Transcripts For KQED PBS NewsHour 20240712

People have to have confidence that their vote counts. If you dont trust it, youre not going to make any effort to be a part of it. Not only that but youre going to reject it. Woodruff all that and more on tonights pbs newshour. Major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by moving our economy for 160 years. Bnsf, the engine that connects us. Supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the worlds most pressing problems skollfoundation. Org. The lemelson foundation. Committed to improving lives through invention, in the u. S. And developing countries. On the web at lemelson. Org. Supported by the john d. And catherine t. Macarthur foundation. Committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. More information at macfound. Org and with the ongoing support of these institutions this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. And by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you. Woodruff u. S. Senators have spent this day wrapping up their interrogation of Amy Coney Barrett, at her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. And while members of the Senate Judiciary committee pressed again for answers, the nominee largy avoided committing herself. John yang has our report. Yang on capitol hill, a final day of questioning for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Senators pressed barrett on issues like Voting Rights, abortion and the future of the Affordable Care act, or a. C. A. This hearing has been more about amacare than it has you. Yang the court is to hr a challenge to former president Barack Obamas Health Care Law next month. Republicans pushed back against democrats arguments that barrett would help a 63 conservative court overturn the a. C. A. Democrats strategy continues to be to use scare tactics, distortions, and speculation. Its not fair, is it, to suggest that by confirming you to this position youre somehow going to adversely impact the lives of these individuals . As i said yesterday, what i can say is that i have certainly no agenda, im not on a mission, im not hostile to the a. C. A. At all. And if i were on the court and if a case involving the a. C. A. Came before me i would approach it with an open mind just like i do every ce. What we want to do is terminate it and give great health care. Yang 18 republicanled states and the Trump Administration are challenging the laws individual coverage mandate. If the court agrees, the justices could strike down the entire law through a legal doctrine called severability, finding that the mandate is so central to the law that it cannot be severed from it. If you picture severability being like a jenga game, its kind of if you pull one out, can you pull it out while it all stands . Yang Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sought to blunt democrats arguments that a Justice Barrett would necessarily mean the entire law would be doomed. The main thing is doctrine of severability has a presumption to save the stature if possible, is that correct . That is correct. And would it be further true that if you can preserve a statute, you try to, to the extent possible . That is true. Yang graham also sought to counter suggestions that barrett would be an automatic vote to overturn the landmark case roe versus wade, which guarantees the right to an abortion. As a law professor, she appeared to suggest it was wrongly decided. Reaching a case that was wrongly decided doesnt end the debate in terms of whether or not it should be repealed, is that correct . That is correct. And theres a very rigorous process in place to overturn precedent . There is many factors, reliance being one. Reporter senator kamala harris, the democratic Vice President ial nominee, asked barrett about Voting Rights and suppression. My question, however, is do you agree with chief Justice Roberts, who said voting discrimination still exists. No one doubts that. Do you agree with that stement . Senator harris, i will not comment on what any justice said, whether an opinion is right or wrong, or endorse that proposition. Senator, im not exactly sure what youre getting at with asking me to endorse the fact, or whether any particular practice constitutes voter discrimination. Im very happy to say that i think Racial Discrimination still exists in the united states, and i think weve seen evidence of that this summer. Biker you think Racial Discrimination exists senator harris, i dont mean to signal that i disagree with the statement. Im not going to express an opinion because these are very charged issues. They have been litigated in the courts. So i will not engage on that question. Reporter yang Committee Democrats also highlighted barretts refusal to say she would recuse herself from any case arising from a disputed president ial election. Barrett, along with Justice Brett kavanaugh and chief justice hn roberts, was among the lawyers dispatched to florida to work for the Republican Party in the 2000 recount. Senator Amy Klobuchar of minnesota. Will having justices with this background, two of whom are appointed by the current president , decide cases related by the upcoming election. Do you think that will undermine the legitimacy of the court . Asking whether something would undermine the legitimacy of the court or not, seems to be trying to elicit a question about whether it would be appropriate for justices who participated in that litigation to sit on the case, rather than recuse. And i went down that road yesterday saying its a legal question. I know, you said you wouldnt recuse that isnt what i said. Yang senator Patrick Leahy of vermont asked barrett about President Trumps claim that he could pardon himself. Would you agree that, first, nobody is above the law . I agree. No one is above the law. Does a president have an absolute right to pardon himself for a crime . So far as i know that question has never been litigated, that question has never risen. That question may or may not arise, but its one that calls for a legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is. Yang with even democrats speaking of barrett as future justice, the outcome of the hearings was a largely foregone conclusion. Judge barrett is going to be confirmed by this committee and by the full senate. Yang today, graham said barretts nomination is a milestone for conservative women. This is history being made folks, the first time in american historyhat we have nominated a woman who is unashamedly prolife, embraces her faith without apology and shes going to the court. Yang tomorrow, on the fourth and final day of hearings, senators will hear legal scholars and other outside witnesses selected by Committee Democrats and republicans to weigh in on barrts nomination. For the pbs newshour, im john yang. Woodruff and we turn now to our own Lisa Desjardins and newshour regular, marcia coyle of the national law journal. Lisa, the questions are over four members of the Senate Judiciary committee. What are they saying to you about how they think this went . There is a remarkable agreement from both parties about judge barretts performance. Democrats will admit to you, if you talk to them without using their name, that she was a strong witness, a strong confirmee, she was not someone who could be rattled. I think that is one reason that the democrats chose not to have a third round of questions, which was their right. Instead, ending the question period tonight. Republicans feel like she was their ideal witness, a great Supreme Court justice, they say, and they like she can appeal to a very Important Group of swing voters, catholic women, especially catholic mothers. Theyre hoping perhaps this is a reachout to them this election. Also, the parties agree this was a better tone over all for a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Where they disagree, judy, no surprise, what this means. Democrats have come to the cameras and the mics, and dick durbin saying he is fearful that judge barrett, he is convinced, will try to overturn some very important precedents, especially the health care, including the Affordable Care act, and perhaps regarding abortion. Woodruff and marcia, picking up on some of that, the contrast between this hearing and previous hearings, especially for justice kavanaugh, expand on how different they were and how much that matters . They were certainly very different because theyre very different candidates, nominees. I think the only similarities that they really have between the two of them is that they have very conservative records on federal Appellate Court, and they im sorry constituent they have very conservative records as judges on the federal Appellate Court. And theyre they also are similar in the fact that they both declined to answer many specific questions about specific cases and issues that could come before the court. In terms of their actual confirmation hearings, they were like night and day. Justice kavanaughs hearing was very contentious, even before the Sexual Assault allegation was made against him. He had a career, 12 years, on the federal Appellate Court, and prior to that, he had a very Political Legal career. He worked in the independent consels office that was investigating president clinton. He helped prepare the report that went to the house for impeachment of clinton. And then he moved on to the white use when george w. Bush was elected president. Whereas judge barrett has been on the Appellate Court not quite three years, and has been the bulk of her lifin academia as a law professor at notre dame. So in terms of the hearings, here hearing has been as reported very civil, very calm, and some very good exchanges on her judicial philosophy. But with then candidate nominee judge kavanaugh, it was extremely contentious. And, as i said, it was contentious even before the Sexual Assault allegations because a number of the Senate Democrats on the committee had had experience when he was first nominated to that court, and his nomination did not go through, and they felt he had not been fully truthful with them when he came up again for the Supreme Court, he had a lot of documents that the Senate Democrats felt they did not get access to, or they got access to much too late to really review them. That was not the case with judge barrett, obviously. Woodruff ver clearly very clearly not. Lisa, the republicans have made it very clear chairman Lindsey Graham, they want to get this trn moving down the track. Theyre anxious to hold a vote. You and i have talked about this before. Is there anything democrats can do to slow down, to stop what looks to be inevitable . I think the only thing democrats could do might slow it down for a matter of minutes, not days, as they would want. Democrats could have a choice to try to withhold quorum for a meeting tomorrow. I dont know if they will do that. Judy, all of that proce might not matter. Right now this vote, we talked to democrats and republicans, looks likely in the committee next week. The judge has the votes. And then the following week, the week before the election, is when we expect the full senate to vote on her nomination. Woodruff all right, Lisa Desjardins watching it all day long,long with marcia coyle. Thank you both. Woodruff we turn now to the analysis of victoria nourse of geortown university. She was chief counsel to Vice President joe biden, and counsel to the Senate Judiciary committee when he was its chairman. And Saikrishna Prakash of the university of virginia. He previously clerked for Justice Clarence thomas, and will testify tomorrow before the Judiciary Committee as a witness in support of barretts confirmation. Woodruff hello, again, to both of you. And im going to start with you, victoria nourse, what did we learn today from judge barrett that tells us something about how she is going to change the Supreme Court, if she is confirmed . Well, i think we learned that she is capable of evading lots of questions. But i think that also suggests something important about how she might rule. So she was asked several times to comment on cases, and she cant do that. But the number of things that she refused to discuss, such as did the president have to leave his office peaceably, were often quite extreme in my view. Other justices have answered some of these questions, for example. For example, giswald versus connecticut, a case about criminalizing contraception. Chief Justice Roberts answered that question. And she refused to. In the silences, we can read in a few things when we add in her judicial philosophy. Im not the only one who thinks that originalism is a recipe for creating what she called havoc. So we know she is very tied to justice scalia, and he would have ruled against the a. C. A. Some dont think medicare is constitutional. Senator feinstein asked her. Some people think that the Nuclear Regulatory agency might be on constitutional. This is why people who study thcourt are writing that this could be a shift that is as radical as moving back to the 1930s. Youre going to see fireworks in this court, in my opinion. We know that from is philosophy that is called both originalism for the constitutional and texturalism for statute. Professor Saikrishna Prakash, were thre questions she could have answered that she just bent over backwards and didnt answer . I think weve mentioned some this afternoon. I think in general, she was very cautious and didnt want to say anything that would make a headline for her, particularly anything that would contrary to what the president has said earlier about her nomination or about his preferences. So she was never going to say, im not going to acmmodate the preferences of the president. But what she did say repeatedly is im not beholden to anyone. And she wanot going to make promises to the senators pushing her from the left or the senators pushing her from the right, and she wasnt going to make promises for the president , either. Woodruff what about professor nourses point about her philosophy of originalism, and how that could lead to some very dramatic changes or decisions coming from this court . Sure. I think people have neglected to read or give sufficient attention to one of her articles. She says in several of her articles that judges dont have any obligation to sue on their own accord and reconsider precedents. For the most part, they have to respond to the arguments made by the litigants. And i think that is how shell approach these cases. To the point that the court is revisiting precedent is responding to the environment around it. There is no justice or senator who believes that all precedents are sactri, saint, and there shouldnt be any changes. One of the most famous articles was written by a former colleague, mark galanter, entitled why the haves always win in court. Why they win is because they have the money. And so corporations go to court and they win, more than criminal defendants. They tend to get rulings that are in their favor. And the court has historically been quite conservative. The warren court was really an exception to this, in part becausof the influence of money lawyers. So i worry about that fact. Both senator graham and senator whitehouse noted that there is a whole shadow operation of the court that is now coming under scrutiny, with people filing amicous briefs, to support conservative positions and also liberal positions as well, but we dont know where the money is coming from, basically. So i am worried we just dont know what is going on behind the scenes. And im also worried that, you know, there is no surprise that the Federalist Society is funded by people, and the people who tend to go there are the big law firms, and they are the haves, not the have nots. Not everyone, i suppose. So i worry that there will be a significant shift toward corporation interests. She has ruled 80 of her cases in favor of corporations, instead of of the working class. Woodruff Saikrishna Prakash, why shouldnt that be a concern for those who feel strongly about these issues, that feel strongly that the court shouldnt tilt in that direction . Victoria, i think, has put her finger on the point. In every case there are sometimes dozens of briefs. And both sides are wellfunded. It is not the case that there are conservative briefs ad not liberal briefs. The question is should we care about why people are filing the briefs or who is filing them . Im not opposed to finding that out. But i think it is a miste to think that the conservatives have a bigger voice in this amicous briefs. Wen i clerked, there was dozens of cases, and many of them were from progressive groups. So progressive groups, as well as more conservative groups, are funded because people care about those causes. It is not all about moneyed interest. There is no moneyed interest for the a. C. R. U. , and people have passionate beliefs woodruff just to quickly get back to professor nourses point, what makes you convinced that judge barrett is not captive to some of these very conservative ideas . Well, i believe she is a conservative. Is she a captive of them . I dont believe so. If the contention is that she is being she is a marionette and she is a puppet, i see no evidence of that. It is more of a Conspiracy Theory than anything else. I dont think any of the senators allege as much. I think theyre making an interesting point about the funding of these amicous groups, but it seemed that the judge herself was unaware of this. I certainly dont know who is funding these briefs. I dont Pay Attention to how the money gets to the lawyers who are doing the briefs. They make sometimes good arguments and sometimes bad arguments. Woodruff it has been an interesting few days. We thank you both for being with us to watch these hearings. Professor Saikrishna Prakash and professor victoria nourse, thank you both. Thank you, judy. Woodruff in the days other news, President Trump insisted the economy is tied to his fate on election day. In a virtual event, he pledged a fullbore recovery, but only if he wins. And, he appeared to suggest that he could live with losing. We will make next year one of the single greatest years in the history of our country. s an honor to be with you, i think ill be with you next year again but you know, well have to see. If i dont win the election, you probably wont want me and thats okay with me, too. Woodruff meanwhile, the president agreed to do an nbc news town hall tomorrow night, while former President Biden is doing one on abc. Thats after their second debate was called off. Nbc said today that mr. Trump submitted to an independent coronavirus test, and dr. Anthony fauci and other experts concluded he is no longer contagious. Melania trump confirmed in a press release today that her son barron had tested positive for the coronavirus. She said he has since tested negative and never exhibited any symptoms. France has declared a new health emergency, as it faces a new surge of covid infections. President Emmanuel Macron announced nightly curfews and other measures tonight. Separately, the World Bank Approved 12 billion to buy and distribute vaccines, tests and treatments for developing countries. Russia reupped appeals today to armenia and azerbaijan to stop fighting over nagornokarabakh. Instead, fighting escalated in the disputed territory as the two sides accused each other of breaking a ceasefire. Moscow is attempting to broker an end to the violence that erupted three weeks ago. Back in this country, a federal judge extended virginias Voter Registration deadline by 48 hours. Tuesday was originally the last day to sign up, but an Online System failed when a fiber optic cable was accidentally cut. A different federal judge ruled that rules be updated to ensure that absentee voters have someone witness their balance. And on wall and, on wall street, stocks slumped as doubts rose about getting fresh economic from washington. The Dow Jones Industrial average lost 165 points to close at 28,514. The nasdaq fell 95 points, and, the p 500 slipped 23. Still to come on the newshour we are on the ground in georgia, as early voting sees surging numbers. How electronic voting works and the various methods of casting ballots. Calls for a herd immunity approach to the pandemic alarms scientists. Plus, much more. Woodruff early inperson voting began in georgia this week. Our daniel bush has been reporting in the state and joins me now. Woodruff so, dan bush, youve been at several polling locations, i understand. Tell us what inperson voting looks like in a pandemic. Judy there is were Big Questions going into this election. How inperson voting would take place as states begin early voting, and were beginninto get some answers. Here in georgia, masks are mandatory. It was at polling locations in atlanta and outside of the city, there is p. P. E. Everywhere. Pol workers in gloves. A lot of hand sanitizers. A good example of that is state farm arena, the arena where the nba hawks play. The newhour got access to that facility, including an exclusive look at the floor where most are the voting takes place. It is a big operation, and the hawks c. E. O. Told me that are spending a, quote, significant amount of money on this to make it as safe as possible. He wouldnt say exactly how much, but it gives us a sense of the scale of this operation. Election officials told me this is not something they have ever had to plan for, but they are taking as many sts as necessary to make it safe for people who show up to the polls. Woodruff dan, i couldnt quite tell in that video you showed, are people standing six feet apart there . That is a very good question. There are markers on the floors that i saw in every polling place. People are trying to keep their distance, but when it gets crowded, it could be a little difficult to do that. Woodruff mailin voting, i gather, dan, youve been picking up concerns about that. What are people telling you about how theyre thinking about voting . Judy, this is a state with a long history of Voting Rights issues. A lot of concern particularly among black voters who have faced a lot of challenges voting in this state, frankly. About how to cast their ballots. I spoke to many voters who said they had great concerns that they thought their votes would not be counted. Just a couple of years ago, the current governor, brian kemp, then the secretary of state, took about 500,000 people off of the rolls, considered to be the biggest voter purge in the history. Cederick blake lets hear what he has had to say. In 2018, i had trouble casting my ballot. I was purged from the voter roll, and it took me four to five trips back and forth between counties to cast my vote. I eventually did. This year i wanted to see my vote cast personally, when i pushed that green button and the light flashed, i knew my vote had been counted. So there you have it, judy. Some challenges that voters are facing. Also a lot of anxiety and fear about how this election is going to play out, whether or not people should go to the polls. Here is another voter, debra henson. This particular election, for some reason, this fear that it wouldnt count, made me come in to vote. No absentee, no dropping my vote off, no mailing in my vote. And my mother worked at a post office over 30 years, so i never had a fear my mail wouldnt be delivered. But this is the first time i did. So the fear of not being counted made me come in. Stop what im doing, come in and vote, in person. As a result, judy, there are a lot of people showing up early. A couple of numbers for you here in the state of georgia, this is from the secretary of states office, 742,000 people have already voted. Thats 242,000 inperson, and the rest by mailin. That represents potentially a significant jump by the time we get to november 3rd, already on the first day of early voting, a 42 increase over the first day of early voting in 2016. So people are heading to the polls. Woodruff very interesting. You talked to democrats and republicans, and how do they think this debate over mailin voting is going to affect the results . Well, judy, this is so interesting. There seems to be a shift among democrats. You think back to the spring when they were taking republican legislatures to court, arguing inperson voting is not safe. We should have more options for voters to vote by absentee. Now i spoke to several democratic officials who said, you know what . Things have changed. There is a concernhere there is suca big increase in mailin voting that there are a lot of votes that have not been counted, and Election Results could not be called, and potentially the Trump Campaign could try to litigate to reduce that vote count. So theyre urging if you can vote in person, if it is safe, go ahead and do so. On the republican side, ive spoken to republicans who are pretty concerned. One said there is a great concern that President Trumps attacks on mailin voting have backfired because we are seeing so many people go to the polls. This republican said also it is having a negative impact on down ballot races, a lot of the suburban Republican Voters we have heard so much about are holding their noses and voting for joe biden. I have spoken to some voters who voted for President Trump, and are now voting for the democratic nominee. We may a lot of attention to the long lines. One thing they do indicate is that voters have made up their minds. Were still a couple weeks out, but there are a lot of voters who feel they have all of the information they need and theyre ready to cast their ballots. Woodruff dan bush, so important to get tht firstperson look on what is going on the ground, reporting for us from georgia. Thank you, dan. Woodruff early voting is expected to reach record levels and absentee or mailin ballots are the focus of much attention. A new analysis by the Pew Research Center finds more than 60 of registered voters supporting President Trump say they have little or no confidence those ballots will be counted as voters intended. Miles obrien has been looking into how mailin ballots are secured. And tonight, he looks at how that option compares with older Voting Machines. Reporter its early on election day in memphis tennessee, and commissioners from each party are working in pairs to unlock sealed steel boxes filled with absentee ballots. This is just box 54 rejects. Reporter bennie smith is a democrat. You have one central lock box that has a key for a democrat, a key for a republican, and nobody can get to the locks that unlocks the other locks unless you go through that chain. Reporter in an august election like this, they would normally receive about 1,000 absentee ballots. But on this pandemic summer morning, they have 16,000 to process and tally. For bennie smith its a covid Silver Lining he is a big proponent of hand marked paper ballots as opposed to Voting Machines. Im a fierce paper advocate. It is authenticatable result because you have the voters intent its hand, eye coordination, and thats my selection process. Reporter but for shelby countys administrator of elections linda phillips. I, state your name. Reporter . The absentee deluge is a headache. Tennessee law prevented her from opening the envelopes until this moment. And there were all kinds of surprises. This is the first time many voters in tennessee have ever voted a paper ballot and they did some really weird things to them. We had a large number of ballots where they would select a candidate and then theyd write the name in again. But therwas someone we couldnt fige out what they wanted. One guy voted for 14 people in a race for one. Reporter that vote didnt count, but bipartisan teams labored to determine voter intent as best they could. The tea leaf reading occurred in shelby countys election warehouse, where they store the Voting Machines they use in polling places. I think machines help voters do a better job. It eliminates a lot of the mistakes that we see on paper ballots and i prefer machines because theyre just more accurate. Reporr maybe, but it is impossible to know that for sure. Here in shelby county, they use vintage 2000 devices made by diebold election systems, a company no longer in business. These so called directrecording electronic machines,r d. R. E. s, are paperless, making it impossible toerify their accuracy. They, and the networked machines that compile and tabulate the votes, are an easy mark for hackers, which they have publicly proven time and again, most famously by white hat hacker harri hursti in the 2014 hbo documentary hacking democracy. In a demonstration, hursti had little trouble flipping votes. What is it . What is it . Seven yes, one no. Oh my god reporter in memphis, efforts to buy new technology became mired in political debate and the pandemic. And yet few dispute the old machines are an achilles heel. Software and hardware, ages in dog years mixed with jet fuel, right. A piece of technology 20 years ago . Just like imagine a blackberry one or a flip phone or sony ericsson or something. If its 20 years old, its really outdated. Reporter bennie smith knows from experience. He is an Information Technology expert on computer security. The d. R. E. Machines came into vogue after punch card ballots created chaos in the 2000 bush versus gore election. By 2004, nearly one in three voters in the u. S. Used d. R. E. S. But as the security vulnerabilities came to light, most jurisdictions got rid of them. In november, less than 10 of americans will vote using d. R. E. Machines. The trend lines are solidly in favor of complete elimination of d. R. E. S. Reporter chris krebs is director of the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency at the department of homeland security. So we have a series of security controls that are in place that can harden those systems. But ultimately, when you think about the riskiest bits of election systems, election infrastructure, to exploit these kinds of machines at scale to change an election outcome, incredibly complicated. Reporter but in New Hampshire, the secretary of state has long believed the simple way to thwart hackers is to avoid using computers. We became the first state in the country that actually had a law that said that every voter in New Hampshire shall vote on a paper ballot. Reporter bill gardner has held the job for 44 years, longer than anyone currently in offi in the nation. I followed him as he made the rounds on state primary day in september. He did not meet a stranger. It felt like i had stepped into a Norman Rockwell painting of 19th century town meeting halls. When you became secretary of state, were you a Firm Believer in the power and accuracy of paper ballots, handmarked paper ballots . I was a believer. Im a lot more of a believer after all these years. The more moving parts you have to the election process, the more problems youre going to have. Reporter so youre old school and proud. laughs they have tried machines here before. In the late 19th century, every town got one of these. With a crank, gears, cylinders and a bell, it counts ballots. And you can see through the counter zero to nine. Reporter yeah, right. So it can get up to 999 ballots. Reporter at that time, the concept of a secret ballot was relatively new in the united states. Ever since, Election Officials have tried to preserve that secrecy while maintaining accuracy and security. But after all these years, there may not be a technological solution to that problem. Technology is not always the answer is it . Its not been the answer with respect to elections. Thats for sure. People have to have confidence. They have to have confidence that their vote counts. If you dont trust it, youre not going to make any effort to be a part of it. Not only that but youre going to reject it. Reporter in memphis, election commissioner bennie smith has similar worries. He says he cannot be certain whether votes captured on the old machines will truly count. Its anybodys guess. Hopefully its going to count and as a sitting commissioner, obviously, im going to advocate for every accountable measure to make sure that it did. But its not a great product for you right now. Reporter this election year, there has been a lot of political rhetoric that raises questions about the integrity of our elections. This is going to be the scam of all time. Reporter . But the people who know best how we vote say paper ballots marked by hand, whether mailed in or filled out at a polling site, should be the least of our worries. For the pbs newshour, im miles obrien in memphis, tennessee. Woodruff it is a pressing question across the globe how to stop the spread of covid19 while keeping society open. One idea thats been raised in some quarters is to try to get widespread immunity by allowing a larger and healthier segment of the public to become infected with the virus. But as amna nawaz tells us, most Public Health experts say that is a dangerous path. Nawaz judy, this goes back to whats traditionally own as herd immunity the idea that a disease will eventually stop spreading when it has infected enough of the population to build widescale resistance. That idea has been mentioned by the Trump Administration as an approach to the covid19 pandemic, and has raised concerns among many scientists. For more on why, im joined by Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Angelina, welcome back to the news hour. So people understand, when were talking about herd immunity, what are examples of whe it has worked in the past . People can think of any of the vaccine preventable diseases that weve really conquered through immunization. If you think about measles, polio, these viruses used to run rampant through the population. Once we started vaccinating people, those viruses essentially went away out of our population. And weve actually seen some of them come back, specifically measles, as people have started not getting vaccinations in larger numbers. So we can understand by looking at these other diseases how herd immunity works and how it can falter that that level of immunity is not maintained. Nawaz the administration has held it up before as a possible strategy this week, and two senior white house officials convened a call, and they held up something called the Great Barrington declaration, which says we should work towards herd immunity to end the lockdowns. The vulnerable should be protected, and we should thus reach herd immunity. Would that work with the covid pandemic . I think that is extremely unrealistic. First of all, there is a number of people who qualify as vulnerable, as much aa third of the population. That would mean isolating hundreds of millions of people potentially, which is just not realistic to do. How are those people supposed to get food . How are they supposed to pay their rent . How are they supposed to work. I think it is not realistic to shield the vulnerable because they are a part of the community. In addition to that, the assumption that young, Healthy People do not get severe disease from covid is just incorrect. While there is a lower immortality rate, a significant number of those people do end up in the hospital, and some people develop what is being called long covid, they have effects of the acute infection that after they recover, theyre still feeling those effects and theyre experienci chronic disease. We dont really knw how frequent that is, so it is a very dangerous proposition to say it is okay for young, Healthy People to just get infected, as long as we shield the vulnerable, which we will not be able to realistically do. Nawaz angela, one of the reasons this is so attractive, we know there is not a vaccine, and cases are rising, and there is no more appetite for more lockdowns, so some folks are asking, what is the harm in states or counties gichg thi giving tha trying . There is a huge harm because even in places that have been hardest hit, only about 20 of the people have antibodies, suggesting that only 20 of the people have immunity. That is nowhere near the threshold we would need to achieve herd immunity. That would mean millions more people would die. I think that is an unacceptable price to pay for the benefits of herd immunity. And there is a false dichotomy that the idea is herd immunity through mass infection or restrictive lockdowns everywhere. That is certainly not true. There is maskwearing, distancing, avoiding crowded gatherings, that can be implemented without doing a full lock downing lockd. Nawaz we have senior wyofficials holding up this official as something that buttresses their point of view. And the president has mentioned herd immunity, and you have dr. Scott atlas o has mentioned this before as a possible approach. What does it say to you that from the seniormost levels of this government this idea is being held up, or at least discussed, as a possible strategy . It is very concerning to me, but it is not particularly surprising. Since the springtime, President Trump has advocated for not taking the pandemic as seriously. He has been very eager to reopen in a very unrestricted way. And dr. Atlas is really not qualified to be assessing it scientifically. He is a neuroradiologist. He has had no previous experience with Infectious Diseases like a respiratory pandemic of a coronavirus. I think really this is being used to prop up political points that the white house would like to make, rather than being something that has been evaluated objectively and found to be the best science possible. Nawaz that is Angela Rasmussen of Columbia University school of Public Health joining us tonight. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, amna. Woodruff new york is one of 37 states seeing a rise in coronavirus cases over the past week, with officls there trying to contain micro clusters popping up around the state. New yorks Governor Andrew Cuomo writes about histates battle against covid19 in his new book american crisis, and he joins us now from albany. Woodruff governor cuomo, thank you very much for talking with us. I think my first question is how in the world did you find time to write the book in the middle of a pandemic . Youre overseeing 20 Million People in your state, trying to make sure people stay as healthy as possible in addition to all of your other responsibilities. Governor thank you, judy. It was, in part, therapeutic for me, and in part it was what i was doing every day. I was doing daily briefings for the people of the state, which were televised, and the book is basically a compendium of those daily briefings, with some text and retrospective. Woodruff you did get a lot of praise, governor, early on. Dyou did hold those daily briefings, and people noticed that. You go into a lot of detail in the book, and you also talk about the federal government, President Trump and his administration. How much responsibility does he, does his administration, bear for where this country is today . Governor oh, judy, i would say a total reonsibility. I was a former federal employee, i was a cabinet secretary under the clton administration, and secretary of housing and urban development. This was a National Pandemic. This was a federal crisis. Normally the federal government would take charge. This situation where you have a National Pandemic but then you delegate to 50 states to do their own strategy when it is a virus that goes from border to border all 50 states have to find their own p. P. E. All 50 states have to nd their own testing. All 50 states have to organize their own emergency operations. That is not how this should have been done. It should have been done on a nationwide level. Woodruff plenty of criticism to be directed towards washington, governor, but as you know, youve received criticism as well, including about the handling of Nursing Homes. We know that there was a point in march when you directed individuals, elderly, who had been diagnosed with covid, or showed symptoms, to go to Nursing Homes. Later we know that some 6600 people died in new york Nursing Homes. That makes up about a quarter of all deaths in the state. I know the studies show that there are multiple factors at work here, but how much responsibility do you think you bear for what happened in the Nursing Homes . Governor well, first, i take total responsibility for everything that happened in the state of new york, whether it is in a nursing home or it is the essential workers. I believe if youre in charge, youre in charge, judy. But we have to separate the political propaganda from the facts, right . The white house has been very good at blaming democratic governors for deaths in Nursing Homes. And it is not just new york. It is new jersey and all across the country. And people tragically did die in Nursing Homes. But, remember, this is a virus that attacked the elderly and the weak. We were introduced to this virus in the state of washington, where there were nursing home deaths. We never directed any covid person to go to a nursing home. That never happened. We folwed federal guidance that said you cant discriminate against a covid person, but we never directed a nursing home to take anyone. As a matter of fact, it is the exact opposite. In the state of new york, by law, a nursing home cannot accept someone unless they can properly care for that person within their facility. And the fact is, of the deaths in new york, we are number 46 out of 50 states in the percenta of deaths in Nursing Homes. 46 out of 50. So we did not have a disportionate number of deaths in Nursing Homes. Woodruff we know there are studies that show there were multiple factors, but one of them was the way that it was read by people who one the Nursing Homes, and people who make decisions about where people would go, that they should go into Nursing Homes based on what you and your administration said. Governor, just today it is reported that you are telling local governments in these hardhit, socalled covid cluster zones that theyre going to lose state money unless they strictly enforce covid rules around schools and whether theyre open or not, the size of gatherings. Are you serious about withholding money if these local governments dont do as youre saying they should . Governor yeah. I am serious about protecting the people of w york, judy. We have now new york state does more testing than any state in the nation. Oustatewide numbers are very good. Were at about 1 infection rate, which is still the lowest in the country. But we do so much testing that we n target what w call microclusters, which are very small aggregate number of cases. And we can target the geographic areas that only about one or two square miles. In those areas, weve taken additional restrictions. One of them is weve closed schools in those areas, those, quote, unquote, microclusters. Some are the schools are still open, even though they have been ordered closed. And this has been going on for a number of days. I dont want to risk any Childs Health in going to a school in an area we know that has a high infection rate. The local governments are supposed to be doing the enforcement. Politically, it is not really popular for a local government to insist that the schools be closed. But that is the state law. It does protect children. It does protect parents. And the local governments need to do it. And what weve said is, if the local governments wont enforce the law, then there be a monetary sanctions. Woodruff governor, lets turn quickly to the election, which is coming up in just a little over two weeks. Youre somebody who has watched american politics for a long time. Do you think joe biden is in as strong shape as most of these National Polls are showing he is . Governor no. No. This is a different type of election year. I wouldnt believe the polls. I do believe joe biden is in a strong position. I dont know that it is as strong as the polls would suggest. And i think President Trump is, frankly, in a weaker position than most people would guess because the American People have watched the president. Theyve watched all of the tics. Theyve watched how he has handled this covid situation for seven months. Theyve watched how he has handled it now. But, you know, the president is treacherous in his owway. And do i think there could be a situation where he actually loses the election, claims that there is fraud, which he has been claiming for weeks now, and pushes the matter to the courts and tries to get the matter to the Supreme Court, and is successful in confirming his nominee . I could see that situation. So i dont think it is time to relax for those people who are joe biden supporters, such as myself. Woodruff Governor Andrew Cuomo of new york, the book is american crisis leadership lessons from the pandemic. Thank you, governor cuomo. Governor thank you, judy. Woodruff and thats the newshour for tonight. Im judy woodruff. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe, and see you soon. Major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by learn more at consumercellular. Tv when the world gets complicated, a lot goes through your mind. With fidelity wealth management, a dedicated advisor can tailor advice and recommendations to your life. Thats fidelity wealth management. And with the ongoing support of these institutions and individuals. This program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. And by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you. Ptioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by Media Access Group at wgbh access. Wgbh. Org hello, everyone, and welcome to amanpour co. Heres whats coming up. Judges cant wake up one day and say i have an agenda, i hate guns, i like guns, i like abortion, i hate abortion, and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world. What impact will Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett have on health care, civil rights and abortion rights . I ask prolife activists who support her nomination. And i ask legal expert Dahlia Lithwick about originalism, textualism, and what all this means for deepaksy, itse. Then, novelist dave eggers on how they think his trumpian satire was held up since it was fi