. Good to be with you, Wolf. There's no question, we're seeing a rise in cases. It's a combination of a number of factors. We've had some hotspot communities, we've had some hotspots in our higher education community. There's no doubt those broad -- some increased in increasing community spread. We are surging principally testing and tracing assets to those hotspots. We're monitoring it, as you can imagine, minute to minute. My guess is that we're going to be -- if we take further actions, it'll be a scalpel as opposed to a blunt instrument. But colder weather is not our friend here. It's clearly impacting younger people than it was in the spring. So, we're monitoring all of this, and we're doing everything we can to keep a lid on it. The one silver lining is we probably have the highest per capita testing capacity in the country. So the number of tests are up significantly, but as is our testing capacity, so our positivity rates are still relatively low, but they're still higher than we'd like.</s>BLITZER: Could you see a return, Governor, to the heavy restrictions, like the measures you imposed in New Jersey back in March and April? Could you see a return anytime soon?</s>MURPHY: I hope not, Wolf. I hope not. As I said, I think it's more likely. I mean, everything has to be on the table clearly. But I think it's more likely a scalpel, whether it's a particular community or a particular step. We've opened up the states slowly but surely, beginning first way back when with outside activity. We've now gone to more indoor activity. Could we reassess our capacity limits perhaps? But, again, I think we're trying to get in with precision tools here with testing, tracing, and perhaps specific community steps.</s>BLITZER: I want to get your thoughts, Governor, President Trump's decision to continue holding these political campaign rallies, even as he himself is recovering from his own coronavirus infection. Take a look at these pictures. These are live pictures coming in from his rally in Pennsylvania later tonight. Very few mask, no real social distancing. What's your reaction to what we're seeing unfold in Johnstown, Pennsylvania right now?</s>MURPHY: Listen, first and foremost, I wish the President, the First Lady, everybody else who's been impacted by this virus, nothing but the best of health. I think you got to do this stuff responsibly, Wolf. I mean, the data is overwhelmingly clear on this. Social distancing, face coverings, washing your hands with soap and water, take yourself off the field for 14 days if, in a minimum, if you're positive or you're been around somebody who's positive, get tested after a number of days, when you know the virus has had a chance to incubate. I think it's clear -- crystal clear what should be done. So, I'm not I'm not hell no against rallies, but you got to do it the right way. You got to have everybody masked up, away from each other. And again, I hope the President -- I wish him nothing but the best in terms of his own health. But the rules of the road here could not be clearer.</s>BLITZER: You know, the President did that event in Bedminster, New Jersey not that long ago. Did you see an uptick in cases as a result of that?</s>MURPHY: I can't say that we have seen any evidence of that. But we were quite concerned when the facts unfolded. You know, knowingly traveling to New Jersey, when there was known exposure to folks who were COVID positive is not part of that rulebook that I just went through a minute ago. You got to take yourself off the field. And that was extremely disappointing.</s>BLITZER: The Governor of New Jersey, good luck over there. Governor Murphy, we really appreciate you joining us.</s>MURPHY: Thanks for having me, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: These are difficult times indeed. There's more breaking news we're following. More than 10.5 million early votes have now been cast for the general election. But some voters are facing lines, get this, that are hours long. We'll update you on that when we come back.

More Than 10.5 Million General Election Ballots Cast So Far.

BLITZER: We have three weeks ago until the election. We have breaking news about how many Americans already have voted early. Let's get the latest from CNN's Pamela Brown. So Pamela, what are you seeing?</s>PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're seeing records broken here, Wolf. We have learned in more than 10.5 million Americans have already voted in the general election according to analysis from CNN, Catalist and Edison Research. But with the surge in early voting comes with it long lines, long wait lines in some parts of the country.</s>BROWN (voice-over): Another state, another day of hours in long lines and some mishaps as voters go to the polls. This time, Texas.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody's come out to vote here. Lines around the corner.</s>BROWN (voice-over): Across the Lone Star State, Houston, Fort Hood, South Austin, all with long lines as voters take advantage of the start of early voting.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just came out, so I would say about 2.5 hours.</s>BROWN (voice-over): In Harris County, early voters hoping to use drive-thru voting are facing similar delays. In Travis County where a whopping 97 percent of the county's 850,000 eligible voters are registered to vote. Some voting machines weren't working after waking up to news of a late night ruling upholding Republican Governor Greg Abbott's directive for one ballot drop box per county in the state. A major issue for densely populated counties where voters could spend more than an hour driving just to cast their vote.</s>CHRIS HOLLINS, HARRIS COUNTY CLERK: More than 50 miles, in some cases, to drop off their mail ballot. It's unfair, it's prejudicial, and it's dangerous.</s>BROWN (voice-over): It comes a day after a similar start in Georgia where voters waited for hours to vote. In Gwinnett County, some voters waiting in line for up to eight hours.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to be out here and be able to share my voice.</s>BROWN (voice-over): Georgia setting an early voting record with nearly 127,000 ballots cast. Today, no different, more voters, more long lines.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But many people have sacrificed before us, so it's almost a spin they face if we don't take the time to throw our kids that they have this right and is best used as early as possible.</s>BROWN (voice-over): But voting rights advocates say it's not OK to make people wait like this.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There have been problems with pole pads, with ballot access cards, with obviously social distancing, and just taking a lot longer to process through lines.</s>BROWN (voice-over): In Virginia, the last day of voter registration saw the state's online registration system was down for several hours due to an I.T. cable that was accidentally severed, prompting calls from some state leaders to extend the registration deadline. Meanwhile, in California, unofficial ballot drop box is potentially illegal in the state, as the state's Democratic Secretary of State and the Department of Justice are sending a cease and desist order to the California Republican Party to remove unofficial ballot boxes in at least three counties.</s>ALEX PADILLA, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE: This is wrong no matters who is doing it. And it's not just the security of the ballot that's in question here. It is, you know, the transparency voter confidence.</s>BROWN (voice-over): The state Republican Party spokesman telling CNN he believes the boxes are similar to giving the ballot to a family member to drop off which is legal in California.</s>BROWN: And we should note, giving a ballot to a family member is different from dropping it off in an unofficial drop box like the ones Republicans put in California. First of all, you don't know how it will be collected or counted. Also, some people may be deceived, Wolf, into thinking these unofficial drop boxes are official and run by election authorities when, in fact, they are not.</s>BLITZER: Yes, very important point indeed. Pamela Brown, good report. Thank you very much. There's more breaking news we're following, President Trump back out there on the campaign trail once again tonight despite serious concerns his rallies could fuel the current surge in coronavirus cases.

Trump Holds Rally in Iowa with No Social Distancing; NY Times: As Virus Spread Early On, Reports Of Trump Administration Briefings Fueled Sell-Off

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: AC360 begins now.</s>ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Good evening. Thanks for joining us. As you look at the President's third straight night on his potential super spreader tour, think about this. Minnesota's Department of Health reports it now has traced 16 cases of COVID to one of the President's trips there last month. It is clear that the President does not care about the virus spreading at his rallies just as he seems unconcerned about it spreading at numerous indoor and outdoor White House events over the last several weeks and months. The question tonight: has the President decided to go for so-called herd immunity? Is that in fact already the unstated policy of this White House? Now, the idea as you probably know, simply put is let as many healthy people as possible catch the virus. It is not as new idea. And it is one the President once said he rejected, but now, he certainly seems to be willing to let as many of his own followers risk infection as possible at his own rallies. The idea of herd immunity made headlines again recently with three scientists put out what they called The Great Barrington Declaration, quoting from it now, they wrote, the most compassionate approach that balances the risk and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection while better protecting those who are at highest risk, we call this focused protection." Now, The Declaration presents no data. It was not published in a peer reviewed publication, but it does sound familiar. Here is what radiologist and the doctor who now has the President's ear, Scott Atlas was saying on the subject in April.</s>DR. SCOTT ATLAS, MEMBER OF WHITE HOUSE CORONAVIRUS TASKFORCE: We can allow a lot of people to get infected, those who are not at risk to be -- to die or have a serious hospital requiring illness, we should be fine with letting them get infected, generating immunity on their own and the more immunity in the community, the better we can eradicate the threat of the virus including the threat to people who are vulnerable. That's what herd immunity is.</s>COOPER: Dr. Atlas now seems to be the President's closest adviser on the pandemic, now that Doctors Fauci, Birx and Redfield have pretty much been shoved aside. With the President looking for any way to declare victory over the virus, it looks more and more as if herd immunity or its euphemism, focused protection is now something he may be okay with without actually saying so. Early last week though, scientists behind this Great Barrington Declaration met with Dr. Atlas and H.H.S. Secretary Alex Azar who tweeted quote, "We heard strong reinforcement of the Trump administration's strategy of aggressively protecting the vulnerable while opening schools and the workplace." In a separate tweet, he characterized the meetings as quote, " ... part of our commitment to ensure we hear broad and diverse scientific perspectives. What he did not do and what Dr. Atlas has not done is say that reaching herd immunity, if that's even possible could put thousands or even millions of lives at risk. Again, take a look at tonight's crowd. How many of the young people you see there live with or come in contact with older people? How many health looking people are on chemotherapy or have diabetes or overweight or have other risk factors for dying of COVID that some might not even know of? Who amongst these people might get the disease and recover, but suffer painful long term complications as a lot of once healthy people who had mild COVID infections were never even hospitalized are now experiencing?</s>DR. WILLIAM HASELTINE, CHAIR AND PRESIDENT, ACCESS HEALTH INTERNATIONAL: Herd immunity is another word for mass murder. That is exactly what it is. If you allow this virus to spread as they are advocating, we are looking at two to six million Americans dead, not just this year, but every year. The reason for that is that there is no such thing as herd immunity. These viruses -- coronaviruses -- come back year after year and infect the very same people.</s>COOPER: That's Professor William Haseltine who unlike Dr. Atlas does specialize in infectious diseases. He is not alone in his view of herd immunity. Just over an hour ago, 80 scientists pushed back on The Great Barrington Declaration in a letter to "The Lancet" which is perhaps the world's most foremost medical journal. Quoting now, "This [meaning herd immunity] is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence." The authors point out that in some regions, 30 percent of the population is at high risk for severe forms of COVID and that isolating that many people is, as they say, scientifically and ethically problematic. They go on to say, quote, "We cannot afford distractions that undermine an effective response." That appears to be precisely what the White House is entertaining, without coming clean about the downside of it, without saying the whole letting lots of people get infected part out loud, only by implication. Recall, Secretary Azar's tweet. He said, quote, "Aggressively protecting the vulnerable." Not everyone, the vulnerable. So does that mean, not aggressively protecting everyone? Does it mean letting some people or even many people get sick? We don't know and neither does the public. Here is the President late last month.</s>DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are relentlessly focused on protecting the vulnerable while enabling healthy Americans to go back to work. We can do both as Florida and Arizona and other states have recently shown.</s>COOPER: Relentlessly focused, he says, not on keeping us all safe, not in all of us wearing masks to protect ourselves and to protect others, just some. No mention of herd immunity. In a background briefing yesterday, a senior official told reporters that the administration does not endorse a herd immunity plan and that the President's policy hasn't changed. The official again, using the magic word protecting the vulnerable while reopening schools and businesses. But if that's all there is to it, there have been moments when the President himself has suggested otherwise, although it didn't quite get the words right.</s>TRUMP: You'll develop -- you'll develop like a herd mentality, it's going to be it's going to be herd developed, and that's going to happen, that will all happen.</s>COOPER: That will all happen. The question tonight is trying to make it happen. Is he trying to make it happen or let it happen? Is that also his policy? And if so, why isn't the public being given a say in this? One other quick note, late today, the First Lady revealed that her son, Barron, contracted COVID, suffered no symptoms and has since tested negative. Jim Acosta joins us now from the rally in Des Moines. So Jim, what are you hearing from people there?</s>JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, what we're hearing from Trump supporters tonight is that they're placing their trust in the President, as opposed to what top health experts have been saying for months that people should avoid crowds, they should practice social distancing, they should wear masks, hardly any of that is happening here. When you look at the crowd here this evening, you don't see people wearing masks, you don't see people practicing social distancing. And when we talked to Trump supporters coming into this rally earlier tonight, they were all about saying if I get sick, even if I die, so be it. Here's what they had to say.</s>ACOSTA: Again, I just any health concerns about being at the rally.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't have any concerns at all. You can't live your life in fear, and I'm not really scared of this virus. There's all kinds of other viruses out there that could jeopardize your health as well. So I can't stop living?</s>ACOSTA: And ma'am, what do you think? You feel the same way, I guess?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a 99.9 percent survival rate and I am going to continue to live my life. And I hope -- I hope everybody else does, too. I mean, I'm going to -- I'm going to continue to -- to live and I'm not going to be in fear of it.</s>ACOSTA: And what do you think about Trump getting the virus? What did you make of that?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think anybody can get the virus. And Trump getting the virus shows that we are all human, and anyone can get the virus. And you can be cautious and you can get the virus.</s>ACOSTA: What about getting all of these people together in one space, they call that a super spreader.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You could have two people in one space, and you could get the virus.</s>ACOSTA: We're just asking folks -- we're just -- we're just wondering how people feel about the safety of going to the rally with all those people there. Do you think it's a health risk?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't. I don't because I feel like yes, the COVID it's kind of dangerous, and it can be for some people, but for the most of us, and we're going to go on with life. You know, if I'm going to get sick and die, I guess it's my turn. But I trust God and I am not scared.</s>ACOSTA: But if you don't put yourself at risk, you might not die.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I put myself at risk, every time I go to the grocery store, I go to McDonald's, I go to work. I do anything. I'm not going to stop living.</s>ACOSTA: And Anderson, after speaking with some of those Trump supporters, we could see them filing into this event. They were still not wearing their masks. And one thing we should point out to our viewers Anderson, the campaign is trying to pull a fast one with the audience tuning in at home. They have placed Trump supporters behind the President wearing MAGA masks to give the false impression that most of the people here are wearing those masks. That is not the case. The people behind the President represent really a minority of the folks who were in this crowd tonight -- Anderson.</s>COOPER: Yes, I just -- I don't understand why they do that. I mean, if they feel so confident in, you know, encouraging people not to wear masks, I mean, the President certainly has downplayed masks from the very get-go Why would they go other than to manipulate people's belief? You know, all of -- everybody who is not there's belief that everyone is wearing a mask. But if they're so proud of people not wearing masks, why are they you know, putting masks that they've clearly given out to those people, all of which have the slogan of the campaign on.</s>ACOSTA: Anderson, I think they understand that there is some serious apprehension out there with a lot of voters, a lot of independent moderate voters who see these events and just think that they're playing crazy to have all of these people packing in here who are not practicing social distancing and not using masks and you know there are people in this community, Anderson, who are sharply critical of what's happening positioned just outside of the Des Moines Airport where we're standing right now.</s>ACOSTA: There is a billboard that says "Trump super spreader event" with an arrow pointing over here to where this rally is taking place tonight. Very big concerns in this community that the President is going to be throwing gasoline on the coronavirus problem in Iowa, which has been getting worse over recent days -- Anderson.</s>COOPER: Jim Acosta. I appreciate it. Thank you. Perspective now from Dr. Richard Besser, former Acting Director of the C.D.C., currently President and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Besser doesn't make any sense to you that I mean, anyone on the White House or connected to the White House would argue for massive widespread infection in the name of herd immunity. If you look at the University of Washington projections, they show that, you know, 1.2 million people in the U.S. alone could die with a herd immunity strategy. And even the President early on used to mock Sweden for the choices they made. It seems like he's not doing that anymore.</s>DR. RICHARD BESSER, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE C.D.C.: Well, you know, if you look at Sweden, they have the highest death rate in Europe, and they have taken an approach of having people go about their business, no masks, none of the precautions that public health is calling on here. This Great Barrington approach that's getting a lot of discussion today, it calls on young people to go out live their lives, not wear masks and get infected. What we've seen where that takes place this summer in Florida, in Texas and Arizona, is that the rising cases in young people doesn't stay with young people. It's followed a week or so later by rising cases in groups that are much greater risk of having severe disease or dying, the elderly, people with underlying medical conditions. And the other aspect of this, Anderson is, you know, as you look at who have been affected to date the most, people of color: black Americans, Latino Americans, and Native Americans dying at rates that far surpass the proportion of the population three to five times that of white Americans. If we go with this strategy, we will see a continuing disparate impact on people of color, on lower income people who have to go to work who don't have the choice of working remotely, and the fairness of that Anderson is just unbelievable.</s>COOPER: The other thing about this herd immunity idea is it is sort of predicated on what seems like a very early in the pandemic notion that, you know, it's only old people who are going to get sick, and are at risk and young people bounce back from it. When we now know, I mean, there are what they call long haulers, people who have long lasting symptoms, six, seven months out who had relatively mild cases weren't even hospitalized, but they are coming down with these -- they have continuing symptoms. And we don't -- and doctors don't really know a whole ton about that.</s>BESSER: I think this kind of approach really underestimates how little we still know about this virus. We don't know what proportion of the population would need to be infected for the virus to not be able to spread easily within communities. And we don't know -- you're right, we don't know the answer the question of what's the long term impact? We don't know for children who tend to have very low rates of hospitalization and death, whether there's any long term consequences anything later in life from having this infection when they're young. So the idea that we would just go forward and say, go ahead and get infected, isn't a strategy that is willing to sacrifice thousands and thousands of lives in America for something that is unproven and untested, when the possibility may be out there that there's a vaccine or other strategies that can get us back to a more working society.</s>COOPER: Obviously, the President is, you know, using the fact that he had COVID. And, you know, as a sign not only of his own strength, but also that he is, you know, able to bounce back and that it's not so bad. He is now saying he is immune. You know, put aside the fact that he got medical care that most people who get COVID will never be able to get, but the very little experts who know about COVID-19 and immunity, it is not clear, and correct me if I'm wrong, how short lived or how long that immunity may last for.</s>BESSER: Right. It is one of those unanswered questions. It does look like if you have this infection, it's likely you know, to date, we've only been able to follow people now for eight to nine months. It's very rare to get a second infection. There have been about five documented cases of this. But we don't know. We don't know how long that protection lasts, and that's a very important question.</s>COOPER: This whole idea of with herd immunity of, you know, focus everything on protecting the vulnerable and let others go to school work and they'll get infected and they'll bounce back because they're young. I mean, first of all, there's a huge pool of those who are particularly vulnerable: elderly, people with preexisting conditions, obesity, the idea that you're somehow going to magically be able to protect them, it is not like they're all in nursing homes. I mean, it's -- I just -- I mean, what are you going to do? Round up all of these people and somehow protect them?</s>BESSER: And that's how the argument is laid out. It is, well, you could protect people in nursing homes, you could test the workers in nursing homes, but people at risk are not limited to nursing homes. There are so many young people who live in multigenerational households, and so they'd be coming home with infection and infecting others. So many people don't have a choice of where they go to work and they're going to work with underlying medical conditions that put them at risk for severe disease. I mean, it's a really bad decision to think about going forward this way, when, you know, one of the false arguments around this is that you hear the description of it, either we're totally shut down as a society, or we're totally open. What public health is allowing us to do if we follow the guidance of public health is that we can gradually open parts of society, get people back to school. We are seeing colleges, where it's going quite well. We are seeing some schools where it's going quite well. If we follow that roadmap, if people were all to wear masks, we would have a lot more economic activity than we currently have. The idea that you have to just allow young people to get this infection from a public health standpoint, from an epidemiologic standpoint, just doesn't make sense.</s>COOPER: Just lastly, we knew the First Lady was infected with COVID- 19, in addition to the President; today, Mrs. Trump announced that their young son, Barron was also infected. She says, thankfully, that he is okay. He has now tested negative. But it does just underscore the risk faced by people within the same household as someone who is infected, I mean, clearly, enough precautions were not taken in the White House, nor are they being taken at the President's rallies.</s>BESSER: You know, when we talk about herd immunity, you know, as a pediatrician, we talk about it as protecting those who are unable to get vaccinated, who really need our protection. So people who have cancer and are getting treatment; people who have immune problems and can't get a vaccine are in a greater risk. We don't talk about it as a way of, well, let's just get everybody infected so the disease stops transmitting. I mean, it's a specific concept that's used, you know, to let you know what percentage of a population has to be vaccinated in order to protect those who are at the greatest risk. You know, I'm very grateful that the President's son had a mild infection, but not all children do and we want to do everything we can to protect all children from this as well.</s>COOPER: Yes. Dr. Richard Besser, appreciate it. Thank you.</s>BESSER: Thank you, Anderson.</s>COOPER: Coming up next. New reporting with more evidence that as the public was being told the pandemic was under control, some big Republican donors were getting a different or troubling message when they reportedly enabled a number of Wall Street investors to potentially cash in. Later, remember the so-called unmasking scandal the President kept talking about on and on, the whole unmasking greatest political scandal in history. The one he said that President Obama and Joe Biden and others should go to jail for. We have reaction from two top Obama Intelligence officials now that the scandal so-called itself has been unmasked as a whole lot of nothing.

WaPo says Unmasking Probe Commissioned by Barr Concludes without Charges or Any Public Report; Wash Post: "Unmasking" Probe Commissioned By Barr Concludes Without Charges Or Any Public Report; Former Pres. Obama Responds To Pres. Trump's Call To Indict Him

COOPER: The President is again acting tonight as though the pandemic is behind us, or at least, it shouldn't be concern for most of us, which in a way has been a constant going back to the very beginning. We already know from the President's conversations with Bob Woodward reporting that he knew as far back as early February how bad this could be, which he didn't share with the public. Tonight, "The New York Times" has new reporting on yet another example, even earlier in which the public was kept in the dark but others weren't. Mark Mazzetti shares the byline. He is a CNN senior national security analyst and "New York Times" Washington investigative correspondent. And well, we just lost him. But we'll try to get back in touch with Mark. It's a fascinating report that is in "The Times." We'll wait until we get back to him to get to it. Tonight, President Trump and his allies are sifting through the wreckage of what they said and what they convinced supporters was a major scandal at the tail-end of the Obama administration, when it spawned a Justice Department probe that they believe would upend everything people thought they knew about the Trump-Russia investigation, and the President had hoped provide a boon for the President just in time for the November election.</s>DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Obama campaign spied on our campaign and they've been caught. All right. And now let's see what happens to them. We caught them spying on my campaign. Who would have believed that one? They have been caught. They've been caught red handed. It's probably treason. It's a horrible thing they did. The unmasking is a massive -- it's a massive thing. It's -- I just got a list. It's -- who can believe a thing like this. It probably never happened before, at least nobody got caught doing it. But they used the Intelligence Agencies of our country to spy on my campaign and they have been caught. There was absolutely spying into my campaign. I'll go a step further, in my opinion, it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying. This was all Obama. This was all Biden. These people were corrupt. The whole thing was corrupt.</s>COOPER: So none of that was true. According to "The Washington Post," the Federal prosecutor appointed to investigate whether Obama officials improperly requested names redacted in U.S. Intelligence documents and thus help prove that, quote, "spying occurred," has completed his report and he reportedly found no substantive wrongdoing. None. More from CNN's Jessica Schneider.</s>JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice over): President Trump reacting to the news of his much hyped conspiracy theory fizzling in an afternoon interview.</s>TRUMP: It's a disgrace. They are guilty as hell.</s>SCHNEIDER (voice over): Mr. Trump also expressing exasperation with the Attorney General refusing to say if he'll keep Barr around</s>QUESTION: Bill Barr? Will he be around in a second term?</s>TRUMP: I have no comment. I can't comment on that. It is too early.</s>QUESTION: Too early.</s>TRUMP: I am not happy with all of the evidence I had, I can tell you that I'm not happy.</s>SCHNEIDER (voice over): It's a sudden end to the unmasking investigations Republicans were relying on to prove wrongdoing by the Obama administration.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That we weren't involved in the COVID-19 crisis. This would be a scandal, the biggest thing since Watergate.</s>SCHNEIDER (voice over): So much for that. The President's self- created conspiracy accusing his predecessor of treason involved the unmasking of Michael Flynn, the President's first National Security adviser. Flynn was swept up in foreign intelligence gathering when he spoke with foreign officials who were being monitored by U.S. Intelligence. Typically, Americans names are kept secret, but several Obama officials unredacted or unmasked Flynn's identity. And in May, the acting Director of National Intelligence released the names of Obama officials who allegedly requested that unmasking and they included former Vice President Joe Biden.</s>TRUMP: This was all Obama. This was all Biden. These people were corrupt. The whole thing was corrupt, and we caught them. We caught them.</s>SCHNEIDER (voice over): But unmasking is not illegal. Senior government officials have the ability to ask for names in certain circumstances. In fact, the Trump administration unmasked nearly 17,000 Americans identities in 2018, compared with about 9,000 under President Obama in 2016.</s>ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: To turn this into some sort of a conspiracy, in an effort to support the President's political narratives and for the Justice Department to pick that up and pursue an investigation on absolutely no grounds. It's disgusting. It's just absolutely horrible.</s>SCHNEIDER (voice over): Just last week, Trump called for charges against Obama and Biden.</s>TRUMP: These people should be indicted. This was the greatest political crime in the history of our country. And that includes Obama and it includes Biden,</s>SCHNEIDER (voice over): With word that the investigation into what Trump falsely labeled as treason is over, top Trump allies say they are going to be asking for more answers.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I saw that I want to follow up and if they've completed their report, I'd like to know what it is.</s>SCHNEIDER (voice over): Jessica Schneider, CNN, Washington.</s>COOPER: Let's get perspective now from two top ranking Intelligence officials in the Obama administration, whom Republicans tried to tie to these unfounded allegations of spying, retired Lieutenant General James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence and a CNN national security analyst. He is the author of "Facts and Fears: Hard Truths from a Life in Intelligence." Also with us, John Brennan, former Director of the C.I.A. and author of "Undaunted: My Fight against America's Enemies at Home and Abroad." Director Brennan, you've been consistent in your position that there was nothing improper here. I'm wondering what your reaction was when this whole unmasking probe just fizzled out?</s>JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER C.I.A. DIRECTOR: Well, I think, Anderson, that it is consistent with what I thought was going to happen. But that once they looked into this, they would realize that there was absolutely nothing inappropriate or wrong that took place. I think from the very start, this was a politically motivated probe that Attorney General Barr initiated in order to please Donald Trump. And so I'm glad that it resulted in no charges and even no report, because the unmasking that went on was consistent with the practices that are used in the National Security arena when senior officials need to have an understanding of who might be involved in some type of activity of concern to the Intelligence officials.</s>COOPER: Director Clapper, I mean, I guess it's not surprising that they didn't -- that you know, Attorney General Barr didn't announce that this has all come to nothing, that they just kind of -- this just has -- they just hoping this news just disappears, like the investigation itself, because they don't want to draw attention to the fact that the President was just making stuff up and calling them -- you know, saying that the former President had committed treason, et cetera. But it's pretty -- it's pretty weak for them to launch this investigation, call these people treasonous, and then not make any public declaration, not have the Attorney General stand up and say, you know, the investigation is over?</s>JAMES CLAPPER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, yes, I'd certainly prefer that the Attorney General would announce that the investigation is over and there were no findings of wrongdoing. But that wouldn't support the narrative that the President wants. And as you showed, you know, he is kind of disappointed and all this. But like, John, it certainly came as no surprise because this is a longstanding routine procedure, when a U.S. person is engaged with a valid foreign intelligence target, and that's an important phrase, it is perfectly legitimate and appropriate to find out who that is in the context of, does this pose a threat to the safety and security of the country?</s>COOPER: Director Brennan, this conspiracy was being pushed for a long time, not only by the president, but you know, his allies in Congress, FOX News. I wonder, has the well been poisoned so deeply that it won't change the minds of those, you know, convinced something occurred?</s>BRENNAN: Well, unfortunately, Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party continue to propagate these conspiracy theories and try to besmirch the reputations of former officials. And unfortunately, I think those who want to believe them will believe them and will not understand exactly that this is all being done for political purposes. And as Jim said, it, again, is a normal practice that, unfortunately, has been mischaracterized by those who want to paint the Obama administration as having engaged in something that was inappropriate. But the investigation of Russian interference and the activities that the Intelligence and law enforcement engaged in during that period of time were obligations on the part of those agencies to ensure that the President and others understood the extent and the scope of what the Russians were doing to try to interfere in that election.</s>COOPER: Director Clapper -- okay, go ahead.</s>CLAPPER: Just to add to that, Anderson, I just say we would have been derelict have we not looked into this. I also might add that while the Justice Department investigation apparently is over, John and I, among many others are still on the subpoena list for the Senate Homeland Security and Government Operations Committee, which I believe is still investigating unmasking.</s>ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Director Clapper, I mean, this is in some ways it -- it's sort of another example of the President, you know, throwing something out there and then using the arms of government to try to validate his unsupported conclusion. It's like his voter fraud commission that was launched with great fanfare because he believed, you know, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because, you know, so millions of undocumented immigrants were, you know, vote voting multiple times in California and elsewhere. And then that just gets disbanded because they can't find any actual proof of this. Except what's different this time is, I mean, he was talking about treason which is punishable by death.</s>CLAPPER: Well, which is completely absurd and I think like reflection, misunderstanding what treason is. But to John's point, I just read for something and he said that, you know, unfortunately, when words matter when the President of United States says something, people listen to it. And for some people in this country, his base, they're always going to be believers, regardless of whether there's actual fact, to back up what he says.</s>COOPER: Director Brennan, your book, your new book is titled Undaunted, My Fight against America's Enemies At Home and Abroad. The New York Times wrote, Undaunted, opens and closes with scathing discussions of Trump, there can be little doubt whom the book subtitle with its reference to fighting America's enemies at home is pointing to. Do you think of the President of United States as an enemy? And if so, of who?</s>JOHN BRENNAN, FMR CIA DIRECTOR: Well, I certainly think that he has been ill prepared, ill equipped and incompetent in terms of carrying out the duties of the President of United States, which that office is designed to keep this country safe and strong. And unfortunately, as we have seen in terms of his interactions with Vladimir Putin, as well as with other authoritarian leaders around the world, I do not believe that he is helping and strengthening U.S. national security. In fact, he is undermining it, including by not relying on those alliances and partnerships that have been so important to the United States and to global stability and security of the last 75 years. So, I do consider that he has been a problem from an</s>COOPER: Director Brennan, Director James Clapper, thank you so much. Appreciate it.</s>BRENNAN: Thank you.</s>CLAPPER: Thanks.</s>COOPER: Just ahead, we fixed our technical difficulties with New York Times' Mark Mazzetti. We're going to have his fascinating new reporting, next.

Trump, Biden Supporters Square Off In Pennsylvania.

COOPER: As John King showed us earlier, Pennsylvania could be decider in the election again, both presidential candidates certainly know that. Our chief political correspondent Dana Bash, went to what's considered to be a Trump friendly part of the state. Here's what she found.</s>DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A line forms outside well before opening, waiting to enter the Trump house.</s>LESLI ROSSI, TRUMP HOUSE OWNER: I'm ready for the next group. Come on in.</s>BASH (voice-over): A Mecca of sorts for the President's supporters in southwest Pennsylvania, where Trump's record turnout four years ago helped deliver his surprise Pennsylvania victory in the White House.</s>ROSSI: Shirt or hat for person get a sign or flag.</s>BASH (voice-over): Leslie Rossi created the Trump House in 2016, where she pushed disaffected Democrats and never before voters to choose Trump.</s>ROSSI: We gave people a place to come to, to believe they could win. Hi, welcome to Trump House.</s>BASH (voice-over): Now, Trump supporters show up daily for swag and yard signs and help registering to vote.</s>SCOTT HARRER, TRUMP SUPPORTER: When Trump enter again, I'm 65 I think it's time to register.</s>BASH (on-camera): Have you not voted ever.</s>HARRER: No.</s>BASH (voice-over): Rural Westmoreland counties seen a surge in Republican registrations. They help with that here too.</s>RITA BLAIR, CHANGED PARTY FROM DEMOCRAT TO REPUBLICAN: Change my registration from Democrat to Republican.</s>BASH (on-camera): Why?</s>BLAIR: From what I've seen in the last past couple of years, I was ashamed to say I was a Democrat.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a great honor to have you here</s>BASH (voice-over): But Joe Biden isn't giving up here, campaigning in Westmoreland County this month. Hillary Clinton didn't come here in the general election.</s>JILL BIDEN, JOE BIDEN'S WIFE: Not an area Democrats come in campaign very often.</s>BASH (on-camera): But you're here. Why?</s>BIDEN: I'm here because like I said, I we are not taking any vote for granted.</s>GINA CERILLI, WESTMORELAND COUNTY COMMISSIONER: They seem the past four years with a --</s>BASH (voice-over): Gina Cerilli is county commissioner in Westmoreland, PA. Ten years ago, she was Miss Pennsylvania in Donald Trump's Miss USA pageant. Now, she's an elected Democrat working to blunt Trump's advantage here.</s>CERILLI: In 2016, Donald Trump was a fresh face. He was new to politics. Everyone was excited. He made big promises, bring back jobs. But frankly, Donald Trump broke those promises.</s>BASH (voice-over): In small town Pennsylvania. Signs matter. Trumps are everywhere. big and bold. But Biden's are out there too.</s>CERILLI: When you see signs like this, it makes the Republicans and the Democrats that voted for Trump in 2016 realize I'm not alone.</s>BASH (voice-over): A big Biden challenge, his supporters are being COVID careful.</s>PHYLLIS FRIEND, HEAD, DEMOCRATIC WOMEN OF WESTMORELAND: Never did we think we would be meeting by Zoom.</s>BASH (voice-over): Phyllis Friend head of Democratic Women of Westmoreland County organizes from home. She's clear eyed about the Democrat's goal here in Trump country.</s>FRIEND: We can't win Pennsylvania forum, but we can add to the total numbers.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, David, this is Joe and I volunteer with the Trump campaign. How you doing?</s>BASH (voice-over): As for Republicans, they never stopped traditional ways of getting out the vote, knocking on doors, walking in neighborhoods in masks and using a GOP data driven app to find and persuade voters.</s>BRITTNEY ROBINSON, PENNYSLVANIA RNC OPERATION: Depending on who that voter is. We're able to tailor that message at the door and on the phone to how we think we need to target that voter and turn them out.</s>BASH (voice-over): Given the President's struggles in the suburbs, boosting the vote here is critical for Trump. (on-camera): How important is it for him to get his numbers even higher than it was four years ago?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do you think that we need to increase our voter turnout here for the President to offset some of what might be happening in the southeastern part of Pennsylvania.</s>BASH (voice-over): Back at the Trump house. Leslie Rossi shows us the log of visits from thousands of Trump supporters. (on-camera): What do you think this year?</s>ROSSI: Oh, my numbers have tripled, tripled. Four years ago, my work was really hard here. I had to convince the voters to vote for the candidate. I had to convince them President Trump was the best choice for them. This time, I don't have to do any of that. They're all in.</s>BASH (voice-over): Whether enough are all in, could determine whether Trump wins Pennsylvania and a second term.</s>BASH: And Republicans we talked to in rural Southwest Pennsylvania were really candid, that they expect the President to do even worse in the suburbs in Pennsylvania that he did in 2016. And so, they feel a lot of pressure to deliver even bigger margins than ever if he has any chance of winning the keystone state again. Of course, Anderson that would be crucial to his path to victory.</s>COOPER: Yes. I'm glad a lot of people in the line waiting to get into that house were wearing mask.</s>BASH: A lot of mask there.</s>COOPER: Yes. Dana Bash, appreciate it. Thank you. The news continues. Want to hand over Chris for "CUOMO PRIMETIME". Chris.</s>CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right, Coop, thank you very much. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to "Primetime".

Facebook Makes A Policy Change Related To Holocaust Content; CNN Election Trackers Explain How They Project Results; U.S. Scientists Trace Murder Hornets.

CARL AZUZ, CNN 10 ANCHOR: Social media company and the information they allow people to share. That`s our first topic today on CNN 10. I`m Carl Azuz. Earlier this week, Facebook said any content, posts or articles that deny the Holocaust would no longer be allowed on its platform. Under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany murdered 6 million Jewish people and millions of others during World War II. The Holocaust is an infamous example of genocide, the intentional destruction of a religious or ethnic group. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, said in 2018 that though he finds it deeply offensive for people to deny the Holocaust. He didn`t think Facebook should remove content that does that. He said there are things that different people get wrong. But on Monday, Facebook told the Bloomberg financial and media company that it would ban Holocaust denial on its platform. It said it was reversing its policy because there`s been a worldwide increase in anti-Semitism, discrimination against Jews, and because there`s a quote "alarming level of ignorance" about the Holocaust especially among young people. The company`s new rule does not apply to other genocides though like the Rwandan genocide or the Armenian genocide which the nation of Turkey denies. And Bloomberg says Facebook did not explain why it would still allow the other content. Zuckerberg admits he struggled with the tension between standing for free speech and the harm caused by minimizing or denying the Holocaust, but he thinks his company has found the right balance. But that`s a challenge that`s not only faced by Facebook. People often get their news from social media. There are more than 2 billion Facebook users every month. There are 2 billion who use YouTube. More than 1 billion who use Instagram, 330 million who use Twitter. And all of these sites have been criticized over the information they choose to allow. In the political world, American Democrats have said Twitter and Facebook haven`t done enough to stop misinformation or fake news that spreads online. American Republicans have said the companies unfairly censor conservative speech online. This is according to the Forbes business media company. So social media organizations are often criticized for an uneven approach whenever they work to filter what`s posted by hundreds of millions of users. 10 Second Trivia. To win an election, a U.S. presidential candidate needs at least how many electoral votes? 538, 435, 270 or 101. There are 538 electors in total so a majority of 270 is needed to win the election. And it`s projecting that winner that`s a key part of our election night coverage but there may be some additional challenges to doing that this year and a big one is mail-in voting. There`s been some controversy over this as we reported on our August 20th show. There`s also been more interest in it this time around because many Americans are concerned about catching coronavirus in public polling places. However, people feel about mail-in ballots though, several states don`t require them to be received and counted by election day. So if the election is close and if millions of ballots are still in the mail when the polls close on November 3rd, we may not know the outcome for days possibly weeks. Still, news networks across America are gearing up for the event that`s 20 days away. Here`s a look at how CNN plans to propose projections.</s>JENNIFER AGIESTA, CNN DIRECTOR OF POLLING AND ELECTION ANALYTICS: On election night, we`ll be doing all the major maths behind CNN`s major projections.</s>WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We`re going to share the numbers with you right now and some major projections.</s>AGIESTA: I`m Jennifer Agiesta. I`m CNN`s director of polling and election analytics. Behind me, you see CNN`s decision desk. We`ve got about 14 people who will be working with us on election night. In the weeks leading up to election day, we rehearse election night so many times. We`re divided up into teams. Each of the teams typically has one statistician. Someone who really understands the math behind the projections that we`re making. Each team also has a political expert. A person who knows the geography of each state. So we use several different types of data in making our projections on election night. Our first bit of information about how people are behaving is going to be the exit polls. We`ll be looking at what voters who voted to the early in the morning and through the afternoon are saying to pollsters about why they supported the candidates that they did. When we`re ready to make a projection in a state, we`re typically looking at several different pieces. It`s not just an exit poll and I suppose one component of that. What we really need to see in a lot of the battleground states, places like Florida, New Hampshire, we`re going to be looking for a lot more than the exit poll. Our first line of defense is a group of sample precincts that match precincts where the exit polls were conducted. And we`ll know pretty early in the night, how voters in those precincts voted and how that compares to the results of the exit poll.</s>BLITZER: CNN projects that Barack Obama will be reelected --</s>AGIESTA: When we`re approaching 270 electoral votes, that level that would actually mean we`re saying that a person will win the White House. That`s when things get very intense on the decision desk and we`re looking very closely at the states that are outstanding. Our best line of defense when we`re making these projections is that we`re getting data from multiple sources. Vote count numbers that come to us from the Associated Press. We look at vote count numbers that are posted on Secretary of State websites and county websites. And we try to confirm that what we`re seeing is correct across multiple reporting sources and look for that internal consistency in the data that we`re seeing. The decision desk has one of the hardest jobs in journalism. We really want to make sure that anything we project is going to hold up in the end. We`re lucky in that we haven`t had a -- an incorrect prediction come out of CNN since 2000 and we hope to never have it happen again.</s>AZUZ: In Washington State, agriculture officials are working to track down murder hornets and bring them to justice, and by that we mean kill them. These insects also known as Asian Giant Hornets are evasive in the U.S. They first appeared in Washington last year and no one was sure how they got there. They got their name from the fact that they can kill a human with multiple stings. But they`re an even greater threat to bees as murder hornets can take out a beehive in a few hours. So they`re not wanted in America. Several have been spotted near Washington`s border with Canada. Entomologists think the insects might have a nest there. So they`ve been trying to attach tracking devices to the hornets in the hopes they`ll lead officials to the nest. One device was glued but if fell off and the glue got caught in the hornet`s wings so it couldn`t fly. One device was tied with dental floss but scientists lost track of it shortly after the bug flew away. So the hunt continues.</s>AZUZ: If we were to tell you about a diamond named Spirit of the Rose, you might expect to look like this. The 14.83 carat diamond is believed to be the largest pink crystal ever unearthed in the nation of Russia. But it`s not the world record holder. That title went to the 59.6 carat Pink Star which sold in Hong Kong a few years ago for more than $71 million. The Spirit of the Rose, expected to fetch a measly $38 million, but anyone who gets his or her hands on such a titanic treasure will "never let go Rose". Now you need an awful lot of cushion to make that purchase. Unless you`re a princess, it`s anything but "marqueasy" unless it has a twin you won`t find a "pear". But there`s no doubt it`s a radiant diamond in the rough and it brings us to a "dazzling denuma" on CNN 10. Orono, don`t you know, is in Maine. It`s the home of Orono High School. It`s great to have you watching from our YouTube channel. I`m Carl Azuz. END

Liverpool Facing Strict Lockdown; France Can't Take Another Lockdown; President Trump Boast His Fast Recovery; Joe Biden Appeal to Senior Voters; England's New Three Tier Restrictions in Effect; U.S. Faces Rising Cases and Hospitalization; Some Florida Seniors Shifting On Trump

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. You are watching CNN Newsroom. And I'm Rosemary Church. Just ahead, the United Kingdom reports its highest COVID-19 related death toll since June. Just as the country kicks off new restrictions, we will have a live report. Plus, despite a climbing COVID-19 case, U.S. President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are on a campaign blitz. And Mr. Trump is again using a controversial line from another rally.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And now, I'm immune, they tell me. I'm immune. I could come down and start kissing everybody.</s>TRUMP: I'll kiss every guy, man and woman.</s>CHURCH: This, as Americans wait in long lines so they can vote ahead of the presidential election, just three weeks away. Good to have you with us. A busy hour of news ahead here on CNN Newsroom, but we begin with the surge and spread of coronavirus around the world. Johns Hopkins University says more than 38 million people have now been infected. The official global death toll is approaching 1.1 million. In England, a new three-tier system of restrictions is now in effect. But the country's opposition leaders say a circuit breaker lockdown is needed to curb infection rates. And in France, the positivity rate is now more than double what it was a month ago. That's despite restrictions in most major cities. We have reporters all around the world this hour, covering the global spread of the coronavirus. But we'll start with CNN's Salma Abdelaziz in Northern England. And Salma has been tracking those U.K. restrictions, she is in the city of Liverpool where tensions over new rules are running high. And she joins us now live. Good to see you, Salma. So, what is being said about these new restrictions? Talk to us about the response there.</s>SALMA ABDELAZIZ, CNN PRODUCER: Hello, Rosemary. So, Liverpool is waking up to a very different reality today. It is the first city in the country to fall under this three-tier system, as very high. That means they now have new restrictions that essentially shut down nightlife in the city, gyms, pubs, bars, anything that can operate as a restaurant must shut down, casinos as well. And this will be for the next four weeks until it's reviewed by the government. But local city council officials are absolutely angry with the government over their handling of Liverpool. They say there was a lack of communication, there was a lack of cooperation. They accused Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government of acting too little and too late. And their misgivings are also shared by the population of Liverpool. It's important to remember this is a student city, so nightlife is very important to it. And far from sheltering in place, many of the city's young were out and about celebrating the last hours at the pub yesterday. Take a look at our report.</s>ABDELAZIZ: Last call in Liverpool. Pubs must shut their doors for at least a month.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why isn't London shut down?</s>ABDELAZIZ: Tougher restrictions were ordered after a surge in COVID- 19 cases. But there is no socially distant farewell here. The proud port city, birthplace of The Beatles, home to a championship football team is the first to be classified as very high risk under England's new three-tier COVID alert system. The government says the decision was driven by the data. The city has the highest number of coronavirus patients in the entire country. Local city councilman, Paul Brant, agrees the rapid rise in infections is a problem, but his consensus with London ends there.</s>PAUL BRANT, PUBLIC HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE, LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL: A rather toxic mix of arrogance and ignorance at the central government level has led us to the sorry state that we are in now. I think the evidence is clear now, that a short, sharp intervention, three, four weeks ago would have avoided the mess that we are in now.</s>ABDELAZIZ: The country's top scientists agree. Three weeks ago a government advisory body suggested a circuit breaker, a short but complete lockdown to reduce case numbers. Their advice went unheeded by Downing Street. After months of controversy, over the government's handling of coronavirus, many people here say they are running out of patience and they are running low on trust. There have always been tensions between the north of the country and the central government in London. But under the pandemic, the mistrust is growing. For now, the city's iconic Beatles tours are still running, but tour guide, Jay Johnson says the country's ruling elite is failing its working class.</s>JAY JOHNSON, TOUR GUIDE, BEATLES MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR: Because I have no faith in them at all. They keep changing their minds, constant U- turn, one after another. I personally feel that the government isn't doing anything for us, the prime minister is not doing anything for us. The prime minister has never done enough for us.</s>ABDELAZIZ: And while public confidence dwindles by the day, the government is calling for immediate compliance to avoid a second wave of the pandemic that might be even deadlier than the first.</s>ABDELAZIZ: Now, everyone here agrees that there is an issue, Rosemary. The number of infections is rising rapidly. You have many patients in hospital, and with the numbers that are placed, officials tell us that if this isn't stopped, you could look at an outbreak that is worse than the one in the spring, a more deadly second wave potentially. So, everyone agrees something needs to be done to stem the rise in cases, but what, and when? That's the controversy, Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: Yes, that is a real concern. Salma Abdelaziz joining us live from Liverpool, many thanks. All right, and now let's turn to Melissa Bell who is joining us live from Bordeaux in France. Just one of the European countries seeing a surge in coronavirus cases. So, Melissa, what is the situation there? And what new restrictions are being considered to respond to this surge in cases?</s>MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we wait to hear from the French president tonight, Rosemary. He'll be making -- he will be appearing on French television. We imagine, we expect with fresh restrictions, anything that would allow France to avoid a second general lockdown, or some of those hardest hit cities like the greater Paris region or the greater Marseille region a sort of localized lockdown there. The economy simply couldn't take it. So, hard hit has it been by all that has happened so far and by the first failed radical lockdown that we saw in the spring. And, yes, it is those figures as you say, the positivity rate now nationally above 12 percent. That is a rise of nearly three times on what it was on the 1st of September. It has risen very fast, and again, with those localized issues. The greater Paris region announcing now that 40 -- 44 percent of its ICU beds are taken up by COVID-19 patients and that is rising dramatically because we've seen a week last week of record rises set over -- several records set over the course of a week. That will have a knock-on incidence. Of course, a few days a week down the line on ICU, and it is that ICU capacity. So, one of the measures that we anticipate, Emmanuel Macron possibly announcing tonight could be a system of curfews that might come into effect. We've seen them introduced yesterday in the Netherlands, introduced also in the Czech Republic, just ensuring that people are home by a certain hour. It doesn't confine them to their houses as a second general lockdown would, but it certainly prevents younger people perhaps from being out and about, and the coronavirus being allowed to spread as widely as it has been, especially in those urban centers that have been so hard hit here in Europe, Rosemary, but that second wave.</s>CHURCH: All right, Melissa Bell, many thanks for that report. With less than three weeks to go before the U.S. election, President Donald Trump is wasting no time getting back on the campaign trail. His latest rally coming Tuesday on the battleground state of Pennsylvania. The event featured few masks and little physical distancing in a state where new COVID cases are said to be up 63 percent in the past month. The president told supporters he feels great now following his recent bout with the virus, and praised his doctors and medical treatment.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I felt good very quickly.</s>TRUMP: I don't know what it was, antibodies, antibodies. I don't know. I took it. I said I felt like superman. You know, I said, let me at them. No, and I could have been here four or five days ago. It's great. We had great doctors. I want to thank the doctors at Walter Reed and Johns Hopkins.</s>TRUMP: One great thing about being president, if you're not feeling 100 percent, you have more doctors than you thought existed in the world. I was surrounded with, like, 14 of them. Where are you from? I'm from this one. Where are you from? I'm from Johns Hopkins. I'm from Walter Reed but what great talented people. They did a great job.</s>CHURCH: Meanwhile, Democratic nominee Joe Biden met with senior citizens in Florida. His campaign views this demographic as key to victory in this battleground state. Listen as Biden slams the president's handling of the pandemic and his views on seniors.</s>JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It become painfully clear as his careless, arrogant, reckless COVID response has caused one of the worst tragedies in American history. The only senior that Donald Trump cares about, the only senior is the senior, Donald Trump.</s>CHURCH: While Joe Biden slams Trump, the president is continuing his own attacks against his political rival on the campaign trail. And as CNN's Jeremy Diamond reports, Dr. Anthony Fauci is a target as well.</s>JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: President Trump again the day on Tuesday attacking Dr. Anthony Fauci who has been talking about the very same rallies that President Trump hosted on Tuesday night, saying that they are a concern, particularly because of the lack of any social distancing, very few masks being worn here. But the president carrying forward with this. He plans to hold a rally every day or grabs multiple rallies a day in the three weeks between now and election day. The president on Tuesday in Johnstown, Pennsylvania spending much of his time attacking former Vice President Joe Biden on issues like trade, and also of course on the energy issues that are important here in Pennsylvania like fracking. But the president making false claims about Biden's record, claiming that he wants to ban fracking. That's not true. Biden only wants to stop the issuance of new permits for fracking on public lands but not ban fracking that's happening now. And the president also making a play for an important demographic here in the state of Pennsylvania. And that is suburban women. Listen to how the president approach that.</s>TRUMP: I ask you to do me a favor. Suburban women, will you please like me?</s>TRUMP: Remember? Please. Please. I save your neighborhood, OK?</s>DIAMOND: Now what the president is referring to there is an Obama-era regulation that sought to desegregate the suburbs. That is the fair housing regulation that President Trump has abolished, and that he's now touting in his pitch to suburban women. But what the president does seem to at least recognize here is that he is struggling with that key demographic which is so important to this must win state of Pennsylvania. But the problem is that the main issue on voters' minds including those suburban women that the president is targeting is the coronavirus pandemic. And we know that cases in the United States are rising right now despite what President Trump said Tuesday night about this virus disappearing. Cases are rising in 33 states in the United States. Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Johnstown, Pennsylvania.</s>CHURCH: And as we reported a short time ago, Joe Biden is reaching out to senior voters in the battleground state of Florida. CNN's Jeff Zeleny explains why this group is so important to a Biden victory.</s>JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Three weeks before election day Joe Biden campaigning in critical Florida, trying to improve his standing among senior voters with President Donald Trump. Biden has been leading the way against the president for months, now he is extending that lead among the critical senior voters. It is because of the president's handling of coronavirus. Now as the former vice president made the first speech here in Florida, he specifically talked about the president's own diagnosis and handling of his illness.</s>BIDEN: I prayed for his recovery when he got COVID. I had hoped at least he would come out of it somewhat chasten. But what has he done? He has just doubled down on the misinformation he did before making it worse.</s>ZELENY: Biden, extending his pitch to seniors on social security saying he will preserve that entitlement for older Americans. This is a critical electoral bloc here in Florida and indeed around the country. And Joe Biden is leading the way among seniors. This is a group that Donald Trump won four years ago. No question Florida is one of the most important states in the country, President Trump of course campaigned on Monday, be coming back to the state on Friday. Joe Biden talking about why these 29 electoral votes are so key.</s>BIDEN: Here in Florida you can determine and outcome of this election. We weigh in Florida and it's all over.</s>ZELENY: And Joe Biden might also be getting an assist from former President Barack Obama on the campaign trail. We are told that the former president will be joining this Democratic race next week for the first-time campaigning in early voting states, particularly going after African American voters, Latino voters, and young voters. They are trying to get those voters in particular to vote for Joe Biden. And we could also see in the final days of this race that all pair back together again on the campaign trail campaigning side by side, Biden and Obama. Jeff Zeleny, CNN, West Palm Beach, Florida.</s>CHURCH: Joining us now is CNN senior writer and political analyst, Harry Enten. Great to see you, Harry.</s>HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER AND ANALYST: My pleasure to be with you.</s>CHURCH: So, early voting shows people wake waiting up to eight hours to cast their ballot, certainly in Georgia, some Democrats still nervous though about a repeat of 2016 despite Donald Trump trailing his rival Joe Biden. What are the polls telling you?</s>ENTEN: Yes. I mean, look. I hear this 2016 comparison an awful lot, and you know, Hillary Clinton was in the lead at this particular point in the 2016 campaign, but her lead looks nothing like what Joe Biden looks like right now. Joe Biden is ahead by 11 points. Hillary Clinton was ahead was just by 6. But more than, Joe Biden has been consistently above 50 percent, while Hillary Clinton never reach that 50 percent threshold at this point in the campaign. So even if Donald Trump wins all the undecided voters Joe Biden would still be ahead. That's very different than it was four years ago where Trump won a lot of those late deciding voters and they were the ones who helped put him over the top.</s>CHURCH: Right. So national polls of course are one thing. It's the Electoral College that decides this. What do polls in battleground states indicate in terms of shifts in voting groups?</s>ENTEN: Yes. You know, I took a look at the six closest states that Donald Trump won four years ago. And take a look at these states now and what you see is you see Joe Biden is ahead not in one of them, not in two, but in all six of those states he is ahead. And in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, he holds significant 8, 9-point leads. And the fact of the matter is Joe Biden wins that the states Hillary Clinton won four years ago plus Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, that gets him over 270 electoral votes.</s>CHURCH: Do you think that will calm some of the Democrats' nerves? So, when you look at all these polls, it appears that Biden is doing very well. But Trump insists he has a path to victory. Do you see it?</s>ENTEN: I mean, look, we still have three weeks to go so we'll have to wait and see. But you know, another way of sort of getting at this is sort of the states that around the periphery, right? That the candidates might carry if they blow someone out. And if you look at these states, the states that last time around Hillary Clinton won say, by three points or less, those are the states that Trump wants to reach and win. And you look at the Biden reaches the states that Trump won by 5 to 10 points in 2016, what do you see? And the states that are essentially the Trump reaches, Biden is well ahead on all of them by 7 to 15 points. While in the Biden reaches, Biden actually has nominal edges in three of those four states. So, at this particular point, look, we're still three weeks to go, you know, I'll say that over and over again. Right now, Trump, if the election were held today, he might have a path but it would be a very, very narrow path.</s>CHURCH: Harry Enten, always a pleasure to chat with you. Many thanks.</s>ENTEN: Thank you.</s>CHURCH: He's good. And for more on Harry's analysis just head to cnn.com and check out his latest article on the politics page. And still ahead here on CNN Newsroom, Democrats try to grill President Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. But Amy Coney Barrett sidesteps key questions in her hearing. Plus, an alleged domestic terror plot in the U.S. may have had more than one high-profile target. New details from the FBI. That's coming up.

Chilling Plot Revealed; Judge Barrett Leave Question Marks on Lawmaker's Minds

CHURCH: President Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court has wrapped up her second day of hearings before the Senate judiciary committee. Amy Coney Barrett was grilled on hot button issues including healthcare, abortion and a potential election-related case. But the judge provided mostly vague answers when asked to elaborate on her legal views. Instead, she insisted she would have no political agenda when ruling on issues like the Affordable Care Act.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I have the integrity to act consistently with my oath and apply the law as the law. To approach the ACA in every other statute without bias and I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that. I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.</s>CHURCH: Barrett will face more questions from senators in the coming hours. Her confirmation is all but guaranteed and would cement a conservative majority on the high court. Joining us now is CNN legal analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York state, Elie Honig. Good to have you with us.</s>ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thanks for having me, Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: So, Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to say how she would rule an upcoming case like the Affordable Care Act and abortion rights, same sex marriage, gun rights. She just said no one ever talked about any case with her before the nomination. What did you make of her answers to these questions about how she might rule on contentious issue?</s>HONIG: Yes, so today we saw a sort of, I guess, frustrating dance where the Democrats were trying to get her to give some indication of where she might be leaning on these cases, or what her overall judicial philosophy is and she really gave them next to nothing to go. And I thought that was a really memorable moment when Amy Coney Barrett held up her no pattern. It was blank. And I think both sides saw that their own way. The Republicans saw that as well, look at the mastery she's demonstrating. She doesn't even need notes or talking points. I think Democrats took that moment as sort of symbolic of the fact that she really offered almost nothing in the way of substance today. I think you have to read between the lines a little bit as to what she was and was not willing to say. And a key thing was this argument about precedent. Under what circumstances will you change an existing decision, Roe versus Wade, of course, being the most important one of those.</s>CHURCH: Right. And Judge Barrett wouldn't answer the question put to her about how she would rule if President Trump tried to delay the election. Why would she not answer that directly given it's pretty clear cut, or recuse herself from any election-related case?</s>HONIG: Yes, it's a good question. When she was asked does the president have the power to delay the election? The answer should have just been straight up n-o, no. Our Constitution is clear, only Congress has that power. It's not going to happen we're three weeks away. There's another question that you talk about, if there is an election- related case, a dispute, a Biden versus Trump which could happen, we don't know, will she recuse herself because President Trump publicly, essentially said we need to get or through, we need nine justices in case there's an election dispute. Only Amy Coney Barrett can make that decision for herself. Nobody can force her to recuse. I think it's pretty clear she will not recuse. But that decision is entirely up to the Supreme Court justice herself.</s>CHURCH: Yes. And there is an inevitability about all of this, isn't it? So, what do you expect to come out of the third day of confirmation hearings for Judge Barrett getting underway in just a few hours from now? And what will you be looking for?</s>HONIG: I think we'll see a continuation of really, two fights, two sides fighting different battles. On the one hand, the Republicans just want to just get this done. They want to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed. They want to get a robe on her before election day. Because if and when they do, and they will, there will be a six to three conservative majority in the Supreme Court that could last for many years. I think the Democrats are playing a different game. I think they understand they can't stop this nomination. It's just math. The Republicans have the majority. I think Democrats are making a pitch here to voters, they are really focusing on the Affordable Care Act, not even in a legal way, but in a visceral emotional way. We saw today photographs of people who rely on health insurance. And I think Democrats are really making their pitch to voters who are watching. I would expect that to continue in day two of the questioning of Judge Barrett.</s>CHURCH: Right. Elie Honig, thank you so much. We appreciate your legal analysis on all of this.</s>HONIG: Thanks, Rosemary. My pleasure.</s>CHURCH: Well chilling details are emerging about an alleged domestic terrorism plots in the United States. This, as court proceedings begin for some of the 13 suspects. A federal judge ordered three of them held without bail Tuesday. And an FBI agent gave shocking testimony about the accusations against them. Brynn Gingras has our report.</s>BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Michigan's Governor Gretchen Whitmer wasn't the only sitting governor with a target on her back by a group of alleged extremists. Virginia's Governor Ralph Northam was also ide by the 13 men charged in and alleged domestic terrorist plot foiled by the FBI.</s>GOV. RALPH NORTHAM (D-VA): We don't work under a cloud of intimidation and I continue to serve Virginia.</s>GINGRAS: The new details of the chilling scheme were revealed by an FBI agent during a bond hearing where three of the six men were charged federally were denied released. The other men are charged at the state level. The agent testified that in an early June meeting the group discussed possible targets including taking out a sitting governor but specifically, governors of Michigan and Virginia over shutdown orders due to the coronavirus. An informant who attended that meeting, flag the potential violence to the FBI. Whitmer and Northam, both Democrats and both criticized for their response to COVID-19 in their states, particularly from the president who said this about Northam in May.</s>TRUMP: I might, be careful. I might. I'll be there. We're going to -- we're going after Virginia with your crazy governor, we're going after Virginia. They want to take your Second Amendment, you know that, right?</s>GINGRAS: Trump early on in the pandemic also singled out the two states in tweets. Liberate Michigan and liberate Virginia.</s>NORTHAM: When languages used such as to liberate Virginia, people, they find meaning in those words, and thus these things happen and that's regrettable.</s>GINGRAS: The White House said in a statement, the president condemns white supremacists and passed the blamed to both governors. Saying they are sowing division. It's not clear if the group's alleged plans were inspired by the president's tweets, but the agent testified that they did want to carry out the kidnapping of Whitmer by election day. Their idea in part called for sending an explosive device to her vacation home. In another option, the agent testified they wanted to quote, "take her out on the boat and leave her out in the middle of lake Michigan by disabling the engine."</s>GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER (D-MI): I knew this job would be hard. But I'll be honest, I never could've imagined anything like this.</s>GINGRAS: A federal complaint unsealed last week shows the men, some recruited from an anti-government group called Wolverine Watchmen, connected to rallies, meetings and social media. Together they planned, practiced and even conducted surveillance in the hopes of executing their missions which also included storming Michigan's capitol building in warding off law enforcement by blowing up their vehicles according to the complaint. Brynn Gingras, CNN, New York.</s>CHURCH: Still ahead, coronavirus cases are on the rise here in the United States. But two major drug and vaccine trials have been put on hold this week. We will explain what's going on. Plus, China is not taking any chances when it comes to a new COVID outbreak. Its extreme texting measures when we come back.

John Hopkins University Official Global Death Toll Nearing 1.1 Million; Chinese City Tests More Than 7.5 Million People; Patient Tests Positive for Flu and COVID-19 in Mexico; Drug Maker Eli Lilly Pauses Antibody Trial for Safety Reasons; Virus Denier's Family Gathering Infects 14 People

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back everyone. More on our top story. The coronavirus pandemic. John Hopkins University says more than 38 million cases have been confirmed worldwide. The official death toll is nearing 1.1 million. Experts say it's likely the true numbers of infections and deaths are much higher. Countries are grappling with how to get a handle on the pandemic. In England a new three tier system of restrictions comes into effect today. The city of Liverpool is facing the toughest new rules, with pubs, gyms and casinos forced to close. Meanwhile in China, a massive testing effort continues, after a new COVID cluster emerges in Qingdao. So far, more than 7 million people have been tested. For the latest CNN's Kristie Lu Stout joins us now live from Hong Kong. And the numbers are just extraordinary. Talk to us about just how reliable these results are.</s>KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and that is the critical question right now, reliability. Just how reliable is this type of mass testing scheme? Especially at such a mind-boggling scale. As reported, the city of Qingdao, this port city of northeastern China has tested over 7.5 million people there in just a matter of days. 4 million test results have already been returned. According to city officials, they say that they have not found any additional positive COVID-19 test detected as a result of this ongoing test. And was sparked all of this was affect over the weekend they detected 12 COVID-19 positive cases in the city of 9 million. As a result of a five-day testing blitz is underway to make sure that they cannot find any more additional cases. That there is no further outbreak. And this type of rapid mass testing scheme has happened before in China, in places like Beijing, Dalian, in Xinjiang, as well as in Wuhan. And it's believed that this is the type of operation that brings down the rate of infection in China. But to do it as such a scale, how does China do it? Well, it involves something called pool testing. It involves, you know, hundreds of testing centers, also thousands of staffers, in with pool testing a pool of about three to 10 samples are then taken and tested. If a team test it and it test negative they move on to the next batch, if it test positive, then they conduct more in-depth tests, carrying individual tests to see exactly who in that pool has tested positive. Some experts in disease research, I spoke to here in Hong Kong say that this pool testing method is precise. It's fast but it may only provide a snapshot, not a complete picture. I want you to listen to what this top virologist at the Hong Kong University School of Medicine told me early about this mass testing scheme.</s>JIN DONG-YAN, VIROLOGY PROFESSOR, HONG KONG UNIVERSITY: I think that mass testing at these scales is actually a waste of resources and it may not be helpful in many different contexts. Because positive patients actually being picked up over a range of time is not -- just a snapshot. So, this is just a snapshot. So, it definitely -- it will means a lot of positive individuals.</s>LU STOUT: Dr. Jin Dong-Yan there of Hong Kong University saying that this type of mass testing, rapid testing scheme that's currently underway in Qingdao is quote, may be a waste of resources. Because it only offers a snapshot. If they're trying to find any additional true positive cases of infection, five days is not enough. At minimum they would need a week. Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: All right. Kristie Lu Stout, many thanks for that. I appreciate it. Well, now let's head to Mexico where authorities say a patient has tested positive for both COVID-19 and the flu. CNN's Matt Rivers has more.</s>MATT RIVERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well here in Mexico City this week for the first time, health authorities have announced publicly that they have identified a case where a patient has tested positive not only for COVID-19, but also for influenza. This patient has both of these viruses at the same time. The patient were told as a 54-year-old. That has a medical history that includes auto immune disease, cancer, obesity, and chronic lung disease. Health authorities say that the patient remains hospitalized, and is in stable condition. Now, doctors don't know exactly yet, what happens when you have COVID- 19 and influenza at the same time. This is still very much being studied. But according to John Hopkins medicine, doctors are worried that the results, the impact could be even more severe than having either infection alone. It is why health authorities, doctors, hospitals are going to be looking at cases like the one I just told you about very closely, over the coming months, as we move into and through flu season. It's certainly something that they're going to be worried about. Meanwhile here in Mexico this pandemic just continues with hundreds of people on average dying every single day as a result of the coronavirus. And thousands of new cases also on average continued be recorded each day. Matt Rivers, CNN, Mexico City.</s>CHURCH: And back here in the United States, Dr. Anthony Fauci says rising tests positivity rates could signal a tough autumn and winter to come. CNN's Jacqueline Howard looks at the numbers.</s>JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: Rosemary, we are seeing a rise in COVID-19 cases. We are seeing an uptick in hospitalizations. Here in the U.S., this might be the start of the fall and winter surge that experts have warned us about. Here's a look at the numbers. 33 states are reporting increases in new COVID-19 cases, the U.S. is now averaging more than 49,000 people a day with new infections. That's up about 13 percent from the previous week. When it comes to hospitalizations, at least 11 states have seen record high numbers since Friday, and there are now more than 35,000 people in the hospital with COVID-19 across the country. Now that we're in the fall and winter is ahead of us, experts are saying we have to try to turn this around. Wear a mask, physical distance, wash your hands, Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: All right. Thanks so much for that. Well, another coronavirus drug trial is on hold. Pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly says it's pausing its trial of a COVID antibody treatment for safety reasons. The company didn't elaborate, it comes just one day after Johnson & Johnson suspended phase three of its vaccine trial after a volunteer got sick. It's not uncommon of course for trials like these to be paused. But Eli Lilly's antibody treatment was recently praised by U.S. President Donald Trump.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Regeneron, I view it as a cure. Not just a therapeutic. I view it as a cure, because I took it in. Eli Lilly has a great drug. So we have these drugs Eli Lilly and the others that are so good. Eli Lilly has something very comparable, it's phenomenal.</s>CHURCH: CNN's senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen is following the trial and the details.</s>ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Rosemary, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly has put their trial on pause, they said the pause was requested by the data safety and monitoring board that's a board that's overlooking this trial to make sure that everyone stays safe. The company did not say exactly what happened. But usually when trials are put on hold, it's because a participant in the trial, a study subject has become ill. And they need to make sure, did the vaccine play a role in this. Sometimes people just get sick. And they would have anyhow. Sometimes participants get sick because they get a vaccine and it's actually the vaccine that had something to do with the illness. So, this needs to be investigated. Now, Eli Lilly has already applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for permission to put their drug on the market. It's not clear what this pause might mean for this application. What we know is that if indeed this is because a participant became ill, safety experts will do an investigation and will try to figure out was the illness a fluke or was it related to the vaccine. Rosemary back to you.</s>CHURCH: Thanks so much for that Elizabeth. Well, in the U.S. state of Texas, one Trump supporter thought the coronavirus pandemic was an overblown scam by the media. Even calling it a scandemic. Then he caught COVID-19 and became very sick. The virus spread to more than a dozen family members and two later died. Now he's telling his story. Tony Green spoke earlier with CNN's Alison Camerota.</s>ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: You organized, a relatively small family gathering just six people, you your partner, both of your parents, I think it was outside and then what ended up happening?</s>TONY GREEN, HOSTED EVENT WHERE FAMILY GOT SICK: We all got together, there was no symptoms. Governor Abbott came along earlier that week -- which was June 12th, and he had said that smaller gatherings should be, you know, considered a little bit more safe. And there were increasing the restaurant and bar capacity from 50 to 75 percent. So, by that point it really seemed like, you know, the worst was behind us. And you know, OK well, we haven't seen each other, in a couple of months here. Let's try just to get together and just enjoy ourselves at the home.</s>CAMEROTA: And then how soon after that did you end some of your loved ones start feeling symptoms?</s>GREEN: Well that's important. You know, our symptoms began to develop very quickly. And you know, they're talking about an incubation day of -- incubation time that's upwards of 14 days. And that was not the case with us for sure. For certainly someone was a host, that was here at the house, but there was also -- you know, I mean, a total of six people, that were sick within a matter of maybe 48 hours. If you get on that, maybe 72 hours. That it had transferred over to 14 total.</s>CAMEROTA: And Tony, at your worst, what were your symptoms?</s>GREEN: I felt like a radiating heat on the inside. Like, you know, just my body was just vibrating from the inside out. My eyes felt like they were in a fishbowl just kind of bouncing around not still looking at them. Little bit of a headache issue, you know, the very like mid part of my head. Beyond that, not a lot. My appetite was still there. I didn't lose my taste buds and have really a cough. I didn't have a lot of congestion or anything like that. But those were predominantly the symptoms. A little bit of vertigo and dizziness. And that's what led me to being in the hospital. And that was on June 24th. I thought it was over it. You know, I didn't go out, do anything. I just stayed here at home and I did some projects. I felt great (inaudible) then three days and then all of a sudden, bam, I just -- I hit the staircase like I was drunken and paralyzed.</s>CAMEROTA: Oh my gosh, it sounds horrible. And I know that two of your family members died, including your father in law, who you are really close to. He was just 52 years old. And I know that you've been devastated by that loss. And so, I know that you say, you feel horribly guilty about all this. I mean, why do you blame yourself?</s>GREEN: Well you know, I'm kind of explained it a couple of ways, and really the way that it sends a message is I feel like a drunk driver that killed his family. I know logically that you know, we all came here on our encore. We knew that you know, there was a possible risk. But, you know, it's my home. I'm the one that hosted it. And you know somebody got sick, we don't know who, you know, actually brought it in. It very well may have been my father in law, we don't know.</s>CHURCH: And for more information about how you can help people and businesses impacted by COVID-19, just visit our website, CNN.com/impact. Well, calls for police reform are growing in Nigeria. And they are getting help from international celebrities like Kanye West. A live report from Lagos coming up.

Calls for Police Reform In Nigeria

CHURCH: Well in the day ahead thousands of people are expected to flood the streets of Thailand for another round of anti-government protests. It comes after street clashes broke out on Tuesday as police attempted to disperse a large crowd of demonstrators. At least 21 people were detained, including one of the leaders of the movement. Authorities say protesters blocked off a road, and threw paint at some of the officers, demonstrators have been marching on the street for weeks calling for a new constitution as well as reforms to the monarchy. Well, the world is watching as an attempt at police reform gets underway in Nigeria. Days ago a police unit accused of brutality, kidnapping and killings was disbanded after nationwide protests and demands from international celebrities. A re-branded Nigerian police unit called special weapons and tactics or SWAT has been organized and includes members of that disbanded group. Nigeria's police inspector general says SWAT is committed to reform and he's calling for calm while the group undergoes training. CNN's Stephanie Busari joins us now live from Lagos with more on all of this. Stephanie 10 people have died in these ongoing protests. So, how does this re-banded police unit made up of the very same men who committed these brutal acts, how does that constitute reform?</s>STEPHANIE BUSARI, CNN PRODUCER: Good morning, Rosemary, it's raining cats and dogs here in Lagos. And that's the same question that protesters are asking. And they are demanding answers to say that they want more accountability. And they are still marching, even in the rain. It's down pour is not going to dampen the demands or the moods of this activism, they say. They want the inspected general to resign. They're calling for his resignation, they are saying that his men are clearly not listening to him, because that we are seeing active police brutality, police opening live ammunition on protesters demonstrating peacefully. And they're also saying, why is this unit set up so quickly without any consultation? And why the officers from this unit from the former unit going to be part of this? For its part the IGP, the Inspector General says, these men and women are going to be re-trained and given medical examinations and psychological tests to ensure that they fit to be part of this new unit. But some, you know, the protesters are calling for more accountability about the police brutality that we've seen.</s>CHURCH: And Stephanie, in contrast to the police brutality, protesters have been peaceful. What have you witnessed on the ground there? And what have victims been telling you?</s>BUSARI: Yes, one of the victims we spoke to was arrested along with another female protester and she told us that she was beaten very, very severely, during the arrest. And she has shown us some very graphic images of the bruises and the ways that she developed after this arrest. And but in contrast to these images of brutality, frankly, what we're seeing on the ground is peaceful protest. A sense of camaraderie. The protesters are even cleaning up their trash. That's what we witnessed out on the streets here in Lagos at the protest sites that we've been to. They've organized medical help, lawyers to bail out arrested protesters and so really what we're seeing is in contrast to the police response, which has been a most parts brute force. Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: Stephanie Busari in Lagos, many thanks for bringing us up to date on this very important story. And for more on this, just visit our website, Stephanie's latest article, just posted on CNN.com. And still to come, Florida went for Donald Trump in 2016, but with the pandemic dragging on, we'll the state's seniors stand behind him again? We will hear from some of those voters. Plus Demi Lovato takes aim at the U.S. President. Our exclusive interview with the popstar on her new politically-charged song. That's ahead.

36 States Seeing Cases Surge, Hospitalizations Rising Across U.S.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: Poppy Harlow. The breaking news this hour, the president's Supreme Court pick, Amy Coney Barrett, is facing another round of questions on Capitol Hill today. It is day three of Senate of confirmation hearings. We'll bring you any major developments as they happen. Also this morning, as coronavirus cases and hospitalizations are spiking across the country, the CDC says that small family gatherings are contributing to the spread. This also comes as Dr. Anthony Fauci warns current positivity rates signal a major surge coming soon.</s>JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: Yes, that canary in the coal mine there. We're seeing that already happening in Wisconsin. Its governor is now pleading with residents to help flatten the curve as hospitals are becoming overwhelmed. These pictures here, the state opening a field hospital on the state fairgrounds to handle some of that overflow, expected overflow from hospitals. And that's where we begin. CNN's Adrienne Broaddus is in Wisconsin for more in this situation there. Concerning numbers there and preparations really for a dire situation, Adrienne.</s>ADRIENNE BROADDUS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Concerning numbers indeed, and that hospital was scheduled to open in the last hour. It's called the alternative care facility. It's housed here just outside of Milwaukee at the State Fair Park. It has capacity to treat or hold more than 500 patients. And here is the deal, it's not your traditional hospital. You can't just walk up if you have COVID-like symptoms, meaning you have to be referred by a health care provider. Meanwhile, Wisconsin reached record highs for both new infections and deaths yesterday. More than 3,000 new cases were confirmed and 34 people died in 24 hours. What's happening now is what Governor Tony Evers did not want to become a reality. But he and state health officials started planning for this at the start of the pandemic. This new facility, construction started on back in April. But now, Wisconsin is on a streak it wants to end.</s>GOV. TONY EVERS (D-WI): We have to get this virus under control and help flatten the curve to prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed. As I said last week, over the last month, our hospitalizations have nearly tripled.</s>BROADDUS: Meanwhile Governor Evers said he hopes what's happening in his state will be a wake-up call. Despite that want, President Trump is planning to rally in Janesville, Wisconsin, this weekend. On a call yesterday, Governor Evers told reporters he had no idea the president was planning to visit his state. And I'm paraphrasing here, Governor Evers also told us gatherings outside, even if they're large or small, are banned. Poppy?</s>SCIUTTO: They're saying even small family gatherings can be spreader events. Adrienne Broaddus, thanks so very much. Well, Dr. Fauci is expressing optimism about the race for a coronavirus vaccine, this despite Johnson & Johnson becoming the second pharmaceutical company in the U.S. to put its own late stage vaccine trial on hold for now.</s>HARLOW: Let's go to our Senior Medical Correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen. She joins us again this hour. How long is this J&J pause expected?</s>ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, we just don't know. There are so many mysteries here. We don't exactly what kind of illness that participant developed. I think that we can assume that it was an illness that they thought might -- and I need to emphasize word, might -- might be connected to the vaccine, and that's why they decided. And J&J decided this on their own. They weren't told to do this to pause their trial to sort of look into what's going on. At this point, they don't even know if the person got the vaccine or got the placebo. Because you can get either one but you don't know which one you're getting. And it has to be unblinded to find out which one this person got. So let's take a look at the J&J timeline. So back in January, J&J started working in partnership with BARDA, which is a government agency on developing in vaccine. In March, they signed a deal with the U.S. government to produce 1 billion doses. In July, they started their phase one, phase two human trials, those are much smaller trials. September 23rd, they started the phase three, which is tens of thousands of people. And then on October 12th, as we just discussed, that trial was paused while they look into the illness that was unexplained. This unexplained illness, is it connected to the vaccine or is it not? Poppy, Jim?</s>SCIUTTO: So vaccine is one thing under trials now but, of course, another is treatments. And Eli Lilly, it's pausing its trial of a combination antibody treatment similar to the one the president was given. Explain exactly how this treatment works and what the reason is for this pause.</s>COHEN: Right. So this treatment is very promising. It's in the same family as Regeneron. And that's the drug that was given to President Trump. So this was a family of antibody treatments. Basically, what they do, to put it simply, is in the lab, they make these antibodies and then they give them intravenously to patients and they're supposed to kind of take the place of whatever antibodies are not working in the sick patient. So you're basically giving patients antibodies to fight off the virus. And the trial so far have been quite promising. So let's take a look at this Eli Lilly timeline and where their trial has been and where it's going. So, on June 1st, they started their phase one trial for this drug. Again, those are the smaller trials. June 17th, phase two, August 3rd, phase three, and October 13th, the trial was paused. So you can see it didn't go on for very long. Interestingly, Eli Lilly has already -- before they paused, they asked the FDA for permission to get an emergency use authorization, which would allow them to put this drug on the market. We don't know what effect this pause might have on that application.</s>HARLOW: Elizabeth, thanks for the updates on all of them very much. Let's talk more about what we've learned this morning with former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan. Good morning, Commissioner. Good to have you.</s>DR. MARK MCCLELLAN, FORMER COMMISSIONER, FDA: Good morning.</s>HARLOW: So, when you look at the map, and I don't know if we can pull it back up here for folks, but as we wait for a vaccine, there is now not a single state in the United States that's green on our map, right, which means that there's a decline in cases. What is this? Is this a second wave? And, I guess, more importantly, why is it happening now?</s>MCCLELLAN: Well, Poppy, I don't think we ever really finished the first wave, so what you're seeing now is a resurgence in cases across many parts of the country, especially in the upper Midwest, places like Wisconsin, the mountain west that are seeing the highest level of cases they have ever had during the pandemic. They were relatively spared earlier on and more spread now. We're also seeing worrisome early trends in other parts of the country, including upwards trends in parts of Texas, other parts of the south, in the east. And this is something that we've expected could happen for a while. We're headed into winter. People are in closer quarters. Schools and universities are back. And maybe even people are just getting a little bit tired of having to deal with the pandemic. The trends are very worrisome with the strong increasing cases and that's being now followed by increases in hospitalizations. So, now is really an important time while we still have those treatments coming along but they're not quite here yet, it's a really important time to remember just how important it is to wear masks and distance and do the other things that really do make a difference in containing the spread.</s>SCIUTTO: Mark, what's interesting about this map, right, is you have a whole variety of states with a whole variety of approaches to the pandemic that are seeing cases go up. Granted at different rates among them, I don't want to put on the same bin, but you know what I'm saying. I mean, what have we learned in the last several months as to what is necessary now, right? I mean, is it serious enough that these states have to consider going back to full-on lockdowns? Is it simple habits like mask-wearing and closing bars but leaving open restaurants? What is the approach that folks can do now to make a difference?</s>MCCLELLAN: Well, I think we'd all like to avoid going back towards lockdowns, Jim, especially trying to get kids back to school and other very important priorities for the economy. We do know masks work. And in states that have more mask-wearing, I think there's generally association with lower rates of outbreak. And it's not just masks, it's just things that we do every day. Yes, what happens in bars matters and what happens in restaurants matters. And if states take enforcement actions to keep distance, expectations in place in those settings, that helps. But it also matters what people do in their own gatherings and what they do on their own time outside of businesses, and that's also contributing to the spread. It really does take some continued changes in the way that we're acting to slow down the spread. And I understand that's hard for people to do but I think the good news is, as you were just saying, we have some treatments and even vaccines that are maybe just a matter of a few months away from use. So we can get through this next phase, which is on track to perhaps being the worst wave or phase that we've seen, if we can slow that down, it's not going to be that long before we start getting some real relief from the treatments.</s>HARLOW: But as I understand it that our kids are not going to be vaccinated when we are all vaccinated because Pfizer is the first one to just start their trial of the vaccine on children, I believe it's around 12 years old. So how long until our kids are vaccinated?</s>MCCLELLAN: Poppy, well, it makes sense. Kids have been fortunately at lower risk from COVID complications. So it makes sense that we'd use the vaccine first, tested out first and adults and those people who are at higher risk. We will learn a lot from that about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. We are seeing that play out in real-time right now, as you were just talking about. That still means we're going to need studies in children but they are not the highest priority for vaccination. So I think what people should expect is, as we learn more about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, as they really get past those FDA standards, which are strong and there for a reason, you will see people in higher-risk groups get vaccinated first and then maybe a staged approach. I think vaccination on a large-scale basis in kids is still a number of months away at the earliest.</s>SCIUTTO: There have been concerns throughout about political pressure on institutions like the FDA to speed things up, right? And that's contributed to some skepticism out there about a vaccine. I'm curious, from your perspective and given your services at the FDA, should folks feel confident? Are you seeing the science winning out here in effect on things like vaccine approval?</s>MCCLELLAN: I am so far, Jim. And I am also very concerned about the decline in confidence and vaccines at least the way FDA regulates them. Because if you look at what's actually happening despite all of the political smoke, the right processes are taking place. People are monitoring the trial very closely, independent experts. And if there is even a question about just one case, like you mentioned in the Johnson & Johnson situation, it's being looked at carefully by independent experts. FDA has made clear that they're going to have a public meeting and discussion, if there is a proposal for emergency use of a vaccine with oversight by its group of nationally recognized, globally recognized independent experts. So all of that is still very much on track and that's why we're not probably going to see a vaccine authorization, even in the highest risk groups, until later on this year in November, December. But I have a lot of confidence in the process that's taking place right now.</s>SCIUTTO: That's good to hear and it's important for folks watching to hear that too. Have confidence in how this is playing out. Dr. Mark McClellan, much appreciated.</s>MCCLELLAN: Good to be with you.</s>SCIUTTO: Well, President Trump is on an all-out blitz as he heads back on the road again today and will participate now in a televised town hall tomorrow. What does this push say about the state of his campaign?</s>HARLOW: Also, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is defending her decision to turn down the White House's most recent stimulus proposal. Some members of her own party though are saying make a deal. One of them will join us. And early in-person voting in some states has been marred by massive lines and long wait times. Ahead, what does it mean for your vote, your election?

Trump, Biden to Participate in Competing Town Halls Tomorrow Night

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. Today, President Trump is heading to Iowa for another large rally as that state sees a huge jump in coronavirus infections. Tomorrow, the president and Joe Biden will make their pitch to voters at separate town halls, though at the same time, both of those in key battleground states. joining me now to talk about this, all of this, Jonathan Swan, National Political Reporter for Axios. Jonathan, good to have you on this morning.</s>JONATHAN SWAN, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, AXIOS: Thanks for having me.</s>SCIUTTO: So, you report that the president is pushing to be on the trail literally every day, we've got 20 days to go, up to the election. One adviser telling you he's going to kill himself. What is driving the president's stretch run here?</s>SWAN: Desperation is driving it, desperation. They know that they're probably -- it's probably too late in the game and Trump even sort of acknowledged that when he -- you know, when he does these segments where he basically reads out his internal poll, suburban women, please love me, seniors, please, seniors, he realizes there are sort of limits to his persuasion. Even Donald Trump realizes that. So these rallies have one goal, which is they are trying to energize and turn out hundreds of thousands of white, non-college educated people who did not vote in 2016 but who exist on this planet in the upper Midwest, many of them in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota. And hope -- they're hoping to God that lots of these Democrat ballots fail, that the people fill out their ballots in an incorrect way. And there's a lot of spoilage and that somehow this Democratic turnout machine fails in some key states. And these rallies, which we're going to see pipe up more and more and more. I was talking to a Trump aide yesterday who said he's asking for more rallies than they booked for him. He wants to do three or four events a day. You're just going to see this amp up as we get closer to Election Day.</s>SCIUTTO: It's essentially -- as you say, it's a paced strategy. I suppose you could say that's been his administration, right, is rallying the base here. I just wonder because -- and I want to throw up this tweet that the president shared yesterday taking aim at Joe Biden, because you mentioned seniors. Biden for resident, in effect, saying Joe Biden should be put in a home here. Not a ideal message, you might imagine, for retirees to be described in that way. I just wonder, is there anyone on his team encouraging him to moderate his message, right, in other words, to reach beyond that base given -- trailing, for instance, among seniors this cycle?</s>SWAN: Well, the real remarkable thing about that tweet is it looks like one of his staff did it. It looks like, you know, when Trump tweets out memes, it's usually Dan Scavino, who is the deputy White House chief of staff communications. So I don't know with this particular tweet. But you have a situation where not only are very few people restraining him. but some people are actively encouraging him in some of these instances, which I don't think there's a single political strategist out there, pollster, who would say that the way to win Florida seniors is to continually describe Joe Biden as this slobbering, useless, senile wreck who belongs in a nursing home. I don't know that anyone who says that's the path to winning over senior voters.</s>SCIUTTO: Understood. And I want to ask you before we go just about the Senate. You do hear some Republicans internally, privately, so concerned about the president's standing that they're focusing resources, money, donor money focusing on Senate races. What is their level of concern about losing Republican control of the Senate?</s>SWAN: It's extremely high. I was talking to -- I've talked to a number of people who are looking at the polls, the private polls for Republican, just not the media polls. It's looking very, very bad right now. And the problem for a lot of these senators is while they would like to distance themselves from Trump occasionally, they can't afford to because they need every single Trump voter. So if you look at someone like Thom Tillis in North Carolina, he can't afford to cut ties with Trump. He has to, to some extent, stick with Trump because he needs every Trump vote in North Carolina. They're in a really tough position.</s>SCIUTTO: There's an interesting description of how they end up in that position, right, sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Because, of course, they would need to appeal to some moderates as well, you would imagine. Jonathan Swan, always good to have you on. We hope you have a good week (ph).</s>SWAN: Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.</s>HARLOW: Well, Supreme Court Nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett is facing another round of questioning today. What are Democrats zeroing in on this morning? We'll discuss that ahead.

Trump's Supreme Court Pick Faces Second Round of Questions.

HARLOW: Right now, you're looking at live pictures there. Senators are questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett. This is day three of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.</s>SCIUTTO: CNN Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic is here now. Joan, a big focus yesterday, Democrats, was zeroing in on the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, how she might rule. Same focus today for Democrats or will they go somewhere else?</s>JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Good morning, Jim. They've started out that way but they're expanding to other very relevant issues for today. They think that Obamacare is a good issue for them because of, you know, its coverage of more than 20 million Americans and the risks that some people would face if the Trump administration wins at the Supreme Court in its case to strike it down. But they're smartly, I think, broadening into voting rights issues, just how things might go in this election cycle, bringing up the long lines at polls, bringing up Supreme Court precedent that actually curtails the right to vote and trying to pin her down on those issues too, Jim.</s>HARLOW: So, Senator Leahy just asked Judge Barrett this, quote, does a president have an absolute right to pardon himself for a crime? Still very relevant to -- maybe to the current election. And I ask you this because your piece this morning about day one of questioning, the headline, Joan, is The Art of the Dodge.</s>BISKUPIC: Yes. Well, she definitely dodged that question and she's dodges anything that has to do with President Trump and some of his bolder stances that he can pardon himself or that he might not leave office. And what she has said is that she would have to look at the precedence, that could be a case that comes before the court. She sidestepped it that way. But, Poppy, to your question about my piece, you know, the Supreme Court confirmation hearings are all about bobbing and weaving. I will say that most Supreme Court candidates try to avoid saying anything that would compromise their judicial independence or cost them votes. But they have, in the past, tried to give senators some things to at least ask follow-up questions about, give more of a window into their interior thinking about legal principles. And she has offered very minimal answers and shut down a lot of the questioning, which, frankly, seems to be effective because she's is not getting that many complaints or confrontations.</s>SCIUTTO: Well, it raises the question, Joan, doesn't it, what function do these hearings perform, right? I mean, even on a simple question, can the president delay the election, which I talked to a lot of lawyers after her non-answer on that, it's not exactly a big question as a matter of law. What's the point?</s>BISKUPIC: Well, I think that's a good question, Jim. It does lets us see nominee, at least gives us a sense of her character, her temperament under better circumstances. We could at least pick up more on her legal principles that we could then compare to how she votes down the line. It is supposed to be a forum for constitutional debate rather than an empty exercise. And, you know some of us will take whatever we can get but with a great deal of frustration, as you say, Jim.</s>SCIUTTO: Yes.

Experts Warn of Resurgence as Global Cases Top 38 Million; Trump Take Late Campaign Blitz to Pennsylvania; U.S. President Attacks Dr. Fauci Over Rally Criticism; Biden Makes Pitch to Senior Citizens in Florida; Barrett Dodges Questions on Hot-Button Issues; Biden Leads in Six Swing State Trump Won in 2016.

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us here in the United States and all around the world, you are watching CNN NEWSROOM and I'm Rosemary Church. Just ahead, as the pandemic rages on, Joe Biden and Donald Trump are both out campaigning, though in very different ways as they head into the final stretch before election day. Also ahead -- Democratic Senators grill Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee on key issues, but Amy Coney Barrett did a lot of bobbing and weaving. And millions of Americans are voting early, but some are already experiencing extremely long waits and lines. Good to have you with us. Well, rising cases in dozens of states, a growing test positivity rate and cold weather in the forecast for months. Experts say the fall and winter surge they've been warning about is here. Take a look at this graphic. The states in red and orange have seen more new coronavirus cases this week than last. That is according to data from Johns Hopkins University. That's more than 30 states where caseloads are climbing fast. Meanwhile, another setback in the search for a treatment. Eli Lilly has had to pause its antibody treatment trial over safety concerns. CNN's Erica Hill has the latest on the surge in cases and other COVID news from around the United States.</s>ERICA HILL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than seven months into this pandemic, the U.S. is sliding backwards.</s>DR. PETER HOTEZ, DEAN OF TROPICAL MEDICINE, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: This is going to be a very tough winter. We may see a rise in new cases that exceeds what we saw back in March and April.</s>HILL: Thirty-three states now seeing new cases rise over the past week. Nearly half of those also posting their highest seven-day averages for new cases since the pandemic began.</s>DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Now is the time to act. Now is the time to do something about it.</s>HILL: COVID-related hospitalizations at record highs in five states. Positivity rates which ideally should be at 3 percent or less are climbing.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: We're starting to see a number of states well above that which is often and in fact, the variable and highly predictive resurgence of cases.</s>HILL: In New York, hefty fines and tickets as the city tries to contain clusters by enforcing masks, limiting gatherings and closing nonessential businesses.</s>MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO (D), NEW YORK CITY: We are now in day four of the pause in those areas and we are seeing some results.</s>HILL: It's not just New York clamping down, across much of Europe restrictions are returning as new cases and anxiety grow.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Each of the last four days has been the highest number of cases recorded so far.</s>HILL: Eli Lily pausing its trial of an antibody treatment today. One touted by the President. Telling CNN safety of the utmost importance, without offering specifics. Johnson & Johnson just paused phase three of its vaccine trial because of an unexpected illness in one of the volunteers.</s>HOTEZ: To me, it's reassuring that companies are acting responsibly and pausing when they need to.</s>HILL: AstraZeneca's U.S. trials remain on hold pending an FDA investigation. Meantime, in Dallas, a big moment for Major League Baseball.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is amazing.</s>HILL: Spectators, more than 11,000 allowed in for game one of the</s>NLCS. FREDDIE FREEMAN, ATLANTA BRAVES FIRST BASEMAN: It's just great to have baseball fans in the stands again.</s>HILL: The Philadelphia Eagles will welcome a limited number of fans to the stadium this Sunday. (on camera): While there are some bright spots when it comes to major league sports here in New York City, the New York Philharmonic is canceling its entire season for the first time in its 178-year history. The president and CEO calling the situation dreadful. In New York, I'm Erica Hill, CNN.</s>CHURCH: With less than three weeks to go before the U.S. election, President Donald Trump is wasting no time getting back on the campaign trail. His latest rally coming Tuesday in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. The event featured few masks and little physical distancing in a state where new COVID cases are said to be up 63 percent in the past months. The President told supporters he feels great now following his recent last bout with the virus. And praised his doctors and medical treatment. Meanwhile, Democratic nominee Joe Biden who continues to lead Mr. Trump in national polls spent Tuesday courting senior citizens in Florida. Former President Barack Obama will hit the campaign trail on Biden's behalf starting next week. CNN's Jeremy Diamond is following President Trump's campaign blitz and explains why Pennsylvania is now a top priority.</s>JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Trump back on the road later tonight kicking off a three-week sprint to election day in battleground Pennsylvania. Which could be the tipping point in the presidential rate. It's his sixth visit to the state since last month and a campaign source telling CNN the President plans to campaign here more than any other swing state before election day. Trump will head to Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia, all states he won in 2016 but where he's now trailing or neck in neck with former Vice President Joe Biden. As Trump rushes to revive his campaign, he's also flailing on Twitter claiming Republicans will provide low cost health care and always protect people with pre-existing conditions. Even though he still hasn't unveiled a plan to do that. And he is seizing on small scale postal crime to falsely claim the 2020 election will be rigged. Fresh off his coronavirus recovery.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now they say I'm immune.</s>DIAMOND: Trump is back to spreading misinformation about the pandemic claiming he's immune despite cases of people getting re-infected.</s>TRUMP: I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience. I'll walk in there. I'll kiss everyone in that audience.</s>DIAMOND: And mocking social distancing measures at Biden campaign events.</s>TRUMP: 30 people show up, they put them in those crazy circles, right?</s>DIAMOND: After Dr. Anthony Fauci gave this warning on "THE LEAD" about Trump's packed, mostly mask-less rallies.</s>FAUCI: We know that that is asking for trouble when you do that.</s>DIAMOND: Trump lashing out, tweeting -- Tony's pitching arm is far more accurate than his prognostications. Referring to Fauci's first pitch at a Washington Nationals game, and his initial recommendation that masks were unnecessary and could cause shortages for health care workers. But Fauci and the CDC have been imploring Americans to wear masks and practice social distancing since April.</s>FAUCI: We should be doubling down and implementing the public health measures that we've been talking about for so long, which are keeping a distance, no crowds, wearing masks, washing hands, doing things outside.</s>DIAMOND (on camera): And once again on Tuesday during the President's rally here in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, he was rallying thousands of people, no social distancing, very few masks in the audience. And the President plans to return to this battleground state of Pennsylvania repeatedly. A Trump campaign source telling me that the President will return to Pennsylvania more times than any other battleground state in the three weeks between now and election day. Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Johnstown, Pennsylvania.</s>CHURCH: And as we reported a short time ago, Joe Biden is reaching out to senior voters in the battleground state of Florida. CNN's Jeff Zeleny explains why this group is so important to a Biden victory.</s>JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Three weeks before election day Joe Biden campaigning in critical Florida, trying to improve his standing among senior voters with President Donald Trump. Joe Biden has been leading the way against the President for months, now he is extending that lead among the critical senior voters. It is because of the President's handling of coronavirus. Now as the former vice president made the first speech here in Florida, he specifically talked about the President's own diagnosis and handling of his illness.</s>JOE BIDEN, U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I prayed for his recovery when he got COVID. I had hoped at least he would come out of it somewhat chasten. But what has he done? He has just doubled down on the misinformation he did before and making it worse.</s>ZELENY: Biden, extending his pitch to seniors on Social Security saying he will preserve that entitlement for older Americans. This is a critical electoral bloc here in Florida and indeed around the country. And Joe Biden is leading the way among seniors. This is a group that Donald Trump won four years ago. No question Florida is one of the most important states in the country, President Trump of course campaigned on Monday, he's coming back to the state on Friday. Joe Biden talking about why these 29 electoral votes are so key.</s>BIDEN: Here in Florida you can determine and outcome of this election. We win Florida and it's all over.</s>ZELENY: And Joe Biden may also be getting an assist from former President Barack Obama on the campaign trail. We are told that the former president will be joining this Democratic race next week for the first-time campaigning in early voting states, particularly going after African American voters, Latino voters, and young voters. They are trying to get those voters in particular to vote for Joe Biden. And we could also see in the final days of this race that old pair back together again on the campaign trail campaigning side by side, Biden and Obama. Jeff Zeleny, CNN, West Palm Beach, Florida.</s>CHURCH: President Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court has wrapped up her second day of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Amy Coney Barrett was grilled on hot button issues including health care, abortion and a potential election related case. But the judge provided mostly vague answers when asked to elaborate on her legal views. Instead she insisted she would have no political agenda when ruling on issues like the Affordable Care Act.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I have the integrity to act consistently with my oath and apply the law as the law. To approach the ACA in every other statute without bias and I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that. I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.</s>CHURCH: Barrett will face more questions from Senators in the coming hours. Her confirmation is all but guaranteed and would cement a conservative majority on the high court. Joining us now is CNN legal analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York state, Elie Honig. Good to have you with us.</s>ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thanks for having me, Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: So, Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to say how she would rule on upcoming case like the Affordable Care Act and abortion rights, same sex marriage, gun rights. She just said no one ever talked about any case with her before the nomination. What did you make of her answers to these questions about how she might rule on contentious issue?</s>HONIG: Yes, so today we saw a sort of, I guess, frustrating dance where the Democrats were trying to get her to give some indication of where she might be leaning on these cases, or what her overall judicial philosophy is and she really gave them next to nothing to go on. I thought that was a really memorable moment when Amy Coney Barrett held up her note pad and it was blank. And I think both sides saw that their own way. The Republicans saw that as well, look at the mastery she's demonstrating. She doesn't even need notes or talking points. I think Democrats took that moment as sort of symbolic of the fact that she really offered almost nothing in the way of substance today. I think you have to read between the lines a little bit as to what she was and was not willing to say. And a key thing was this argument about precedent. Under what circumstances will you change an existing decision, Roe versus Wade, of course, being the most important one of those.</s>CHURCH: Right. And Judge Barrett wouldn't answer the question put to her about how she would rule if President Trump tried to delay the election. Why would she not answer that directly given its pretty clear cut, or recuse herself from any election-related case?</s>HONIG: Yes, it's a good question. When she was asked does the president have the power to delay the election? The answer should have just been straight up n-o, no. Our Constitution is clear, only Congress has that power. It's not going to happen we're three weeks away. There's another question that you talk about, if there is an election- related case, a dispute, a Biden versus Trump which could happen, we don't know, will she recuse herself because President Trump publicly, essentially said we need to get or through, we need nine justices in case there's an election dispute. Only Amy Coney Barrett can make that decision for herself. Nobody can force her to recuse. I think it's pretty clear she will not recuse. But that decision is entirely up to the Supreme Court justice herself.</s>CHURCH: Yes, and there is an inevitability about all of this, isn't there? So, what do you expect to come out of the third day of confirmation hearings for Judge Barrett getting underway in just a few hours from now? And what will you be looking for?</s>HONIG: I think we'll see a continuation of really, two fights -- two sides fighting different battles. On the one hand, the Republicans just want to just get this done. They want to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed. They want to get a robe on her before election day. Because if and when they do, and they will, there will be a six to three conservative majority in the Supreme Court that could last for many years. I think the Democrats are playing a different game. I think they understand they can't stop this nomination. It's just math. The Republicans have the majority. I think Democrats are making a pitch here to voters, they are really focusing on the Affordable Care Act, not even in a legal way, but in a visceral emotional way. We saw today photographs of people who rely on health insurance. And I think Democrats are really making their pitch to voters who are watching. I would expect that to continue in day two of the questioning of Judge Barrett.</s>CHURCH: Right. Elie Honig, thank you so much. We appreciate your legal analysis on all of this.</s>HONIG: Thanks, Rosemary. My pleasure.</s>CHURCH: Record crowds are turning out for early voting in some parts of the U.S., but the process isn't always going smoothly.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody's come out to vote here. Lines around the corner.</s>CHURCH: Ahead, a look at some of the long lines and long waiting times for early voters. We're back with that in just a moment.

Long Waits Reported for Early Voting in Some States

CHURCH: The U.S. attorney who was tapped to investigate instances of so-called unmasking around the 2016 U.S. election has reportedly completed his probe without bringing any criminal charges. According to "The Washington Post" U.S. Attorney General William Barr had appointed prosecutor John Bash to review whether Obama era officials improperly requested the identities of people whose names had been redacted in intelligence documents. But Bash who resigned from the Justice Department last week has concluded there was no substantive wrongdoing. Well, the U.S. Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to halt the census count. The decision will stand while an appeal plays out in lower courts. At issue is whether the administration's decision to shorten the census count by more than a month should be permitted. The Trump administration said the revised deadline is necessary to give the Commerce Department enough time to meet a December deadline to report final numbers. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the order raising concerns a shorter timeline would produce inaccurate results. Well, 2020 looks to be a record-breaking year for early voting in the U.S. but the process isn't always going smoothly. There are reports of mechanical problems, long lines and long waits. CNN's Pamela Brown has more.</s>PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Another state, another day of hours and long lines and some mishaps as voters go to the polls. This time, Texas.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody has come out to vote here. Lines around the corner.</s>BROWN: Across the Lone Star State, Houston, Ft. Hood, South Austin, all with long lines as voters take advantage of the start of early voting.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I just came out I would say about 2 1/2 hours.</s>BROWN: In Harris County, early voters hoping to use drive-through voting are facing similar delays. And Travis County where a whapping 97 percent of the county's 850,000 eligible voters are registered to vote. Some voting machines weren't working. After waking up to news of a late-night ruling upholding Republican Governor Greg Abbott's directive for one ballot drop box per county in the state. A major issue for densely populated counties where voters could spend more than an hour driving just to cast their vote.</s>CHRIS HOLLINS, HARRIS COUNTY CLERK: More than 50 miles in some cases to drop off their mail ballot. It's unfair. It's prejudicial and it's dangerous.</s>BROWN: It comes a day after a similar start in Georgia where voters waited for hours to vote. In Gwinnett County, some voters waiting in line for up to eight hours.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to be out here to be able to share my voice.</s>BROWN: And Georgia is setting an early voting record with nearly 127,000 ballots cast. Some of the more than 1.5 million case nationwide. More voters, more long lines.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many people sacrificed before, so it's almost spit in their face if we don't take the time to show our kids, that they have this right and it's best used as early as possible.</s>BROWN: But voting rights advocates say it's not OK to make people wait like this.</s>HAROLD FRANKLIN, BOARD CHAIR, SOUTHEAST REGION, LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, ATLANTA: There have been problems with poll pads, with ballot access cards, with, obviously, social distancing and it just taking a lot longer to process through lines.</s>BROWN: In Virginia, the last day of voter registration saw the state's online registration system was down for several hours due to an IT cable that was accidently severed. Prompting calls from some state leaders to extend the registration deadline. Meanwhile in California unofficial ballot drop boxes potentially illegal in the state as the state's Democratic Secretary of State and the Department of Justice are sending a cease and desist order to the California Republican Party to remove them in at least three counties.</s>ALEX PADILLA, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE: This is wrong no matter who is doing it. It's not just the security of the ballot that's in question here. It is, you know, the transparency, voter confidence.</s>BROWN: The state Republican Party spokesman telling CNN he believes the boxes are similar to giving the ballot to a family member to drop off which is legal in California. While in New York, the city's police commissioner informed all uniform servicemembers to be prepared for deployment starting October 25. Citing the possibility of protests before and after the 2020 presidential election, according to an internal memo obtained by CNN. Pamela Brown, CNN, Washington.</s>CHURCH: Joining us now is CNN's senior writer and political analyst, Harry Enten. Great to see you, Harry.</s>HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER AND ANALYST: My pleasure to be with you.</s>CHURCH: So, early voting shows people waiting up to eight hours to cast their ballot. Certainly, in Georgia, some Democrats still nervous though about a repeat of 2016 despite Donald Trump trailing his rival Joe Biden. What are the polls telling you?</s>ENTEN: Yes, I mean, look, I hear this 2016 comparison an awful lot, and you know, Hillary Clinton was in the lead at this particular point in the 2016 campaign, but her lead looks nothing like what Joe Biden looks like right now. Joe Biden is ahead by 11 points. Hillary Clinton was ahead by just six. But more than, Joe Biden has been consistently above 50 percent, while Hillary Clinton never reach that 50 percent threshold at this point in the campaign. So even if Donald Trump wins all the undecided voters Joe Biden would still be ahead. That's very different than it was four years ago where Trump won a lot of those late deciding voters and they were the ones who helped put him over the top.</s>CHURCH: Right. So national polls of course are one thing. It's the Electoral College that decides this. What do polls in battleground states indicate in terms of shifts in voting groups?</s>ENTEN: Yes, you know, I took a look at the six closest states that Donald Trump won four years ago. And take a look at these states now and what you see is you see Joe Biden is ahead not in one of them, not in two, but in all six of those states he is ahead. And in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, he holds significant 8, 9-point leads. And the fact of the matter is Joe Biden wins that the states Hillary Clinton won four years ago plus Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, that gets him over 270 electoral votes.</s>CHURCH: Do you think that will calm some of the Democrats' nerves? So, when you look at all these polls, it appears that Biden is doing very well. But Trump insists he has a path to victory. Do you see it?</s>ENTEN: I mean, look, we still have three weeks to go so we'll have to wait and see. But you know, another way of sort of getting at this is sort of the states that around the periphery, right? That the candidates might carry if they blow someone out. And if you look at these states, the states that last time around Hillary Clinton won say, by three points or less, those are the states that Trump wants to reach and win. And you look at the Biden reaches the states that Trump won by 5 to 10 points in 2016, what do you see? And the states that are essentially the Trump reaches, Biden is well ahead on all of them by 7 to 15 points. While in the Biden reaches, Biden actually has nominal edges in three of those four states. So, at this particular point, look, we're still three weeks to go, you know, I'll say that over and over again. Right now, Trump, if the election were held today, he might have a path, but it would be a very, very narrow path.</s>CHURCH: Right, and when voters watch President Trump hold these rallies with supporters' shoulder to shoulder, not wearing masks, interns many people off. And it can help his position, of course, when it comes to trust. How and how he's been handling this pandemic but what are the numbers show on that? What do they reveal?</s>ENTEN: Right, you know, about I'm not a doctor but I am somewhat of a polling expert. And from a poll standpoint, I don't know what the heck the President is doing. Because when you look at who is more trusted to handle the coronavirus at this particular point, Joe Biden has an overwhelming advantage over the President of the United States. 59 percent to 38 percent our last CNN poll. And part of the reason why he has that large advantage is because they don't like what Trump is doing. They think he's irresponsible. And the events that he's been holding over the last few days merely reinforces that fact.</s>CHURCH: Harry Enten, always a pleasure to chat with you. Many thanks.</s>ENTEN: Thank you.</s>CHURCH: Well, many countries that had once lifted coronavirus restrictions are now considering going back to stricter measures. The coronavirus is resurging across the northern hemisphere. Our team will take a look at the global fight. That's next.

Non-Committal Coney Barrett Completes Day One; Trump's Pennsylvania Rally: Unmasked And Up Close; COVID Continues Its U.S. Resurge; Vaccine Delays Highlight Reality; Liverpool, England & U.K.'S Toughest Restrictions

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: During her confirmation hearing, the nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, seemed to be a woman with no past, no opinions. A blank slate. Even though she's likely to the most conservative of all nine judges. A new surge of the coronavirus in the U.S. brings new warnings that hospitals could soon be overwhelmed and the daily death toll could spike into the thousands. Just like every credible health expert predicted months ago. And an alleged domestic terrorist plot apparently targeted not one but two governors, both from states singled out by Donald Trump. Donald Trump now has just 20 days to try and win back supporters who've deserted him in troves and turn around a faltering campaign for a second term. And the plan seems to be more of the same. More bravado, more lies, more willful defiance of his own administration's guidelines to slow the spread of coronavirus. CNN's Jeremy Diamond traveled to the president's latest super spreader rally in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.</s>JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: President Trump began the day on Tuesday attacking Dr. Anthony Fauci who's been talking about the very same rallies that President Trump hosted on Tuesday night, saying they are a concern. Particularly because of the lack of any social distancing, there are very few masks being worn here. But the president carrying forward with this. He plans to hold a rally every day or perhaps multiple rallies a day in the three weeks between now and election day. The president on Tuesday in Johnstown, Pennsylvania spending much of his time attacking former vice president Joe Biden on issues like trade. And also, of course, on the energy issues that are important here in Pennsylvania like fracking. But the president making false claims about Biden's record. Claiming that he wants to ban fracking, that's not true. Biden only wants to stop the issuance of new permits for fracking on public lands but not ban fracking that's happening now. And the president also making a play for an important demographic here in the state of Pennsylvania. And that is suburban women. Listen to how the president approached that.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I ask you to do me a favor. Suburban women, will you please like me? Please, please. I saved your damn neighborhood. OK.</s>DIAMOND: Now what the president's referring to there is an Obama era regulation that sought to desegregate the suburbs. That is the Fair Housing regulation that President Trump has abolished and that he's now touting in his pitch to suburban women. But what the president does seem to at least recognize here is that he is struggling with that key demographic which is so important to this must-win state of Pennsylvania. But the problem is that the main issue on voters' minds, including those suburban women that the president is targeting is the coronavirus pandemic. And we know that cases in the United States are rising right now. Despite what President Trump said Tuesday night about this virus disappearing, cases are rising in 33 states in the United States. Jeremy Diamond. Johnstown, Pennsylvania.</s>VAUSE: The Biden campaign appears to be wheeling out the big guns in the final days before the election with Barack Obama campaigning for his former VP this week. Joe Biden spent Tuesday on Florida making a pitch to seniors. Not since Al Gore ran for president 20 years has a Democratic nominee held a strong lead among voters 65 years and older and it seems this key conservative bloc is turning against Trump.</s>JOE BIDEN, FMR. VICE PRESIDENT AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: It's become painfully clear as his careless, arrogant, reckless COVID response has caused one of the worst tragedies in American history. The only senior that Donald Trump cares about, the only senior, is the senior Donald Trump.</s>VAUSE: And the fight over Donald Trump's supreme court choice resumes Wednesday in the senate judiciary committee. Amy Coney Barrett stonewalled questions on a range of key issues including health, care, abortion and gay rights. Her confirmation is all but guaranteed and would cement a conservative majority on the court. Barrett insists, though, she will chart her own course.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.), HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIR: People say that you're a female Scalia, what would you say?</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I would say that Justice Scalia was obviously a mentor. And, as I said when I accepted the president's nomination, that his philosophy is mine too. But I want to be careful to say that if I'm confirmed you would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett.</s>VAUSE: Susan Hennessey is a CNN national security and legal analyst as well as executive editor of the "Lawfare" blog. She is with us this hour from Washington. Susan, thank you for being with us. What was interesting today, this game that Supreme Court nominees play with senators refusing to give definitive answers. Like in this case where Barrett stands on the legality of the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare. And this is an issue which will come before the supreme court a week after the election. And this is what she had to say.</s>BARRETT: I think that your concern is that because I critiqued the statutory reasoning that I'm hostile to the ACA. And that because I'm hostile to the ACA that I would decide a case a particular way. And I assure that I am not. I am not hostile to the ACA.</s>VAUSE: That that may be disappointing to one President Donald J. Trump who promised back in 2015 -- "If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing unlike Bush's appointee, John Roberts on Obamacare." That's a reference to Chief Justice Roberts who sided with the four liberal justices in a ruling which actually Obamacare. Is the reality here that the Democrats can't stop Barrett's confirmation but they can certainly hammer home what the political and real world consequences will be?</s>SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY & LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So what we're seeing play out is the customary dance that surrounds these nominations all the time by which the nominee sort of pretends to not have any opinion whatsoever on cases that might come before the court. Despite the fact that everybody in the room, the nominee included, everybody watching on television, knows full well the nominee has been selected precisely for those views on these various issues. And so to hear Judge Barrett sort of suggest that well, she offered this very, very detailed statutory critique of why John Roberts was wrong on the ACA but there's no way to know how she might rule whenever this case comes up again. Again, not unusual. Certainly it's consistent (ph) with how prior nominees have sort of acted. That said, I think a little bit of a farce and pretty clear that she was in fact selected for that very purpose. One thing that was surprising was the extent to which she was really, really reticent to even say relatively obvious things like whenever she was asked whether or not a president could unilaterally delay an election, sort of declining to answer that question. That's a no-brainer. That's a really, really easy question to answer. And so Barrett really, really was taking things to the extreme in kind of declining to say anything substantive whatsoever.</s>VAUSE: Yes. She wouldn't even say voter intimidation was illegal. She sort of punted on that one as well. There did, however, appear to be one crack in all of that stonewalling. It came over the issue of abortion and the supreme court ruling in Roe versus Wade which legalized abortion. And whether or that was a super-precedent, a case so well settled that it was untouchable. Here she is, listen to this.</s>BARRETT: The way that it's used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you're reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category.</s>VAUSE: And when you look at her background, it's hardly surprising that this is where she stands. Her record on opposing abortion; she delivered a lectures to the "Right to Life" club at the University of Notre Dame where she was teaching. She joined an anti-abortion rights faculty group there. Signed her name to a letter in a local newspaper criticizing what they called Roe's "barbaric legacy." Many groups opposed to abortion rights have cheered her nomination, religious conservatives are thrilled, they believe this will be the end of legalized abortion in this country or at least limitations to it. Why the cat and mouse game on this one? And why -- you said this is what they all do but in this case, she's through, she's confirmed. Why not just be honest?</s>HENNESSEY: Well she hasn't yet been confirmed, right? So she is still in the nomination process, and I do think it's part of this sort of tradition. That said, it's not just clear that Judge Barrett is hostile to reproductive rights and abortion in her personal and private views but also into her jurisprudence. She's been quite clear -- sort of her legal views on the topic. That said, there's a little bit of sort of a game played with Roe V. Wade sort of in particular and this question of whether or not Barrett or the other justices might overturn Roe directly. Really, the question here is about a series of cases and not necessarily whether or not the supreme court is going to overturn Roe and sort of get rid of abortion in one fell swoop. Or instead sort of take an approach of the death by 1,000 cuts. And essentially interpret cases to be so restrictive of reproductive rights, of abortion rights, that essentially the right is functionally meaningless and independent (ph) on the state in which an individual actually lives. And so sort of this academic discussion based on the question of how strong the specific precedent is ultimately it is distractionary. Because, again, everybody in that room, everybody watching is well aware of where Judge Barrett and where Justice Barrett would ultimately rule on the question.</s>VAUSE: Very quickly. We had a letter from her former faculty members of Notre Dame. Almost 90 of them wrote an open letter calling for Amy Coney Barrett to essentially step down from all of this. Saying that is the only way this can be resolved and end a the divisions within the country. That's not going to happen though, is it?</s>HENNESSEY: I think there's no question that that's going to happen. But what that letter is getting to the incredibly unprecedented nature of this confirmation. A vote that might come up as quickly -- sort of less than a week prior to a presidential election really in a circumstance in which it raises basic questions about the fundamental legitimacy of the court. And if Judge Barrett was in fact confirmed, the legitimacy and public confidence in the court moving forward. And these are members of her fellow faculty saying look, this is incumbent upon you to sort of be the adult in the room, put country over personal ambition. Wait, just wait two weeks until we see who wins the U.S. election, who is elected president so that person can ultimately fill this seat. That said, I think it's very, very unlikely Judge Barrett will answer that call.</s>VAUSE: Thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate it. And yes, you're right. It seems incredibly an unlikely outcome here.</s>HENNESSEY: Thanks for having me.</s>VAUSE: The number of coronavirus cases is climbing at alarming rates worldwide with Johns Hopkins University reporting 38 million people have now been infected. Among them an 89-year old woman in the Netherlands, the first known person to die after catching the virus twice. Raising concerns and questions about immunity and antibodies. And with the second wave which health experts have long warned about now here in the U.S., it seems a viable and safe vaccine is taking a lot longer to develop than many politicians had promised. More details from CNN's Brian Todd.</s>BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Another medical research setback. A therapy to help people with coronavirus put on hold. A trial for an antibody treatment that Eli Lilly is developing, similar to what Donald Trump took when he had coronavirus is paused, due to a potential safety concern. It comes a day after Johnson & Johnson said it paused the advanced clinical trial of its experimental vaccine because one of its volunteers suffered an illness. The company didn't say what the illness was. This is the second phase three vaccine trial to be paused in the U.S. following AstraZeneca's pause last month. Is the vaccine timetable in jeopardy?</s>DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: I think it is likely that we will have a vaccine or vaccines by early next year. I think that these clinical pauses do slow things down somewhat but I think in the long run we will see these as a bump in the road.</s>TODD: But the number of states with increases in new cases keeps going up. Thirty-three states, as of Tuesday, trending upward. With the country averaging nearly 50,000 new cases a day. Dr. Anthony Fauci said he's particularly worried about the central U.S.'s upticks in positivity rates.</s>DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Which is often and, in fact, invariably highly predictive of a resurgence in cases. Which historically we know leads to an increase in hospitalizations and then ultimately an increase in deaths.</s>TODD: In Nashville, Tennessee, officials are investigating this religious concert on Sunday. Hundreds of people crowding together, many not wearing masks. Another potential super spreader that experts are now worried about? President Trump's crowded rally in Florida on Monday.</s>DR. SEEMA YASMIN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: The problem is that while there are people who are being really responsible and careful when it comes to COVID-19, there are other people who are very cavalier, who are letting their guard down. And that puts everybody at risk.</s>TODD: Walmart isn't taking that chance. Temporarily closing one of its stores in El Paso County, Colorado where there's been a new spike in cases. Meantime, the news on young people and school reopenings is mixed. A new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association reports a 13 percent increase in child cases of coronavirus between September 24th and October 8th. But in New York City where all eyes are on the nation's largest school district reopening for in-person learning, the mayor says only one person tested positive out of more than 1,700 that went through a recent round of testing.</s>MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, N.Y.: We've started our monthly sampling in every one of our schools. And this has just begun, it's going to grow. But we're seeing very encouraging results and results that are consistent with what we've seen with the detailed testing efforts outside of schools.</s>TODD: And the mayor does report some other positive news outside of New York City schools. He said in those neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens where they saw those very worrisome clusters of coronavirus spikes recently, they're starting to see those areas level off in new cases. The mayor saying the restrictions they put in place starting to possibly turn the tide in those areas. Brian Todd. CNN, Washington.</s>VAUSE: Dr. Ravina Kullar is an epidemiologist and expert on infectious diseases. And she's with us this hour from Los Angeles. Doctor, thank you for taking the time. I don't if you saw it but a few hours ago on "FOX NEWS," former CNN and former MSNBC anchor Tucker Carlson seemed almost unhinged during an anti-mask tirade claiming the public has been lied to, masks actually increase the chances of spreading the coronavirus. Here's part of it.</s>TUCKER CARLSON, "FOX NEWS" HOST: Dissent used to be a defining feature of American life but no more. Now we have mandatory consensus. Masks are good. Anyone who questions the utter goodness of masks is bad. What they're really telling you is that masks are magic. What appears to be a flimsy cotton face covering is, in fact, a holy amulet that protects us from the disease more reliably than any modern medicine.</s>VAUSE: And so it goes on. Carlson cites this CDC study which he claims found that almost everyone who caught the coronavirus wore a mask either all or some of the time. The problem is the study does not make that conclusion at all. It was picked up, misquoted on social media. Facebook flagged it as misinformation. The actual findings are quite the opposite. But beyond the poor and totally irresponsible journalism by Carlson, just how dangerous is that sort of rant? At this point in time.</s>RAVINA KULLAR, SPOKESWOMAN, INFECTIOUS DISEASES SOCIETY OF AMERICA: Well, first of all, I want to thank you, John, for having me on. And that is a very dangerous statement to be made because we are in the midst of this pandemic. We have over 38 million cases worldwide, about over one million people have died worldwide. Here in the U.S. alone, over 220,000 people have died. We know for a fact that masks do work, we know for a fact that physical distancing works. We know for a fact that avoiding mass gatherings whether it's apeaceful protest, where it's a political rally, whether it's a college football game, all of those they work. So this is very concerning that this late in the game when we are knee deep in this pandemic that there are points being made against a masks. Which are our only infection prevention measure we have. As well as those other measures which I pointed out as well.</s>VAUSE: President Trump was again out on the trail. He was telling his supporters life is great after COVID, something that more than 220,000 Americans are unable to say. He claims to have immunity. And that came with a warning from Dr. Fauci. Here he is. Listen to this.</s>FAUCI: He has an immune response in him that very likely would protect him from being reinfected. But we've got to be careful about that. Because we're starting to see a number of cases that are being reported of people who get reinfected, well-documented cases of people who were infected. After a relatively brief period of time measured anywhere from weeks to several months, come back, get exposed and get infected again.</s>VAUSE: And those words seem to take extra meaning now that we know of this first case of someone dying from catching COVID-19 twice. And really, there were underlying health issues with this woman, she was a cancer patient. But clearly they say that COVID-19, a second time, was the cause of death.</s>KULLAR: Yes. I think Dr. Fauci brings back a great point. That reinfection can happen. But I want to take a step back and state that there have been 38 million cases worldwide. And to date, there have only been 22 reinfection cases. So I think something to keep in mind is that we still don't know this whole picture of immunity; how long is someone immune for, is it -- from our studies, we've seen potentially three months. So President Trump stating that he is completely immune, I think that's too early of a statement to be made. We're still figuring out what immunity looks like, who develops immunity, who are those individuals that do get reinfected, what are some risk factors that they have? That story still has to be delved further into.</s>VAUSE: I want to talk very briefly talk about a vaccine. Because Johnson & Johnson's trial remain on hold after a volunteer became ill. Listen to the company's CFO with more details. Here he is.</s>JOE WOLK, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, JOHNSON & JOHNSON: We don't know even at this point whether that individual was in the placebo arm or the vaccinated arm. And we just have to do a little bit more diligence through the independent external panel before we can make any conclusive decisions going forward. But again, in speaking with our scientific team especially for a study that's this large, 60,000 patients, to have an adverse event or two unexpectedly is not uncommon.</s>VAUSE: And that's the point here. Because this is sort of how vaccines are trialed. And this is why making those sort of statements, that a vaccine can be ready within weeks or days or months, whatever, just seems to be kind of pointless. And in a way counterproductive because it undermines the credibility of the process, doesn't it?</s>KULLAR: That's correct, John. These randomized control trials, these clinical trials that are being conducted and these vaccines are looking at the efficacy and the safety. So it's not uncommon for there to be these trials halted because there's some unknown illness that comes about in these patients. Keep in mind, these are healthy volunteers that walk-in and they may develop an unforeseen illness whether that's related to the vaccine or not. Either way these vaccines trials are going to be halted, they're going to be investigated and they're going to be restarted. So it does beg the question that will these clinical trials be done in one year or two years or will it take longer? The fastest I've seen a clinical trial being done is the mumps vaccine, that got done in about four years. It typically takes about 10 years for these clinical trials to be completed. But I'm very hopeful that -- these are Operation Warp Speed clinical trials being down in this pandemic and these trials are being halted because safety is key.</s>VAUSE: Yes. And that's the point, isn't it? That it's about the protocols and the safety measures which are in place. And that's why they're being stopped at the moment, right?</s>KULLAR: That's correct. Solely because of safety to reevaluate and reassess those patients and to determine whether it is safe to continue the clinical trials.</s>VAUSE: OK. Dr. Ravina, thank you so much -- Ravina Kullar, I should say. Thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate it.</s>KULLAR: Thank you, John.</s>VAUSE: Still ahead on CNN NEWSROOM. Harsh new restrictions on the city of Liverpool. The only part of England on very high alert is now warning of economic ruin. Also, two days, seven million tests, four million results. Not one positive case. The latest on how China is dealing with a small outbreak in just one city.

China Mass Tests After Small Cluster

VAUSE: Nowhere in England are there more coronavirus cases right now than Liverpool. The northern city is now under the country's toughest restrictions which many believe were totally avoidable. CNN's Selma Abdelaziz reports from Liverpool.</s>SELMA ABDELAZIZ, CNN REPORTER: Last call in Liverpool.</s>CROWD: (Laughter)</s>ABDELAZIZ: Pubs must shut their doors for at least a month.</s>UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why hasn't London shut down?</s>ABDELAZIZ: Tougher restrictions were ordered after a surge in COVID- 19 cases.</s>CROWD: Hey, hey, hey --</s>ABDELAZIZ: But there is no socially distant farewell here.</s>CROWD: -- hey, hey, hey, hey. Hoo, ha.</s>ABDELAZIZ: The proud port city, birthplace of the Beatles, home to a championship football team is the first to be classified as very high risk. Under England's new three-tier COVID alert system. The government says the decision was driven by the data. The city has the highest number of coronavirus patients in the entire country. Local city councilman, Paul Brant, agrees the rapid rise in infections is a problem. But his consensus with London ends there.</s>PAUL BRANT, COUNCILMAN, PUBLIC HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE, LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL: A rather toxic mix of arrogance and ignorance at central government level has led us to the sorry state that we're in now. I think that the evidence is clear now that a short sharp intervention three, four weeks ago would have avoided the mess that we're in now.</s>ABDELAZIZ: The country's top scientists agree. Three weeks ago, government advisory body suggested a circuit breaker. A short but complete lockdown to reduce case numbers. Their advice went unheeded by Downing Street. After months of controversy over the government's handling of coronavirus, many people here say they're running out of patience and they're running low on trust. There's always been tensions between the north of the country and the central government in London but amidst the pandemic the mistrust is growing. For now, the city's iconic Beatles tours are still running. But tour guide, Jay Johnson, says the country's ruling elite is failing its working class.</s>JAY JOHNSON, BEATLES MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR: Because I've no faith in them at all. They keep changing their minds, constant U-turns, one after another. I personally feel that the government isn't doing enough for us, the prime minister is not doing enough for us. The prime minister has never done enough for us.</s>ABDELAZIZ: And while public confidence dwindles by the day, the government is calling for immediate compliance to avoid a second wave of the pandemic that may be even deadlier than the first. Selma Abdelaziz. CNN, Liverpool.</s>VAUSE: In just two days, more than seven and-a-half million people in Qingdao, China have ben tested for COVID. Already more than four million test results are in. So far not one new positive case. Kristie Lu Stout following all of this for us from Hong Kong. She joins us now live. And those numbers are great, they're impressive. But how reliable are they?</s>KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Reliability is the key question here when you're dealing with testing at such a scale. And the scale is just extraordinary. Qingdao in just a matter of days, it has tested over seven and-a-half million people, over four million results have been returned. And so far, there have been no additional positive cases of COVID-19. Of course, it was over the weekend when those 12 new cases were detected. And that's what prompted this mass testing blitz in this northeastern Chinese city of nine million. And this, has happened before. When during the pandemic in China small clusters were detected in places like Beijing, Dalian, Xinjiang or Wuhan, that prompted a mass rapid testing operation. Some people have said that this has proven to be very helpful in China's battles against the pandemic as it helps to bring down the overall infection rate. But how did they do it at such a scale? Well, they do something called pool testing. It involves hundreds of testing centers like you'd see on your screen right now -- thousands of staffers. What the testers do is they take a pool of about three to 10 samples and test them at once. If it turns out negative, they move on to the next batch. If it's positive, that's when they carry out individual tests to find out who inside the pool has tested positive for COVID-19. Experts who I've been talking to this morning say that it's fast, it's precise but it may not give the full picture. Listen to this from a top virologist based here at Hong Kong University.</s>DR. JIN DONG-YAN, PROFESSOR OF VIROLOGY, HONG KONG UNIVERSITY: I think that mass testing at this scale is actually a waste of resources. And it might not be helpful in many different contexts. Because positive patients are actually being picked up over a range of time, it's not just a snapshot. So this is just a snapshot. So it definitely -- it will miss a lot of positive individuals.</s>STOUT: Dr. Jinn Dong-Yan of Hong Kong University School of Medicine saying that the kind of mass testing operation happening this week over only five days in Qingdao may not be enough, it offers only a snapshot. When on the back of certain super spreading events, you need at least one week, seven days, to be able to find additional positive cases. John.</s>VAUSE: Kristie, thank you for the update. Kristie Lu Stout there live in Hong Kong. Well, one of the world's most famous athletes has tested positive for COVID-19. So what's the prognosis for Cristiano Rinaldo? That's after the break.

Cristiano Ronaldo Tests Positive for COVID-19

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back, everybody. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm John Vause with the headlines this hour. Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is refusing to say how she would rule on some very key issues. Amy Coney Barrett brushed aside questions about health care, abortion, gay rights. She'll be back on Capitol Hill for day three of her confirmation hearing on Wednesday. President Trump is calling suburban women voters in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. He claims he's saved the suburbs and protected law and order, a bad sign for the president. He's spending the last few weeks before the election campaigning in the state he won four years ago. Another coronavirus drug trial is on hold. Eli Lilly says it's pausing its trial of a COVID antibody treatment for safety reasons. The company did not provide further details. And it comes just a day after Johnson & Johnson suspended phase 3 of its vaccine trial after a volunteer became ill. Cristiano Ronaldo, one of the biggest names in soccer or football is among one of 38 million people worldwide who tested positive for COVID-19. Team officials say Ronaldo is in isolation and he's doing well. CNN Sport's Patrick Snell is following the story. Patrick, good to see you. It's been way too long. Now we've got you here, just tell us all about, you know, what is going on with Ronaldo, how does this play out? And obviously, this is, you know, proof that no matter how big you are. No matter how big the star, you're all, you know, vulnerable to COVID-19.</s>PATRICK SNELL, CNN SPORTS HOST: John you're quite right. To Cristiano Ronaldo, a huge global footballing megastar, no question about this. Let's kind of retrace our steps because according to a statement on Tuesday form the Portuguese Football Federation, the 35-year-old Ronaldo, he was training with his fellow countryman last weekend, said to be doing well though John, without symptoms and in isolation. Now the Juventus star will now miss his country's UEFA Nations League pick. They are slated for later on this day Wednesday against Sweden. As well as you'd imagine possibly upcoming matches for his club's side, the Bianconeri (ph). Now after Ronald's positive test, the federation also saying that every player subsequently returned a negative test on Tuesday morning. Earlier in the week as well, just to reset for our viewers, worldwide, Ronaldo having posted a photo onto social media of himself, there's the image there, sharing a meal with his Portugal teammates there. Now the former Man United and Real Madrid star just for a more global perspective here, John, -- recently becoming the first European player ever to score 100 goals for his country. His club's side Juventus, they're due to take on Barcelona who are led by fellow icon Lionel Messi. That's later on this month in the UEFA Champions League. I do want to get to though the reaction from Portugal's head coach on how Tuesday's events all unfolded. Take a listen.</s>FERNANDO SANTOS, PORTUGAL MANAGER (through translator): I'm told he's doing well. Yesterday after taking the test the players went to their rooms. Then overnight we got the news.</s>SANTOS: Tomorrow Cristiano and the other players will be tested again. Obviously Cristiano has been isolated from the others from the start and will remain isolated. He is in his room. He says he wants to play. He talks to us from upstairs, from his balcony. He is completely asymptomatic. He feels fine, without any symptoms at all. He doesn't even know what happened to him.</s>SNELL: The latest there John, on Cristiano Ronaldo. Back to you.</s>VAUSE: Ok so we're going from -- from football, let's go to golf because also one of the world's top ranked men's golfer is also in the same position as Ronaldo. What do you we know?</s>SNELL: Yes, another story we've been following very closely indeed. As you say top ranked in the world, also the 2016 U.S. Open champion Dustin Johnson also testing positive for coronavirus. The American now the second player in as many weeks to do so after his compatriot Tony Finau. Now, back in March the PGA Tour actually underwent a 13-week shutdown due to the pandemic, John. But since returning in June, it's seen at least 15 players testing positive including now Johnson. Now according to the tour, the 36-year-old was experiencing some symptoms late on Sunday evening. In a statement this reaction from Johnson. He's saying obviously, quote, "I am very disappointed. I was really looking forward to competing this week. But will do everything I can to return as quickly as possible. He was due to compete in an event this week in Las Vegas, John. That is now not the case. Back to you.</s>VAUSE: Patrick, it's good to see you. A little element of normality coming back into our life with you here with us. We appreciate it. Thank you, Patrick. Good to see you.</s>SNELL: Thank you John/</s>VAUSE: With that we'll take a short break. We'll be back in just a moment. You're watching CNN.

IMF Warns of Long, Slow Economic Recovery; Apple Unveils Four Versions of the iPhone 12; Chilling Details Emerge about Alleged U.S. Terror Plot; Israel Attempts to Clean Its Rivers During Lockdown.

VAUSE: The International Monetary Fund is warning of a long slow economic recovery ahead. The IMF downgraded its outlook for 2021, lowering its prediction for a global output from 5.4 to 5.2 percent. Let's go to Eleni Giokos in Johannesburg right now for more on this. Ok. This seems to be crunch time right now, right. On the one hand there is this desire, this need for central banks to increase debt, keep spending, prop up the economy. But there's also this growing concern that that level of debt just can't be sustained. Where does it go from here.</s>ELENI GIOKOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. I mean look, you're so spot on, right. So the message here is, stimulate your way out of this crisis. Do what you can during this cataclysmic pandemic, that has created a catastrophe that we've never seen before. And then the other messages is we'll do it wisely because the consequence is elevated debt (ph) levels. Now, when we look at the 2021 prognosis on growth, it is encouraging. But if I remove China from that story, it is very dire on a global scale. In fact China is the only country that's going to go back to pre- pandemic levels, and pre-2019 levels to be frank. If we take a look at what's happening in the U.S. in Europe and even low income and middle income countries, that pain still exist.</s>GIOKOS: And importantly here, John, is that we are seeing such a huge impact on the size of the global economy. In fact the IMF is saying that the pain hasn't really been worked through yet and there are still many risks ahead. Take a listen to what the chief economist said yesterday.</s>GITA GOPINATH, CHIEF ECONOMIST, IMF: The countries are not coming back up even by 2025 to their pre-pandemic projected path. The world economy is going to be 4 percent smaller than what we had projected pre-pandemic even in 2025. So this is a long, slow ascent. And it still remains highly uncertain.</s>GIOKOS: Yes, I mean look, 4 percent lower, we're talking about $28 trillion being wiped off the global economy. That is an enormous figure and to trull recoup that you have to stimulate, you have to spend, you have to put money in the hands of both consumers. And then you also have to try and save businesses, John. But it's going to be a slow and long road ahead. And definitely not the v shaped recovery that people had been anticipating.</s>VAUSE: On the other hand on Tuesday, what seemed sort of a throw back to a time long since passed, Apple releasing a new generation of iPhones. One thing though is this pandemic, you're seeing consumer demand shift away from the smartphones for more sort of you know, notebooks and laptops as people don't get out much any more.</s>GIOKOS: Yes. I mean it's really interesting because Apple has been one of those stand out stocks over this time because people are on their cellphones and, of course, being online as much as possible. So we have a new phone, and we keep thinking about how much better, sexier, bigger, or smaller, can iPhone make their latest product. So iPhone 12 out and then you have a Pro Mac that is available and the cost point, the price point</s>VAUSE: Absolutely. Eleni, thank you. Eleni Giokos there in Johannesburg. Appreciate you being with us. On that we'll take a closer look at everything Apple. And Ryan Patel joins us from Los Angels senior fellow at the Claremont Graduate University. Ok Ryan, it's been a while. It's great to have you with us. Just speaking about Apple here. Compared to events in the past, it was a, am I right in thinking it was all a bit of a snooze? Just kind of like the hype.</s>RYAN PATEL, SENIOR FELLOW, CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY: I feel like every time you and I get together to talk about Apple, it always feels like it's a snooze, right. But it's actually a big deal for Apple because it's the first time since 2018, a new design on the phone itself. But, you know, we can sit here and talk about all the features but really what this event was about, was about setting the future. Not so much short term, setting the future and yes, 5G is something that maybe they're a little bit late to the party, but they are pushing that forward with their new, you know, arsenal of phones. But also there's something sneaky in all of this, John. And I told -- you and I have talked about this when they were $1 trillion to $2 trillion. It's about loyalty. It's about trust in brand building. And you see this kind of, you know, they're reinventing or kind of coming back into their home market again, with the new speaker, with the Mini. And I think that's going to talk about the subscription model. Talking about what they want to do on the 5G. There's obviously a reason why they got the CEO of Verizon to come be a part of this. They are putting all their horses on getting people to pay that top dollar for that faster performance that people are going to walk and demand in the future.</s>VAUSE: So you say top dollar but, you know, if you look at the price point, you don't often hear the words iPhone and Apple and good value in the same sentence. But the big headline here is the price point. Eleni mentioned this, the same cost for the iPhone 12 as the iPhone 11 basically. And there's every chance that price could be lower, the major carriers, offering incentives to win over new customers with an upgrade. You know, this is actually Apple at a good deal.</s>PATEL: Yes. And you know -- you and I last time we talked when they're almost to $2 trillion, we talked about what else is more. And this is why analysts, you know, every time around this year, they kind of roll their eyes and they kind of go, well, I don't know what they're going to do next. Can they keep the revenue going? But Apple heard this. Apple' heard -- I mean they're pretty smart them when it comes to consumers. They know that they needed to get a lower price point. They know that they needed to address that, you know, consumer base. It can't be just one way. And they wanted to be a brand for everybody. As much as you can say for everybody, they wanted to be able to scale globally and to do that, you have to give variety. What's interesting though is that what we're seeing during the pandemic is that demand for smartphones has actually gone down quite significantly. The International Data Corporation reports that the second quarter 2020 resulted in slightly better than expected numbers. The market was still down 17 percent year over year with visible signs of economic concerns. So you've got everyone stuck at home, people are dusting off their laptops and their notebooks. And they realize they need it to be upgraded. So does this new smartphone launch -- does that turn around the business a little. And what does it -- how is it juiced (ph) to 5G uptake?</s>PATEL: Yes. This is a long term play, John, I don't think that they're looking for a huge uptick right away, especially in the middle of a pandemic. That's -- why they passed -- they pushed a normal event. They usually have a couple of months ago to now. The 5G uptake, this is what Tim Cook said and you know, for me this was important. He pretty much want you not to connect to the public Wi-Fi. Think about that for a second, John. He's saying that you use the 5G uptake. You stick in our ecosystem because it's more secure, it's obvious security is an issue. data protection is an issue. He wants to stay within Apple, within the realm. He wants you to connect their phone at home, not to compete even with Amazon. And then there'll be other kind of subscription services. So 56, it's almost like you remember when you and I used to have to do the dial-up (ph)? It really used to be like, well, if it was half a second faster we'd be happy. Well, we live in a society now that we're so used to fast Internet. Now we complain if the Wi-Fi is down, why it's not fast enough and I think they're setting this up in a way to provide that experience in trucks. And at the end of the day, it's about rush and where's you want have all your devices connected and Apple is banking that long term.</s>VAUSE: I'll be happy when they fix the ear buds.</s>PATEL: I was waiting for you to say that. They didn't announce a luxury piece, which I knew you would be all over it but, you know, maybe next time.</s>VAUSE: Absolutely, one day. Ryan, thank you. Good to see you. I'm glad your well.</s>PATEL: Likewise.</s>VAUSE: Ryan Patel there in Los Angels. Well, an alleged domestic terrorism plot in the U.S. now seems to have been targeting not one but two state governors. As CNN's Sara Sidner reports, new details have been revealed in court testimony by an FBI agent.</s>SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: New disturbing details about the alleged domestic terrorist plot in Michigan to take over state government. In federal court an FBI agent testified in June, the suspect discussed kidnapping not only the Michigan governor, but the Virginia governor as well. They specifically had issues with the governors of Michigan and Virginia, he said, because of coronavirus related lockdown orders. Those also happen to be two of the Democratic governors, who President Trump attacked in April over their stay-at-home orders, tweeting, "Liberate Michigan" and "Liberate Virginia".</s>GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER (D-MI): We know, every time that this White House identifies me or takes a shot at me, we see an increase in rhetoric online, violent rhetoric. So there is always a connection.</s>SIDNER: The president responded denying any role in inciting extremists but yet again attacking Whitmer, saying she's doing a terrible job. Attorney General Bill Barr has failed to speak publicly about the case, even as more details emerge. In the federal preliminary hearing, another new detail came to light in the alleged plot against Whitmer, that was not spelled out in federal or state charges against 13 men accused in the plot. The FBI agent testified part of the plan to kidnap Governor Whitmer included snatching her from her north Michigan lakefront vacation home, taking her out to the middle of Lake Michigan, and leaving her stranded in a boat. The agent said the plot wasn't all talk, there was plenty of action, and even video of the men firing their rifles fashioned with silencers. We travel deep into the woods to an area residents say the FBI raided in Michigan. Deep in the woods around Luther, Michigan you can see one of the areas that was the alleged tactical training ground of some of the suspects. You see silhouettes of humans with dozens of bullet holes in them and you can still see dozens of bullet casings left behind.</s>CLIFF DEMOS, LUTHER MICHIGAN RESIDENT: Guns, semiautomatics, small, IED, bans (ph) those kind of things is what they were using up here.</s>SIDNER: And that is the norm?</s>DEMOS: No.</s>SIDNER: 175 miles away, the FBI raided another area agents say training took place. That house there with the confederate flag, her in Munis, Michigan is one of the homes the FBI raided in this alleged plot to kidnap the governor. Now, we are able to talk to several neighbors here who said they noticed something unusual a day or so before the FBI shoed up. They heard a massive explosion emanating from this property. They said it rattled their floors and knocked their pictures askew. The FBI agent testified that they have evidence one of the suspects attempted to make an improvised explosive device to blow up a bridge near the governor's home, to keep police at bay. There was also a video play from inside the basement where one of the alleged plot leaders, Adam Fox, lived. Prosecutors say the men are caught on video speed loading their weapons in case there was a gunfight. The whole alleged plot has folks, in these villages concerned about self-styled militias they know are still operating around there.</s>DEMOS: Are there other militia groups here? You bet they are.</s>SIDNER: And are people beginning to be afraid of them?</s>DEMOS: They're beginning to be a little more concerned.</s>SIDNER: We're learning the Trump campaign ended up canceling a rally here in Michigan because it was supposed to be at a gun range where one of the former employees was actually arrested in this alleged kidnapping plot. That rally was moved to a different venue. Sara Sidner, CNN -- Grand Rapids, Michigan.</s>VAUSE: Early voting in the presidential election is underway in Texas with long lines and reports of two-hour long waits which are unlikely to improve after a federal appeals judge sided with the governor who limited the number of ballot drop boxes to one per district. In parts of Georgia, the lines are even longer. Some voters literally spending all day waiting to vote possibly because of some glitches with voting software. The state is seeing a record turnout this year and CNN's Amara Walker spoke to voters in Atlanta.</s>AMARA WALKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: If you think waiting in line for about three hours to cast your vote is pretty bad then things got pretty painful here at this polling site in Fulton County. The wait down on Tuesday, two to three hours but up north in Gwinnett County, about 30 minutes from here that wait time was 6 hours. But you'd be surprised talking to people on the ground, they seem to be in good spirits, they were fired up about voting in this election saying the stakes are high considering Georgia is a presidential battleground state. And one thing that I found interesting was some of the voters told me that they decided as the last-minute not to mail-in their ballots but instead it's such in person. That's because they felt more confident by voting in person as opposed to mailing in their ballots. And local election officials tell me that is what's been contributing to the long lines and they're encouraging voters if you have an absentee ballot to mail it in. Here is more of what the voters have been telling us.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is something I have to do. So it's ok, it's just a price you pay to cast your vote.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have voted in every presidential election since I was qualified to vote, and I think it's important. I think we have a say, and I think we need to exercise our right to vote. I think this is a critical election in how our country acts as a civilization.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd rather be out here doing my civic duty than not. I don't trust the whole mail-in voting thing, so I will be here, and I will sign it and make sure it goes where it needs to go.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not too frustrated. We're just kind of hanging out and having a good time. So hasn't been too bad. I mean I wish they had come up with maybe a better system. But I guess this is the best they can do right now.</s>WALKER: All in all the Georgia secretary of state says that there was a record turnout for the first day of early voting. About 130,000 people already cast their vote, which is a 40 percent increase from the first day of early voting in 2016. Back to you.</s>VAUSE: Amara Walker, thank you. Well, in Israel, for some the pandemic lockdown is a chance for a much need environmental cleanup. We'll explain when we come back.</s>COMMERCIAL BREAK) VAUSE: An Italian teenager known as the patron saint of the Internet is a step closer to real sainthood. The Vatican says Carlo Acutis was beatified in Assisi, Italy, securing a Brazilian boy who had a rare disease. Acutis died of leukemia in 2006. He was 15 years old. But before he died, he built a Web site which traced the history of eucharistic miracles which has been used around the world.</s>VAUSE: Israel's second coronavirus lockdown is well underway. It involves tighter restrictions, have changed live and caused some hardships. It's also an opportunity to improve the environment. Here's CNN's Oren Liebermann.</s>OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: On days when the Hasbani River slows to a trickle, it's the other thing stream that doesn't stop. The one Ofer Sivan is trying to hold back.</s>OFER SIVAN, UPPER GALILEE REGIONAL COUNCIL (through translator): When there is a quiet day with little going on and the current flow is very slow, it's possible to gather a lot of junk..</s>LIEBERMANN: Junk, trash, garbage -- call it whatever you want. It's all here, piling up just under the surface, the refuse from picnics held on the river banks and then thrown into the river.</s>SIVAN: We call them people in the banks, because he come here, They like to drink alcohol and when they finished drinking, they throw the bottle in the water, they throw a can, they sit in the water with their tables, with the food, everything you can imagine. At some stage they get up, wipe the stuff in the stream and leave.</s>LIEBERMANN: In the midst of Israel's second general lockdown the parks around the rivers are close to tourists. During this rare period of quiet, Sivan and a small group who have permission to work on the river, are trying to make a difference on this important tributary of the Jordan River. Piece by piece they bring up trash for months and years ago.</s>REA SOFER, GOSHRIM KAYAKS: The level of trash is constant more or less. Every year people come to the banks to sleep, cookout, throw their trash in the water. It's the same amount every there.</s>LIEBERMANN: In 30 minutes of cleaning they fill two boats with trash, and they are close to filling a third. There is so much trash in this river that you only have to go under for a few seconds. Coronavirus has also contributed to the trash, discarded masks collect on the river side. Adding to the mess. This is our home, I would not though trash in your backyard and for me this is my backyard. It's not nice. This is a struggle, they say, they cannot win. It's not just the clean up that's needed. it's a complete change in the public's attitude. But they insist they owe it to each other and to the river to make sure it's the Hasbani River that keeps flowing a river that keeps all, and not the. Oren Liebermann, CNN, northern Israel.</s>VAUSE: Thank you for watching CNN NEWSOOM. I'm John Vause. Please stay with us. Rosemary Church will take over at the top of the hour. Thanks for watching.

Florida's 65 and Older Voters on Trump v. Biden.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Hello and welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm John Vause. Coming up on CNN NEWSROOM, during a confirmation hearing, the nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, seemed to be a woman with no past, no opinions, a blank slate. Even though she is likely to be the most conservative of all 9 justices. A new surge of the coronavirus in the U.S. brings new warnings that hospitals could be overwhelmed and the daily death toll could spike into thousands every day. Just like every credible health expert has warned. The early morning house call from a friendly neighbor, with the best of news.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You won the Nobel prize and so they're trying to reach you.</s>VAUSE: Donald Trump is now headed back on the trail, to win back supporters, for a second term. The plan seems to be more of the same, more lies, defiance of his own administration guidelines, to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Tuesday, his campaign went to Pennsylvania, a state where the number of new COVID cases is now more than 60 percent in the past month, where most of the supporters refuse to wear face masks at his rally, refuse to socially distance. Trips to Iowa and North Carolina, are planned for later this week.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'll tell you what, we have the vaccines are coming soon, the therapeutics and, frankly, the cure. All I know is I took something, whatever the hell it was, I felt good very quickly. I don't know what it was, antibodies, antibodies. I don't know. I took it. I said I felt like superman. You know, I said, let me at them. No, and I could have been here four or five days ago. It's great. We had great doctors. I want to thank the doctors at Walter Reed and Johns Hopkins. One great thing about being president, if you're not feeling 100 percent, you have more doctors than you thought existed in the world. I was surrounded with, like, 14 of them. Where are you from? I'm from this one. Where are you from? I'm from Johns Hopkins. I'm from Walter Reed but what great talented people. They did a great job.</s>VAUSE: Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, Tuesday in Florida telling voters if he wins that swing state, it's all over. President Barack Obama will hit the campaign, trail next week, the former vice president spoke to senior citizens, on Tuesday.</s>JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It become painfully clear as his careless, arrogant, reckless COVID response has caused one of the worst tragedies in American history. The only senior that Donald Trump cares about, the only senior is the senior, Donald Trump.</s>VAUSE: Meanwhile, Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee tried to convince Senate Democrats that she is no right-wing public wit (ph), no conservative agenda. Amy Coney Barrett refused to say how she would rule on hot button issues like abortion, gay rights, health care. CNN's Phil Mattingly, has more.</s>PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, first day of questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, probably defined more by what she did not answer than what she did. Although to some degree it's expected. Usually Supreme Court nominees don't weigh in on cases day might have to eventually write a decision on, when they do join the court, should they be confirmed. That didn't stop Senate Democrats on the committee, from pressing her repeatedly on a series of issues, issues that they say the stakes could not be higher on, with the court potentially moving even further to the conservative side than it's been maybe in 70, 80 years. That includes the Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court will take up just a few days after the election, also potential election law cases, that could come from a contested election. The nominee responded to the questions.</s>AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CANDIDATE: I have the integrity to act consistently with my oath and apply the law, as the law, to approach the ACA and every other statute without bias. And I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that. I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I am just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law. No matter what anyone else may think or expect, I have not committed to anyone or so much as signaled, I've never even written -- I've been in a couple of opinions in the 7th Circuit that have been around the edges of election law. But I haven't even written anything that I would think anybody could reasonably say, oh, this is how she might resolve an election dispute.</s>MATTINGLY: Obviously, not a lot of detail there. Not a lot of detail on many of the questions Democrats asked. But expect them to continue to press. Obviously, a marathon session on Tuesday, another one to follow on Wednesday. And the Democrats aren't just trying sink the nomination. They understand, just like Republicans do, the nomination remains on track for confirmation. But they want more than anything else, to raise public awareness, particularly, three weeks before a hotly contested election on issues they believe are politically advantageous to them.</s>MATTINGLY: They believe fire up their base and their members. Expect that to continue, also, expect members to try to keep digging, see if they can get some more information out of the nominee, before she continues her path to confirmation over the course of the next following weeks -- Phil Mattingly, CNN, Capitol Hill.</s>VAUSE: Susan Hennessey is a CNN national security and legal analyst as well as executive editor of the "Lawfare" blog. She is with us this hour from Washington. Susan, thank you for being with us. What was interesting today, this game that Supreme Court nominees play with senators refusing to give definitive answers. Like in this case where Barrett stands on the legality of the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare. And this is an issue which will come before the supreme court a week after the election. And this is what she had to say.</s>BARRETT: I think that your concern is that because I critiqued the statutory reasoning that I'm hostile to the ACA. And that because I'm hostile to the ACA that I would decide a case a particular way. And I assure that I am not. I am not hostile to the ACA.</s>VAUSE: That that may be disappointing to one President Donald J. Trump who promised back in 2015 -- "If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing unlike Bush's appointee, John Roberts on ObamaCare." That's a reference to Chief Justice Roberts who sided with the four liberal justices in a ruling which actually ObamaCare. Is the reality here that the Democrats can't stop Barrett's confirmation but they can certainly hammer home what the political and real world consequences will be?</s>SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY & LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So what we're seeing play out is the customary dance that surrounds these nominations all the time by which the nominee sort of pretends to not have any opinion whatsoever on cases that might come before the court. Despite the fact that everybody in the room, the nominee included, everybody watching on television, knows full well the nominee has been selected precisely for those views on these various issues. And so to hear Judge Barrett sort of suggest that well, she offered this very, very detailed statutory critique of why John Roberts was wrong on the ACA but there's no way to know how she might rule whenever this case comes up again. Again, not unusual. Certainly it's consistent (ph) with how prior nominees have sort of acted. That said, I think a little bit of a farce and pretty clear that she was in fact selected for that very purpose. One thing that was surprising was the extent to which she was really, really reticent to even say relatively obvious things like whenever she was asked whether or not a president could unilaterally delay an election, sort of declining to answer that question. That's a no-brainer. That's a really, really easy question to answer. And so Barrett really, really was taking things to the extreme in kind of declining to say anything substantive whatsoever.</s>VAUSE: Yes. She wouldn't even say voter intimidation was illegal. She sort of punted on that one as well. There did, however, appear to be one crack in all of that stonewalling. It came over the issue of abortion and the supreme court ruling in Roe versus Wade which legalized abortion. And whether or that was a super-precedent, a case so well settled that it was untouchable. Here she is, listen to this.</s>BARRETT: The way that it's used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you're reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category.</s>VAUSE: And when you look at her background, it's hardly surprising that this is where she stands. Her record on opposing abortion; she delivered a lectures to the "Right to Life" club at the University of Notre Dame where she was teaching. She joined an anti-abortion rights faculty group there. Signed her name to a letter in a local newspaper criticizing what they called Roe's "barbaric legacy." Many groups opposed to abortion rights have cheered her nomination, religious conservatives are thrilled, they believe this will be the end of legalized abortion in this country or at least limitations to it. Why the cat and mouse game on this one? And why -- you said this is what they all do but in this case, she's through, she's confirmed. Why not just be honest?</s>HENNESSEY: Well she hasn't yet been confirmed, right? So she is still in the nomination process and I do think it's part of this sort of tradition. That said, it's not just clear that Judge Barrett is hostile to reproductive rights and abortion in her personal and private views but also into her jurisprudence. She's been quite clear -- sort of her legal views on the topic. That said, there's a little bit of sort of a game played with Roe V. Wade sort of in particular and this question of whether or not Barrett or the other justices might overturn Roe directly. Really, the question here is about a series of cases and not necessarily whether or not the supreme court is going to overturn Roe and sort of get rid of abortion in one fell swoop. Or instead sort of take an approach of the death by 1,000 cuts. And essentially interpret cases to be so restrictive of reproductive rights, of abortion rights.</s>HENNESSEY: That essentially the right is functionally meaningless and independent (ph) on the state in which an individual actually lives. And so sort of this academic discussion based on the question of how strong the specific precedent is ultimately it is distractionary (sic). Because, again, everybody in that room, everybody watching is well aware of where Judge Barrett and where Justice Barrett would ultimately rule on the question.</s>VAUSE: Very quickly. We had a letter from her former faculty members of Notre Dame. Almost 90 of them wrote an open letter calling for Amy Coney Barrett to essentially step down from all of this. Saying that is the only way this can be resolved and end a the divisions within the country. That's not going to happen though, is it?</s>HENNESSEY: I think there's no question that that's going to happen. But what that letter is getting to the incredibly unprecedented nature of this confirmation. A vote that might come up as quickly -- sort of less than a week prior to a presidential election really in a circumstance in which it raises basic questions about the fundamental legitimacy of the court. And if Judge Barrett was in fact confirmed, the legitimacy and public confidence in the court moving forward. And these are members of her fellow faculty saying look, this is incumbent upon you to sort of be the adult in the room, put country over personal ambition. Wait, just wait two weeks until we see who wins the U.S. election, who is elected president so that person can ultimately fill this seat. That said, I think it's very, very unlikely Judge Barrett will answer that call.</s>VAUSE: Thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate it. And yes, you're right. It seems incredibly an unlikely outcome here.</s>HENNESSEY: Thanks for having me.</s>VAUSE: It's not just in the United States but the number of coronavirus cases is rising at an alarming rate worldwide. Johns Hopkins University reporting a few hours ago 38 million people have now been infected. Among them, an 89 year old women in the Netherlands, the first known person to die after catching the virus twice, raising concerns and questions about immunity and antibodies. And for months how health experts have been warning of a dreaded second, wave which now seems to have arrived. And this country, is woefully unprepared, here is CNN's Erica Hill.</s>ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR AND U.S. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than seven months into this pandemic, the U.S. is sliding backwards.</s>DR. PETER HOTEZ, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: This is going to be a very tough winter. We may see a rise in new cases that exceeds what we saw back in March and April.</s>HILL: Thirty-three states now seeing new cases rise over the past week, nearly half of those also posting their highest seven-day averages for new cases since the pandemic began.</s>DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Now is the time to act. Now is the time to do something about it.</s>HILL: COVID-related hospitalizations at record highs in five states. Positivity rates, which ideally should be at 3 percent or less, are climbing.</s>FAUCI: We're starting to see a number of states well above that, which is often and, in fact, invariably highly predictive of a resurgence of cases.</s>HILL: In New York, hefty fines and tickets, as the city tries to contain clusters by enforcing masks, limiting gatherings and closing nonessential businesses.</s>MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO (D-NY), NEW YORK CITY: We're now in day four of the pause in those areas. And we are seeing some results.</s>HILL: It's not just New York clamping down. Across much of Europe, restrictions are returning, as new cases and anxiety grow.</s>DR. TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: Each of the last four days has been the highest number of cases reported so far.</s>HILL: Eli Lilly pausing its trial of an antibody treatment today, one touted by the president, telling CNN safety is of the utmost importance, though without offering specifics. Johnson & Johnson just paused phase three of its vaccine trial because of an unexpected illness in one of the volunteers.</s>DR. ASHISH JHA, HARVARD GLOBAL HEALTH INSTITUTE: To me, it's reassuring that companies are acting responsibly and pausing when they need to.</s>HILL: AstraZeneca's U.S. trials remain on hold, pending an FDA investigation. Meantime, in Dallas, a big moment for Major League Baseball.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is amazing.</s>HILL: Spectators, more than 11,000, allowed in for game one of the</s>NLCS. FREDDIE FREEMAN, ATLANTA BRAVES: It's just great to have baseball fans in the stands again.</s>HILL: The Philadelphia Eagles will welcome a limited number of fans to the stadium this Sunday. While there are some bright spots when it comes to major league sports in New York City, the New York Philharmonic is canceling its entire season for the first time in its 178 years since history, the president and CEO calling the decision "dreadful" -- In New York, I'm Erica Hill, CNN.</s>VAUSE: Dr. Ravina Kullar is an epidemiologist and expert on infectious diseases. And she's with us this hour from Los Angeles. Doctor, thank you for taking the time. I don't if you saw it but a few hours ago on "FOX NEWS," former CNN and former MSNBC anchor Tucker Carlson seemed almost unhinged during an anti-mask tirade claiming the public has been lied to.</s>VAUSE: Masks actually increase the chances of spreading the coronavirus. Here's part of it.</s>TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Dissent used to be a defining feature of American life but no more. Now we have mandatory consensus. Masks are good. Anyone who questions the utter goodness of masks is bad. What they're really telling you is that masks are magic. What appears to be a flimsy cotton face covering is, in fact, a holy amulet that protects us from the disease more reliably than any modern medicine.</s>VAUSE: And so it goes on. Carlson cites this CDC study which he claims found that almost everyone who caught the coronavirus wore a mask either all or some of the time. The problem is the study does not make that conclusion at all. It was picked up, misquoted on social media. Facebook flagged it as misinformation. The actual findings are quite the opposite. But beyond the poor and totally irresponsible journalism by Carlson, Just how dangerous is that sort of rant? At this point in time.</s>RAVINA KULLAR, SPOKESWOMAN, INFECTIOUS DISEASES SOCIETY OF AMERICA: Well, first of all, I want to thank you, John, for having me on. And that is a very dangerous statement to be made because we are in the midst of this pandemic. We have over 38 million cases worldwide, about over one million people have died worldwide. Here in the U.S. alone, over 220,000 people have died. We know for a fact that masks do work, we know for a fact that physical distancing works. We know for a fact that avoiding mass gatherings whether it's a peaceful protest, where it's a political rally, whether it's a college football game, all of those they work. So this is very concerning that this late in the game when we are knee deep in this pandemic that there are points being made against a masks. Which are our only infection prevention measure we have. As well as those other measures which I pointed out as well.</s>VAUSE: President Trump was again out on the trail. He was telling his supporters life is great after COVID, something that more than 220,000 Americans are unable to say. He claims to have immunity. And that came with a warning from Dr. Fauci. Here he is. Listen to this.</s>FAUCI: He has an immune response in him that very likely would protect him from being reinfected. But we've got to be careful about that. Because we're starting to see a number of cases that are being reported of people who get reinfected, well-documented cases of people who were infected. After a relatively brief period of time measured anywhere from weeks to several months, come back, get exposed and get infected again.</s>VAUSE: And those words seem to take extra meaning now that we know of this first case of someone dying from catching COVID-19 twice. And really, there were underlying health issues with this woman, she was a cancer patient. But clearly they say that COVID-19, a second time, was the cause of death.</s>KULLAR: Yes. I think Dr. Fauci brings back a great point. That reinfection can happen. But I want to take a step back and state that there have been 38 million cases worldwide. And to date, there have only been 22 reinfection cases. So I think something to keep in mind is that we still don't know this whole picture of immunity; how long is someone immune for, is it -- from our studies, we've seen potentially three months. So President Trump stating that he is completely immune, I think that's too early of a statement to be made. We're still figuring out what immunity looks like, who develops immunity, who are those individuals that do get reinfected, what are some risk factors that they have? That story still has to be delved further into.</s>VAUSE: I want to talk very briefly talk about a vaccine. Because Johnson & Johnson's trial remain on hold after a volunteer became ill. Listen to the company's CFO with more details. Here he is.</s>JOE WOLK, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, JOHNSON & JOHNSON: We don't know even at this point whether that individual was in the placebo arm or the vaccinated arm. And we just have to do a little bit more diligence through the independent external panel before we can make any conclusive decisions going forward. But again, in speaking with our scientific team especially for a study that's this large, 60,000 patients, to have an adverse event or two unexpectedly is not uncommon.</s>VAUSE: And that's the point here. Because this is sort of how vaccines are trialed. And this is why making those sort of statements, that a vaccine can be ready within weeks or days or months, whatever, just seems to be kind of pointless. And in a way counterproductive because it undermines the credibility of the process, doesn't it?</s>KULLAR: That's correct, John. These randomized control trials, these clinical trials that are being conducted and these vaccines are looking at the efficacy and the safety.</s>KULLAR: So it's not uncommon for there to be these trials halted because there's some unknown illness that comes about in these patients. Keep in mind, these are healthy volunteers that walk-in and they may develop an unforeseen illness whether that's related to the vaccine or not. Either way these vaccines trials are going to be halted, they're going to be investigated and they're going to be restarted. So it does beg the question that will these clinical trials be done in one year or two years or will it take longer? The fastest I've seen a clinical trial being done is the mumps vaccine, that got done in about four years. It typically takes about 10 years for these clinical trials to be completed. But I'm very hopeful that -- these are Operation Warp Speed clinical trials being down in this pandemic and these trials are being halted because safety is key.</s>VAUSE: Yes. And that's the point, isn't it? That it's about the protocols and the safety measures which are in place. And that's why they're being stopped at the moment, right?</s>KULLAR: That's correct. Solely because of safety to reevaluate and reassess those patients and to determine whether it is safe to continue the clinical trials.</s>VAUSE: OK. Dr. Ravina, thank you so much -- Ravina Kullar, I should say. Thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate it.</s>KULLAR: Thank you, John.</s>VAUSE: When we come back, facing a second wave of the coronavirus, countries in Europe trying new measures to slow the spread. But in some cities it's clear that many Europeans are fed up with restrictions. Also millions already tested for COVID-19 in China in just two days. What the results show.

Long Waits Reported for Early Voting in Some States; Chilling Details Emerge About Alleged U.S. Terror Plot

VAUSE: Already more than 10 million voters have cast their ballot in the U.S. presidential election. A record turnout, which is placing unprecedented strains on an already struggling infrastructure. There are reports of mechanical problems, long lines, and waits of up to eight hours in some parts. CNN's Pamela Brown is covering the story.</s>PAMELA BROWN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Another state, another day of hours, and long lines, and some mishaps as voters go to the polls. This time, Texas.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody's come out to vote here. Line's around the corner.</s>BROWN: Across the Lone Star State, Houston, Fort Hood, South Austin, all with long lines as voters take advantage of the start of early voting.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just came out, so I would say about two and a half hours.</s>BROWN: In Harris County, early voters hoping to use drive-through voting are facing similar delays. In Travis County, where a whopping 97 percent of the county's 850,000 eligible voters are registered to vote, some voting machines weren't working, after waking up to news of a late-night ruling upholding Republican Governor Greg Abbott's directive for one ballot drop box per county in the state. A major issue for densely-populated counties, where voters could spend more than an hour driving, just to cast their vote.</s>CHRIS HOLLINS, HARRIS COUNTY CLERK: More than 50 miles, in some cases, to drop off their mail ballot. It's unfair, it's prejudicial, and it's dangerous.</s>BROWN: It comes a day after a similar start in Georgia, were voters waited for hours to vote. In Gwinnett County, some voters waiting in line for up to eight hours.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to be out there and to be able to share my voice.</s>BROWN: And Georgia setting an early voting record with nearly 127,000 ballots cast, some of the more than 10 and a half million cast nationwide. Today, no different. More voters, more long lines.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So many people have sacrificed before us, so it's almost a spit in their face if we don't take the time to show our kids that they have this right, and it's best used as early as possible.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go on down. Go on down.</s>BROWN: But voting rights advocates say it's not OK to make people wait like this.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE (via phone): There have been problems with poll pads, with ballot access cards, with obviously social distancing, and -- and just taking a lot longer to process through lines.</s>BROWN: In Virginia, the last day of voter registration saw the state's online registration system was down for several hours, due to an I.T. cable that was accidentally severed, prompting calls from some state leaders to extend the registration deadline. Meanwhile, in California, unofficial ballot drop boxes, potentially illegal in the state, as the state's Democratic secretary of state and the Department of Justice are sending a cease-and-desist order to the California Republican Party, to remove them in at least three counties.</s>ALEX PADILLA, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE: This is wrong no matter who is doing it. And it's not just a security of the ballot that's in question here. It is, you know, the transparency, the vote of confidence.</s>BROWN: The state Republican Party spokesman telling CNN he believes the boxes are similar to giving the ballot to a family member to drop off, which is legal in California. While in New York, the city's police commissioner informed all uniformed service members to be prepared for deployment starting October 25, citing the possibility of protests before and after the 2020 presidential election, according to an internal memo obtained by CNN. Pamela Brown, CNN, Washington.</s>VAUSE: An alleged domestic terrorism plot in the U.S. now seems to have been targeting not one but two state governors. New details have been revealed in testimony from an FBI agent during court proceedings. Brynn Gingras has our report.</s>BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Michigan's governor, Gretchen Whitmer, wasn't the only sitting governor with a target on their back by a group of alleged extremists. Virginia's governor, Ralph Northam, was also eyed by the 13 men charged in an alleged domestic terrorism plot foiled by the</s>FBI. GOV. RALPH NORTHAM (D-VA): We don't work under a cloud of intimidation, and I'll continue to serve Virginia.</s>GINGRAS: The new details of the chilling scheme were revealed by an FBI agent during a bond hearing, where three of the six men, charged federally, were denied release. The other men are charged at the state level. The agent testified that, in an early June meeting, the group discussed possible targets, including taking out a sitting governor, but specifically governors of Michigan and Virginia, over shutdown orders due to the coronavirus. An informant who attended that meeting flagged the potential violence to the FBI. Whitmer and Northam, both Democrats and both criticized for their response to COVID-19 in their states, particularly from the president, who said this about Northam, in May.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I might. Be careful. I might. I'll be there. We're going after Virginia. With your crazy governor, we're going after Virginia. They want to take your Second Amendment away. You know that, right?</s>GINGRAS: Trump early on in the pandemic also singled out the two states in tweets: "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!" and "</s>LIBERATE VIRGINIA". NORTHAM: When language is used such as to liberate Virginia, people -- they find meaning in those words. And thus, these things happen, and that's regrettable.</s>GINGRAS: The White House said in a statement the president condemns white supremacists, and passed the blame to both governors, saying they are sowing division. It's not clear if the group's alleged plans were inspired by the president's tweets, but the agent testified that they did want to carry out the kidnapping of Whitmer by election day. Their idea, in part, called for sending an explosive device to her vacation home. In another option, the agent testified they wanted to, quote, "take her out on the boat, and leave her out in the middle of Lake Michigan" by disabling the engine.</s>GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER (D-MI): I knew this job would be hard, but I'll be honest. I never could have imagined anything like this.</s>GINGRAS: A federal complaint, unsealed last week, shows the man, some recruited from an anti-government group called Wolverine Watchmen, connected through rallies, meetings, and social media. Together they planned, practiced, and even conducted surveillance in the hopes of executing their missions, which also included storming Michigan's capital building and warding off law enforcement by blowing up their vehicles, according to the complaint. Brynn Gingras, CNN, New York.</s>VAUSE: With that, we'll take a short break. You're watching CNN.

Drug maker Eli Lilly Pauses Antibody Trial for Safety Reasons; European Countries Tighten Restrictions Amid Second Wave; Liverpool Faces U.K.'s Highest Level of Restrictions; Germany See Sharp Rise in COVID-19 Infections; Chinese City Test More Than 7.5 Million People

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR: A quick recap of our top story. The rise of coronavirus cases in the United States with experts saying the fall and winter surge they've been warning about is here. And there are new concerns about a potential treatment as another pharmaceutical company pauses its trial for safety reasons. CNN's senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen explains what we know.</s>ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Rosemary, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly has put their trial on pause. They said the pause was requested by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board that's a board that's overlooking this trial to make sure that everyone stays safe. The company didn't say exactly what happened. But usually when trials are put on hold, it's because a participant in the trial, a study subject has become ill. And they need to make sure, did the vaccine play a role in this. Sometimes people just get sick. And they would have anyhow. Sometimes participants get sick because they get a vaccine and it's actually the vaccine that had something to do with the illness. So, this needs to be investigated. Now, Eli Lilly has already applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for permission to put their drug on the market. It's not clear what this pause might mean for this application. What we know is that if indeed this is because a participant became ill, safety experts will do an investigation and will try to figure out was the illness a fluke or was it related to the vaccine. Rosemary back to you.</s>CHURCH: Thanks for that, Elizabeth. Well, countries across Europe are looking to strict new measures to help stop the spread of the coronavirus as cases on the continent continue to soar. Italy on Tuesday recorded its highest daily increase of new cases and is recording its highest number of ICU patients since late March. Germany's largest cities have all become virus hot spots over the past few days and today Chancellor Angela Merkel is set to discuss new nationwide restrictions. In France, more people are hospitalized in the ICU now compared to last week. And nearly 13,000 new COVID cases were reported Tuesday. Meanwhile, in China a massive testing effort continues after a new COVID cluster emerges in Qingdao. So far more than 7 million people have been tested. And CNN's teams across the world are covering the coronavirus pandemic for us this hour. Kristie Lu Stout is in Hong Kong. Scott McLean is in Berlin and Salma Abdelaziz is in Liverpool where new restrictions are taking effect. Selma, just how tough is the crackdown where you are?</s>SALMA ABDELAZIZ, CNN REPORTER: Good morning, Rosemary. Well, Liverpool is waking up to a new reality today. They are the first city to be found at this top tier, tier 3, very high risk. These new restrictions include shutting down pubs and bars, essentially closing down the night life of the city, shutting down gyms and banning households from gathering together. But a lot of people argue, this is too little too late. Local officials have been outraged at Prime Minister Boris Johnson's handling of the surge in cases. Seeing they have failed to communicate with local officials, failed to cooperate with local officials and accused them of simply failing on their policy and decision making. And that sentiment is shared by many here. It is important to know that Liverpool is a university city. There's a lot of young people here and shutting down night life was met with a great deal of resistance last night. Take a look at scenes that played out as pubs closed.</s>ABDELAZIZ (voice-over): Last call in Liverpool. Pubs must shut their doors for at least a month.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why isn't London shut down?</s>ABDELAZIZ: Tougher restrictions were ordered after a surge in COVID-19 cases. But there is no socially distant farewell here. The proud port city, birthplace of the Beatles, home to a championship football team is the first to be classified as very high risk under England's new three-tier COVID alert system. The government says the decision was driven by the data. The city has the highest number of coronavirus patients in the entire country. Local city councilman Paul Brant agrees the rapid rise in infections is a problem but his consensus with London ends there.</s>PAUL BRANT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE, LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL: A rather toxic mix of arrogance and ignorance at central government level has led us to the sorry state that we're in now. I think the evidence is clear now that a short, sharp intervention, three, four weeks ago, would have avoided the mess that we're in now.</s>ABDELAZIZ: The country's top scientists agree. Three weeks ago, a government advisory body suggested a circuit breaker, a short but complete lockdown to reduce case numbers. Their advice went unheeded by Downing Street. (on camera): After months of controversy over the government's handling of coronavirus, many people here say they're running out of patience and they're running low on trust. There's always been tensions between the north of the country and the central government in London, but under the pandemic the mistrust is growing. (voice-over): For now, the city's iconic Beatles tours are running but tour guide, Jay Johnson says the country's ruling elite is failing its working class.</s>JAY JENSEN, BEATLES MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR: Because I have no faith in them at all. They keep changing their mind. Constant U-turns one after another. I personally feel that the government isn't doing enough for us. The Prime Minister is not doing enough for us. The Prime Minister has never done enough for us.</s>ABDELAZIZ: And while public confidence dwindles by the day, the government is calling for immediate compliance to avoid a second wave of the pandemic that may be even deadlier than the first.</s>ABDELAZIZ: Now everyone here agrees there is a problem. The rate of infection is rising. The number of coronavirus cases in the hospitals is growing. There is no debate over the fact that there is a growing surge in the north of the country. The controversy is over how to handle it. As you heard there in that report, there's been discussions of doing something that is short and sharp, an intense lockdown over a matter of weeks rather than a long, drawn out period of confusing measures. As you can see behind me here, people are still allowed to shop. They're still allowed to go out. They're still allowed to meet with each other. So, these restrictions are limited. And the question is, are they enough to stem the rising cases -- Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: Yes, it is the big question everywhere. Isn't it? Live in Liverpool. CNN's Salma Abdelaziz live in Liverpool. Well, Germany Many thanks. Well, Germany has also seen a sharp rise in COVID-19 infections. More than 5,000 cases were reported Tuesday along with 40 additional deaths. CNN's Scott McLean joins me now live with more on this. Scott, what is the latest?</s>SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Rosemary. So, because of this recent surge in cases, the demand for testing, as you can imagine, has really jumped up as well. We're at one testing facility in Berlin. We've been here now for two days. And we've seen the lines stretch all the way down the block which you can see right now. I also had a chance to speak to the doctor that runs this particular clinic. And she says that about one in every ten people coming here is testing positive for the coronavirus. That's much higher than it's been in past months. She also complains about the bureaucratic hurdles that are in place in this country that she says is slowing down the testing process and making it difficult for everyone who needs a test to actually get one. One of the things that's unique here is that you don't actually have to have symptoms in order to come to this facility. So, a lot of the people here had been in contact with someone who did test positive. At other facilities though it's much more difficult to get tested unless you have coronavirus symptoms. Germany did quite well in the first wave of the coronavirus, but the doctor says she expects this time around this country will not be so lucky. She says the last time around Germany had more warning than other countries because Italy and Spain were getting hit much harder. And so, it had much more time to prepare. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel, she's going to be meeting with the premieres of Germany's 16 states today. Potentially announcing brand new coronavirus restrictions as well. One state premiere though says that this country is at risk of losing control of its pandemic and says that serious conversations need to be had now to avoid a second national lockdown -- Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: meanwhile Many thanks to Scott McLean joining us there. And meanwhile, in China a massive testing effort continues after a new COVID cluster emerges in Qingdao. So far more than 7 million people have been tested. For the latest, CNN's Kristie Lu Stout joins us now live from Hong Kong. Kristie, that is just a remarkable number of tests but how reliable are these results?</s>KRISTI LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, reliability is the key question here when you are looking at testing at such a scale, a breathtaking scale. The city of Qingdao, more than 7.5 million people have been tested in a matter of days. Formally results have already been returned. According to local officials, no additional positive COVID-19 cases have been detected. What sparked this was over the weekend, 12 -- that's it -- 12 new COVID-19 cases were detected and that's what sparked the city-wide testing. But it's in a city of 9 million people to take place in the span of 9 days. And China has done this before in Beijing, in Dalian and Xinjiang, as well as in Wuhan. So, how did they do it? Well, they use a method called pool testing. Now it usually involves -- as you see on your screen there, these pop-up testing centers involving thousands of staff. But when you take a pool test, it's basically a collection of samples, 3 to 10 samples and you tested it once. If it tests negative, the team moves on. If it tests positive, then they get granular to find out the individual test, which sample, has been infected with the coronavirus. Now experts I've talked to here in Hong Kong say that this method is not only fast but it's precise. But it may not give the whole picture. Listen to this.</s>DR. JIN DONG-YAN, VIROLOGY PROFESSOR, HONG KONG UNIVERSITY: I say mass testing at this scale is actually a way of sources, it might not be helpful in any different context. Because positive patients are actually being picked up over a range of time, it's not just a snapshot.</s>STOUT: The Dr. Jin Dong-Yan of Hong Kong University there, again this testing blitz that's underway in Qingdao is taking place over a span of five days. According to Dr. Jin, he says in order to catch any additional positive infections, you know, the testers would need at minimum one week -- Rosemary.</s>CHURCH: 20 Incredible. Kristie Lu Stout with that live report from Hong Kong. Many thanks. Florida went for Donald Trump in 2016, but with the pandemic dragging on, will the state's seniors stand behind him again? We will hear from some of those voters next.