Insurance companies refusing to cover Mental Health care. Insurance companies refusing to cover maternity care. No free mammograms, cancer screenings or birth control. Insurance companies reinstating annual lifetime and more than 20 million americans losing insurance at the worst possible time in the midst of a pandemic, including nearly 2 million texans, 607,000 north carolinians, 227,000 iowans, and 2. 4 million californians. And the pain of losing these protections would disproportionately be felt among the 9 million africanamerican, latino, asian and native americans who gained coverage under the Affordable Care act. But this isnt 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 oh 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 im here for people like felicia perez. And this is her. Felicia 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 asthma,
and a rare auto immune disease. Her life depends on cancer fi t fighting drugs that cost 165,000 a year. Shes terrified. She knows without the Affordable Care act, she could not afford ongoing treatment, the treatment she needs to stay alive. And here is 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 dont matter, that my life doesnt matter, that my health doesnt matter, that the daytoday quality of my life doesnt matter, and thats really hard. Tragically, felicias story is not unique. Her fears are squared by millions of americans, the Affordable Care act and protections hinge on this
Supreme Court court and the outcome of this hearing. Before being elected, President Trump promised that every justice he put forward would will do the right thing, unlike bushs appointee, john roberts, on obamacare. Judge barrett, 18 months later, you criticized the chief justice for upholding the Affordable Care act, when you said he pushed it beyond its plausible meaning to stave 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 . Senator harris, i apologize, i dont remember the timing oh of that article. I was nominated, i believe my nomination to the court of appeals was announced in may of
2017. Thats correct. But i dont remember when the article came out. The article was published in january of 2017. So that would have been five months later. Justice ginsburg, whose seat you are seeking to fill, provided the critical fifth vote in a 54 decision that upheld the Affordable Care act. So lets lay this out for everyone who is watching. As i have discussed previously, one, republicans have spent a decade trying to destroy the Affordable Care act. Two, President 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 preexisting condition or may get a preexisting 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 its very important the American People understand the issues at stake and somewhat is 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, theres no alternative that protects the millions of americans who defend on this every day. The 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 Peoples health care. But the reality is right now, he is asking the Supreme Court to take it away, period. Senator klobuchar, judge barrett, asked you earlier today but did not receive an answer. Prior to your nomination, were you aware of President Trumps statements permitting to nominate statements to strike down the Affordable Care act. Yes or no. I want to be very careful, im under oath. As im sitting here, i dont recall seeing those statements, but if i dont recall seeing or hearing those statements, but i dont really know what context they were in. So i guess i cant give you a definitive yes or no. What i would like to say is i dont recall hearing about or seeing such statements. Well, i imagine you were surrounded by a team of folks that helped prepare you for this
nomination. Yes let me finish if you dont mind. Im so sorry. Did they inform you of the president s statements and this might be a question presented to you during the course of this hearing . When i had my calls with senators, it came up many of many of the Democratic Senators wanted to know about the Affordable Care act and to satisfy themselves that i had not made any precommitments to the president about it. And so you then became aware of the president s statement, is that correct . Umm, lets see, senator harris, in the context of these conversations, i honestly cant remember whether senators phrased the question in the context of President Trumps comments, perhaps so. From my perspective, the most important thing is to say ive never made a commitment, ive never been asked to make a commitment, and i hope the
committee would trust in my integrity that i wouldnt violate my oath if i were confirmed and heard that case. Just so im clear, 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 StatesSupreme Court . Senator harris, what i was saying i thought you framed the question is whether i was aware before this nomination process began. Im asking you were you aware before this hearing began . Youre asking me now i was aware before the hearing began . As a follow up question, i am, yes. What i said was, when i had my calls with Democratic Senators, this question came up and i dont recall but it may well have been that they referenced those comments in the course of those calls. Even if so, that wasnt something that i heard or saw directly by reading it myself. Senator leahy asked you do you think its important to believe that Supreme Court justices are independent, fair and impartial. And that is a yes or no answer. Yes, senator. A number of my colleagues asked you whether you would recuse yourself from cases on the Affordable Care act. You did not directly answer their questions but described a process by which that would work or happen. So my question is, isnt it true that at the end oh 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 . That is true. And i cant have you elicit a commitment from me about how i would make that decision in advance. That would be wrong. Right. And what ive asked you is it not correct that is the process that ultimately it would be you and you alone that would make
the decision about whether you would be recused . Youve 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 to rule on this very case. The reasonable question about your impartiality will hang over this courts 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 peoples 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 54 majority that included the crucial vote of Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. The court rejected the trump administrations attempt to end protections for dreamers. Chief Justice Roberts said the administration had not taken into consideration the fact that many dreamers relied 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. Senator hirono asked you whether it was appropriate for a Supreme Court justice to consider real world impacts. But youre a sitting judge now. So my question is, in deciding whether to uphold government action, do you currently consider the consequences of your rulings on peoples lives . Senator harris, thats part of the decision of every case. So you do . Every case has consequences on peoples lives, so of course i do in every case. Thats part of the judicial Decision Making process. Would you do that as you are actually voted on in the United StatesSupreme Court. Would you do that there, as well . Senator, considering how the resolution of a dispute will affect parties, will affect people is part of the judicial Decision Making process, and i will continue engaging in that process to the best of my ability. So if the Affordable Care act is struck down, more than 100 million americans with preexisting 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 5 million latino
americans who received access to Health Insurance because of the aca. Ensurers will be able to discriminate against more than 50 of africanamericans and 40 of latinos, with preexisting conditions. Insurance will be able to deny coverage to more than onequarter of native americans with conditions like diabetes, Heart Disease and cancer. All of this in the midst oh of a pandemic that is not going away any time 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 1 in 1,000 black americans, 1 in 1200 native americans, and 1 in 1500 latino americans. Judge barrett, could you consider the 135 million people
who gained protections under the Affordable Care act when deciding a case that challenges that law . Senator harris, if i were to be confirmed and conclude that i was able to sit on the case pursuant to the recusal statute, and if i heard the case and decided the case, i would consider all 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. That is a question not of what judges want, its not a question of the Supreme Court, its 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. Well, 135 million americans with preexisting conditions are now depending on the protections of the Affordable Care act, what weight would you give that . As i mentioned, starri decisis takes interest into account, because its about keeping civility in the law. So the law often takes into account those interests. I cant say sitting here how they would play in or weigh in this case, because thats part of the legal calculus of the case. So i cant really give you the kind of commitment or precommitment that youre asking of me of how i would structure my Decision Making process. I would ask you to consider if you are confirmed on the court a credible benefit of the Affordable Care act, and that a destruction of its protections
will have 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 womens equality and gender equity. As a law student, as a teacher, as a civil rights lawyer and as the second woman to ever sit on the United StatesSupreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg broke many barriers for women across the country. I believe we all fondly remember her as a person who has patience, she had the will and the vision to make our country a more equal place and a more just place. And one to have things she fought for was a womans right to control her own body and to make decisions about her own
body and health care and reprodurepruk reproductive choices. The constitution of the United States protects a womans right to choose, whether or when to become a parent. And it protects a womans right to choose abortion. Women of color, immigrant women, women with low incomes, and women in rural areas, they face significant barriers when attempting to access birth control, cancer screenings, and comprehensive Reproductive Health care. Moreover, antichoice activists and politicians have been working for decades to File Lawsuits designed to overturn roe and the precedence that followed. The threat to choice is real. Just last year, the court heard a case that gave it 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 courts four 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 medical 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 womans 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 courts decisions in cases regarding womens access to Reproductive Health care. Now, my republican colleagues have said that theres a minimal chance that the Supreme Court will overturn roe. But back in january, 39 republican senators, including ten members of this very committee, signed their names to a Supreme Court brief that asked the court to take up the issue of whether roe should be reconsidered and if appropriate, overruled. So lets not make any mistake about it. Allowing President Trump to determine who fills the seat of ruth bader ginsburg, a champion for womens rights, and a critical vote in so many decisions that has 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 im putting pro life justices on the court. Judge barrett, several times today you have quoted Justice Ginsburgs 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 Ginsburgs confirmation hearing shows that she testified that the decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a womans life, to her wellbeing and dignity. Its a decision she must make for herself. When government controls that decision, she is being treated
as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices. Then judge dwginsburg went on t say it is essential to womens equality with man that she be the decision maker, that her choice be controlled. 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 womans 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 called for putting an end to the barbaric legacy of roe v. Wade. You 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 which you talked about roe from a list of less settled cases that you said no justice would overrule even if she disagrees. Suggesting that you believe roe is susceptible to being overturned. On the 40th anniversary of roe, you delivered a speech in which you said the courts recognition of the right to choose was created through judicial fiat rather than zbrougrounded in th constitution. And during your tenure on the
7th court of circuit appeals, you have been willing to reconsider abortion appeals that other judges found unconstitutional. As senators fill in the seat of ruth bader ginsburg, who said the right to choose is essential to womans equality, i would suggest that we not pretend that we dont know how this nominee views a womans right to choose to make her own health care decisions. I ask unanimous content that the following three letters be entered into the record. A letter opposition, a statement opposing her nomination by planned parenthood of america, and a report opposing judge barretts nomination from the
naacp Legal Defense and educational fund. Without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, senator harris. Senator kennedy . Mr. Chairman, i have you were listening to senator Kamala Harris, questioning and giving her comments to judge Amy Coney Barrett. I want to get straight jeffrey toobin. So jeff, when you look at this overall, obviously very, very strong there on abortion there at the end from senator harris. She also, of course, went very strongly on the Affordable Care act. How do you think she did . This was a mix of mostly, you know, she was speaking, she was giving a speech but others did as well, including republicans. Thats the way these things go. How do you think she did overall in her half hour . I think she accomplished what she wanted to do, which was give a wringing 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, theres an election coming up. 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 President 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 she senator harris achieved what she wanted to achieve, but i dont think anyone should be under the impression its going to jeopardize whether shes confirmed to the Supreme Court, because it doesnt. Right. That book is written as we say. So laura, then at the end,
senator harris again, sort of making the case. She didnt even give judge barrett a chance to respond to her points on roe versus wade. But she laid out a very clear case that judge ginsburg, in her confirmation hearings, never said how she would rule but was clear on a womans right to choose and laid that out. And then she laid out judge barretts record over the past decade plus, making it very clear that judge barretts point of view on abortion rights is very clear. She opposes them. That was a very lawyer like case she made. Well, it was that moment when she said lets not pretend, which has been part and parcel of Supreme Court nomination processes, where everyone adheres to that ginsburg rules of no previews, no forecasts and no hints. But as senator Kamala Harris noted, although she did say
that, she did demonstrate what she believed at the time of the confirmation hearing. But these hearings largely have been worked into being able to adhere to a script that dm demonstrates your impartiality and 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 have been nominated by is for your personal beliefs. She said im not going to ask the question because we already know what you stand for and what script youll give. And then gave the script via letter of so Many Organizations who devote their lives to these issues that said, none of them buy it either. Ending it with im submitting this, not with a question. Kirsten, what stood out to you . This is really about the election, what senator harris was doing. The democrats know that shes
going to get confirmed. So everything she was saying was with an eye towards voters. Theres the two issues she focused on, the Affordable Care act, which is something that, you know, most democratic voters or moderate democratic voters or moderate independents leaning democratic, its a top issue for them. And roe v. Wade, which has the support of the majority of americans, these are two issues important in terms of voting. Even voters who may be personally prone to life, many of them dont support overturning roe v. Wade. So i think she had a real eye towards people who are voting, and that was really her target audience. Jeff, to that front, we have seep her doing her crossexaminations. We saw it on the debate stage with joe biden and with her questioning of justice kavanaugh. But what you saw tonight was very different. She was very aware that shes on
in the evening when americans are watching. Right. And this was judge barrett was really a spectator for the vast majority of the time senator 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 thats what shes focused on, 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 dont want to, you know, talk about this, you know, the Supreme Court domination as if it somehow doesnt matter and is just a sideshow to the president ial 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. Theres never been a Supreme Court nominee before who had signed petitions about, you know ending the barbaric legacy of roe v. Wade. Right. So this crazy, you know, pretense that she somehow has an open mind about whether abortion should be legal or not, i dont think anyone should be fooled by that. So the stakes of this Supreme Court nomination are enormous, even though the democrats are focusing more on the president ial elections, because they at least have a chance in that one. And laura, she did also refuse to answer the questions that senator harris was putting forward about the Affordable Care act. Senator harris again was making the case 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 wont nominate anyone who said theyre going to get rid of the Affordable Care act. That was a moment that seemed a bit more trademark Kamala Harris. 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. What happens there is when you refuse to admit the obvious, you undermine your even credibility. She could have simply said yes, im aware that the president has made these statements. But as she tried to articulate in the past, shes 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 to exactly what
it was that she was going to concede. So i heard that and thought, thats a very easy question, as is earlier in the day when she was asked the question about why you wont showcase your hand, what would you do if the president of the United States tried to say you could move or delay the action. She said im not a legal pundit. The idea of saying instead i want more information and research. This is a very easy answer. Congress is the one who has to change it. When she says i dont want to answer or show my hand when the constitution and the law already does it for you, its a little disingenuous. Now this is about to go behind closed doors, so theres 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 youre pointing out it was more broad than that. When she talks about 130 million americans, and shes 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, 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. Yeah. The Biden Campaign is laser focused on those voters. So i think that she i dont think she was coming here to thrill the democratic base. She was coming here to say look, roe v. Wade is almost definitely going to be overturned. Or this person wants to overturn it. And the majority of voters dont support that. I think thats something that people dont need to be reminded of that this is what the republicans want to do, and when it comes to health care, there are serious consequences to
whats happening here and its a stark contrast to the republicans and the democrats. And Amy Coney Barrett saying i havent made any assurances to anybody is a meaningless statement. Tay dont have to ask for assurances. Shes been vetted thoroughly by the federalist society. They would not have would not be supporting her, republicans would not be supporting her if they didnt believe very strongly that she was going to overturn the aca and that she was going to support overturning roe v. Wade. And to be on the 30th anniversary of roe v. Wade to say it was created by judicial fi fiat, its clear where she stands. She was asked by senator graham, people say you are a female scalia. What do you say . She said you would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting justice barrett. But thats not what she said. Tell me why. She suggested perhaps there was a sexist implication that she wasnt thinking for herself, including when she spoke at the white house, and today when she talked about originalism, 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 didnt understand it to mean . It didnt mean anything about womens rights or anything about gay peoples rights, it didnt believe anything about abortion. So if the people in the 18 l century didnt believe in those, im not going to rule in favor of those rights. Thats a big deal. Thats 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 didnt, and
Justice Scalia did if the people in the 18th century didnt believe it, im not ruling that way, and neither is judge war barrett. And thats a consequence shall thing. 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. Thousands of people. Another day, another thing of the same. The camera has been there. Very few masks. There is no social distancing. The president today announcing hes going to hold morallies like this across the country, even as dr. Anthony fauci said theyre a danger and a resurgence of coronavirus is coming. Were seeing an uptick in test positivity, which is highly
predictive of a resurgence of cases, which leads to an increase in hospitalizations. And then ultimately an increase in deaths. 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, almost all wear masks. That is not a koins coincidence, which our Jeremy Diamond reports. Trump is tweeting about fauci, tweeting his pitching arm is more accurate than his prognostications. Fauci not backing down. Im not going to give up. Ive devoted my entire professional fight to fighting
infectious diseases. Jeremy diamond is traveling with the president , in johnstown, pennsylvania, where of course most of the people behind you are not Wearing Masks. What are you learning about why we see people behind the president with the masks on, but when youre in the crowd and you walk through, we dont see any . Reporter yeah, erin. Listen, we 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 to wear masks. But one thing the president understands is optics. That is why the Campaign Asks every perp who is behind the president , who is in that vip area, to wear a mask during the duration of the rally. They are given special masks that have the campaigns branding on it. So the president understands the value of the optics. But the overwhelming majority of
the thousands at this rally or any of the recent rallies ive been to, they are not Wearing Masks and theyre not social distancing, either. What is clear, erin, 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 theres no social distancing and masks are not required. And in pennsylvania, 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. Nucthank you very much, jere. You could be seeing more of this in pennsylvania than any other battleground state from this president. Joining me now john fetterman. What is your reaction to that . You see the crowd and you hear the reporting, so behind them they get the maga masks and in
front we see for ourselves very few masks. And now were hearing that shes 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 . Well, i just i saw that scene and i thought back to less than two weeks ago, i was with Vice President biden in johnstown. And we had an event, too. 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 ive been saying for a long time now, is that pennsylvania is going to pick the president , so its not a surprise that hes going to be coming to our spare state many, many more times. But its also true that he is going to behave the way he behaves because theres three
weeks left, and hes not going to change course on a lot of what i would describe as reckless kind of Public Health measures at his rallies. So what do you say, given your state . New cases are on the rise, you hear the warnings from dr. Fauci. Yet its very clear that youre going to see thousands and thousands of people shoulder to shoulder, maskless at these rallies. What risks do they pose . Its 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. Excuse me, weve 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. Im optimistic pennsylvania is going to return to the blue column, whether its the polling or the energy you see on the ground. But im not going to underestimate the president s strength in pennsylvania for a second. What i can say is that
pennsylvania respects science. The governor and i do. We have made important steps to make sure that pennsylvanians stay safe. And our results in the longterm demonstrate that. But i think President Trump is going to get checked on november 3rd. And we both agree that pennsylvania is going to likely pick the next president. Let me ask you about one other thing, lieutenant governor, that happened to you, your family personally. But in the context of what were seeing across this country, your wife at the grocery store, a woman recognizes her, begins to scream at her, telling her she doesnt belong, calling her the n word. And heres the end of the incident which was captured on video. Youre a [ bleep ] so how did you feel when you heard about this, when you saw
that video . I obviously was sad and concerned for my wife first and foremost. She called me immediately afterward and was shaken up. Shes gotten over that. I want to thank everybody for their love and support, both here and locally in western pennsylvania, across pennsylvania. Across the country. Like her, im also calling for a measure of, you know, compassion or at least understanding for that woman. Shes 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 an energy out there, and i think that energy i think we can all agree isnt helpful. Its toxic and destructive. Once again, i think a lot of this is going to be settled on november 3rd here in pennsylvania. Lieutenant governor, i appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you for having me. And now, dr. Jonathan reiner, director of the cardiac cath lab at Washington University who advised the White House Team under president george bush. Another night, another trump rally in a state where the trend lines are moving in the wrong direction. And obviously, we just pointed out hes going to be going to pennsylvania a lot. Hes going to do everything he can to get as many images like what we just saw on peoples screens. So they are going to see those numbers. Hes trying to use that to energize his base. So what do you say to that, given the resurgence in cases across this country . I say that the president is doing a lot of the virus work. Hes like the caddie for the virus. If you look at the Battle Ground states, 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, its like dry brush in a forest fire. When the fire encounters that dry brush, it ignites and intensifies the fire. Thats what happens in a pandemic when you put together unmasked people. The president is making it easier for the virus to spread in those states. Its you know, maybe this helps him electorally. But its very damaging to the Public Health. President trump today touts dr. Fauci, even though hes using dr. Fauci in a campaign ad to say that dr. Fauci endorses him. Putting that aside, trump tweeted that faucis pitching arm is far more accurate than his prognostications, which was a reference to dr. Faucis first
pitch at an mlb game. Fauci made it clear hes not going anywhere, certainly not by choice. Right. Ill 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. What a distraction. 47,000 new cases today. Another almost 700 deaths in the United States. There are 38,000 people hospitalized with this virus. I dont want to hear this nonsense about the president talking about dr. Faucis pitching arm. I want to hear policy. I want to hear the president talking about masks and testing. I want to hear that. I dont want to hear this is too much of a distraction. We have a couple of big trials halted. Johnson and johnsons vaccine, due to an unexplained illness. Ely lilys antibody treatment, were not sure why that was
paused. This is not uncommon to happen, its par for the course. But when it comes to ely lily, 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. Regeneron was i view it as a cure, not just a therapeutic. I view it as a cure because i took it. So we have these drugs, ely lily and the others that have so good. Ely lily has something very comparable. Its phenomenal. Is he setting up false expectations for people . He always has. Hes the quick fix president. There are no quick fixes here. This is why we have to do science. Im not discouraged by these pauses. This is why we do clinical trials. Well get it right and have great therapeutics. Im not worried about these speed bumps. Dr. Reiner, thank you. My pleasure. And an Alarming Development in a story weve been following. Another sitting democratic governor has been targeted by the same Extremist Group allegedly plotting to kidnap michigan governor gretchen whitmer. Sara sidner is outfront. Reporter 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 the michigan governor and the virginia governor, as well. They had the issues with the governors 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 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 theres always a connection. Reporter the president responded denying any role in citing extremists. But attacking whitmer, saying shes 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 charges against 13 men accused in the plot. The fbi testified part of the plan included snatching her from her north michigan vacation home, taking her out to the middle of Lake Michigan and leaving her stranded in a boat. 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. Dwguns,semiautomatics, small ied bombs is what they were using up here. That isnt the norm . No. Reporter 175 miles away, the fbi waited another area agents say training took place. That house there with the Confederate Flag is one of the homes the fbi raided in this alleged plot to kidnap the governor. 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. 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 governors 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 they know are still operating around here. Are there other militia groups here . You bet they are. They are beginning more concerned. Reporter a former employer was arrested. Sarah, thank you. I want to go to the former fbi director andrew mccabe. So according to court documents, the people planning this, discussed taking action again multiple states government
violating the u. S. Constitution. Do you this i ththink this plaq could be bigger . It certainly is. I think it is important to concentrate the words the fbi agent used. He described in court on june 6th that adam fox and barry croft, two of the individuals met with 12 or more militia members from five different states, they talked about grabbing governors and michigan and virginia governors. That language does not rule out any other activities that are being thought about or possibly considered or planned in any of those three or four other states. Thats what we theneed to look first. These militia groups, these
antigovernment groups have been really multiplying in the last few years, there is not a state in this country that does not have some of militia presence in the state. I am quite sure my former colleague in the fbi are spending a lot of times looking at those groups right now and on the look out for plans of acts of violence. When you say Pay Attention to the words. The fbi agent testified the motive was to target a sitting governor over shutdown orders during the pandemic. We know trump tweeted in april about the shutdown order, liberate virginia and liberate michigan. This is quite something. Yeah, really is. I can tell you as a 21year fbi agent. We dont believe in coincidence, right . The fact that the president specifically called out the governors, specifically called out to liberate michigan and virginia and now you have plots against the governors of michigan and virginia, that would really be hard to explain as a coincidence. President trump is specific and made comments about peoples Second Amendment rights. It is very important to these antigovernment folks. Thats a triggering language thatll get the attention of these groups and could caused some of them take violent
action. Deputy director, i appreciate your time. As President Trump holds a rally tonight. Joe biden is in florida, hes telling voters, we win florida and it is all over. Biden with a simple message in ohio yesterday. If we win ohio and florida are two critically important states. It is very close that trump won the last two times. We feel really good. The polling data i dont compoucount on that. I am going to try to earn the votes. Ohio is a toss up right now. John kasich, we know there has been no republicans won the white house without ohio. Bidens point would hold and it is crucial. Biden and trump is neck and neck in ohio. It seems completely tied. What do you see and feel . Our seniseneirs are moving awaym him. It is a little bit bragging on my part. I am 186 out of the county. Theyre having a hard time being able to carry out the basic things they need to do. It is extremely close. I probably would still give this to trump in ohio. Nothing will surprise me here. Thats interesting. You are saying despite what
you see with seniors and certain groups of white men. Right now you will give ohio to trump . Because the republican machines people have been happy with republicans. Democrats, they were not winning anything obama won. When i ran for reelection, literally 86 out of 88 counties sort of the marine ri chinery i there. These things coming together is making it close. I would not be surprised if biden won ohio and the same thing is happening in florida with seniors moving the other way and independent men and suburbs. The women in the suburbs had it and demonstrated through the midterm elections. This is really something. You mentioned pennsylvania, pretty close, i would give that one to biden. Michigan, michigan is gone. Biden is going to win michigan. Interestingly enough in the state of wisconsin. We are beginning to see biden opening up the league. The country is too split right now. I would give it to joe biden. When you talk about seniors, is that related to coronavirus and the president s handling of the coronavirus . Yes, it is. One thing joe biden had a show in that debate was hes Strong Enough to be able to carry out the job as president , the seniors were looking at that. He passed that test. Seniors have not totally settled down yet but they are moving away from trump and undecided and trending towards biden. The other thing that trump people missed out on is theyre not talking about the most important issues and thats jobs. We have a covid economy now and
you hear biden talking about it and harris and you dont hear trump saying much about it. Hes been an attack dog and the democrats are socialists and all that. I dont think thats effective. Hes been off message and talking about the virus. It always gets down to jobs. You have endorsed biden. Let me ask you one thing. The biden voters voted early and trumps voters vote on election day. The vote may change. Ohio could start counting before election day. Could we know Election Night and early the day after which way ohio went. Well, we could. They can process the ballot. We are really used to doing it. You get to count the ballots a couple of days