Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Says DNI Stopping Election Security Briefings Due to Leaks; Intel Chief to Congress: No More Election Security Briefings; Police Union, Blake Family Offer Conflicting Accounts of Shooting; Blake's Family Organizes March in Wisconsin; "Black Panther" Star Dies at 43 of Colon Cancer. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired August 29, 2020 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST, THE SITUATION ROOM: Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. This is a special edition of The Situation Room.

And we begin with news that's sending shockwaves through Washington right now with the election just over two months away, President Trump's Director of National Intelligence now tells Congressional leaders they won't - won't be receiving any more in-person briefings on election security related issues, this despite the U.S. intelligence community recently warning lawmakers that Russia and China and Iran are actively trying to interfere in the U.S. presidential election.

Jeremy Diamond is joining us from the White House right now. Jeremy, so tell us exactly what's going on. What do we know about this very significant decision by the ODNI?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, our colleague Jake Tapper wrote this story earlier today, and since then we have seen wholesale condemnation from Democrats on Capitol Hill who are frankly upset at the way that this has unfolded, and really cannot believe this idea that the Director of National Intelligence and intelligence officials who work for him would not be briefing Congress with 66 days left until the general election on this critical issue of election security and foreign interference. Now, the president was asked earlier today about this decision and why it unfolded.

Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Director Ratcliffe brought information into the committee and the information leaked, whether it was Shifty Schiff or somebody else. They leak the information before it gets in, and what's even worse, they leak the wrong information and he got tired of it. So he wants to do it in a different form because you have leakers on the committee.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DIAMOND: Some contradictory statements there from the president suggesting that information was leaked, but at the same time it wasn't correct information which would mean that it was not a leak from an intelligence briefing.

But nonetheless, Wolf, Democrats are jumping on this and they are calling this a shocking abdication of responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence's responsibility to inform Congress about intelligence threats.

This is the statement from the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. They write together that this is shameful and coming only weeks before the election demonstrates that the Trump administration is engaged in a politicized effort to withhold election-related information from Congress and the American people at the precise moment that greater transparency and accountability is required. This keeps both the American people and the Congress in the dark when both are in need of the information.

And Wolf, another interesting piece of information in that statement is that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had actually scheduled a briefing with members of Congress for mid- September, which would address these critical issues of foreign interference and election security.

But Wolf, they have cancelled that in-person briefing and now we have this news that they will instead plan on only updating Congress through written information, which of course doesn't give members of Congress the opportunity to engage with these intelligence community briefers and question the information that they're being given. Wolf.

BLITZER: It's interesting because - and I'm looking at the statement that the ODNI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, released on July 24, a month ago, in which time the Director of National Intelligence said specifically, I pledge that the U.S. intelligence community would continue to update the American public and other key stakeholders on the evolving election threat landscape while also safeguarding our intelligence sources and methods.

It's very sensitive. All this is very sensitive to the president, because in that original assessment that was released publicly, this is unclassified information, they made it clear that the U.S. intelligence community, Jeremy, says "We assess that China prefers President Trump get re-elected."

The intelligence estimate also says, "We assess that Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden. Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television."

Finally, they said that Iran is actively interfering "to undermine" U.S. democratic institutions as much as they possibly can.

So they released all this information a month ago, and now they're saying they're not even going to brief what's called the Gang of Eight, the top members of the intelligence committees and the top Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, is that right?

DIAMOND: That's right, Wolf. Just one quick clarification. They did assess as it relates to China that they prefer that President Trump not be re-elected in fact, and that is something that President Trump has seized on even as he ignores the notion that Russia is aiming to denigrate Joe Biden and clearly is acting to boost President Trump's re-election chances in 2020.

[19:05:00]

And in fact that statement, while it was extremely revelatory, was criticized by some members of Congress who felt that it kind of put these three countries on the same level of playing field, even though we know that Russia has really taken the most active role in interfering in the American elections in 2016 and 2018, and once again now in 2020. And so these concerns of election interference are only growing.

And Wolf, one other thing is that President Trump has recently suggested that foreign countries could interfere as it relates to mail-in ballots to try and affect the election results. U.S. intelligence officials actually last week said that that is not the case. So that is another dynamic that is at play here as the president is trying to spew misinformation about mail-in ballots, about the security of the 2020 election and he's already been directly contradicted by the U.S. intelligence community.

Presumably these briefings, Wolf, if they were held in person, would provide only more opportunity for those intelligence officials to provide accurate information and for members of Congress to press them on the president's claims.

BLITZER: Yes, that's very significant. The intelligence community, as you say, very specific. China would prefer that Biden wins the election, Russia wants Trump to win the election, and Iran just wants to undermine U.S. democratic institutions and cause chaos, dissent here in the United States as much as possible. Alright, Jeremy, thanks very much.

Let's bring in the independent Senator Angus King of Maine. He caucuses with the Democrats, he is joining us now. He is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator King, what do you think, what's your reaction to this pretty significant statement from the Director of National Intelligence?

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): Well, my first reaction, Wolf, is that this isn't a partisan issue, this isn't Democrats or Republicans. This is about informing the American people that the Director of National Intelligence, as you indicated, made a commitment to Congress and to the American people to make clear in real-time what was going on in terms of foreign interference with our elections, and now they're reneging on their commitment. The question I have, Wolf, is who owns the intelligence? We're paying - the taxpayers of America are paying billions of dollars for the collection of intelligence. And we should be - we the people should have the benefit, the knowledge that that intelligence brings. Learning about it next February or March doesn't do much good.

We're talking about interference with our election this year, which we know is going on, the intelligence community has already told us that. And these briefings ought to be on a regular updated basis and just doing in writing doesn't cut it.

I've been to hundreds of Congressional hearings. I've never been to one where questions from the members didn't improve and deepen and provide context for the written testimony that was pre-filed. So, this is a real step backwards, it's a real slap in the face to the American people, who have a right to know what the intelligence community knows. That's what they're there for.

BLITZER: Well, what do you say to the president, you heard what he said earlier today, suggesting that you guys can't be trusted anymore because you leak information, sensitive classified information that undermines U.S. national security?

KING: Well, if people leak information, there's recourse, there's a way of holding them responsible. I don't believe - I've been on the Senate Intelligence Committee now for almost 8 years, I don't recall any times when anything was leaked from our committee.

The important thing is to get the information out. And as long as you're not compromising what they call sources and methods, how we found the information, what we know about what foreigners are doing to interfere in our election should be made public, because Wolf, the intelligence community thinks of the president, the national security advisers, the members of Congress, of the defense department as their customers.

Well, I would argue that, once every four years, the American people are their customers who need that information, that intelligence in order to inform their decision on November 3. And to hold on to this information, to hold it back, to keep it away from the people's representatives, this isn't a Congress versus president, this is the public's right to know through their representatives in Congress.

It's a real abdication and it just doesn't smell right with one of the president's big supporters, who's now the Director of National Intelligence. All I want them to do is do what they said they were going to do. Give us the information in real-time. If somebody leaks it, they can be held accountable. But that's no reason to deny the American people what our intelligence community is learning on a day- to-day basis.

BLITZER: Before I let you go, Senator King, is there anything you could do about it, you and your colleagues in the Senate and the House for that matter, because there are specific laws that require the U.S. intelligence community to keep the top leadership of the House and Senate informed? [19:10:00]

KING: Well, I've already been in touch with some of the leadership of the intelligence committee that I serve on and we're going to be meeting, I suspect electronically, in the next 24 hours to discuss this, because I think they are in violation of specific requirements to keep us informed.

And as I said, just giving you a written statement doesn't really do it, you need to be able to have questions to get the context, to get the details. That's when the important information becomes evident and that's really what we need to be able to do.

BLITZER: I'll just leave our viewers with this quote from Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence, in this letter that he wrote to the Speaker Nancy Pelosi, we just got late today. He says this, he says, "Just sending written statements to the committees", he says, "I believe this approach helps you ensure to the maximum extent possible that the information ODNI provides the Congress in support of your oversight responsibilities on election security, foreign malign influence and election interference, is not misunderstood nor politicized. It will also better protect our sources and methods and most sensitive intelligence from additional unauthorized disclosures or misuse." That's his explanation for saying you're only going to get a written statement, you're not going to be able to asking any follow up questions.

Senator King, thanks so much for joining us.

KING: Glad to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Coming up, there's more news. We're following the family of Jacob Blake is holding a march and a rally today as they dispute a new account of what exactly happened. We're going to hear from the father. That's coming up.

Also, there are very disturbing coronavirus pandemic developments, and it's far from over. Get this, nearly 1,000 Americans confirmed dead yesterday here in the United States. And now the University Of Alabama in Tuscaloosa announcing that positive tests for over 1,000 students since classes resumed two weeks ago, more than 1,000 students at the University Of Alabama have now tested positive for coronavirus since the classes were resumed.

All that, all the day's important news coming up in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:15:00]

BLITZER: It's been nearly a week since police shot Jacob Blake seven times in the back, leaving him paralyzed. Today, hundreds gathered for a march in Kenosha, Wisconsin, organized by Blake's family, this as the police union now offers a new account of the incident that which Blake's family disputes. We should warn you the video is very disturbing. The Union says,

before the shooting, before this footage, Blake physically fought with officers and they allege he was armed with a knife. Blake's uncle calls that version of events insulting and garbage.

Sara Sidner is on the scene for us in Kenosha, where she recently spoke with Blake's father. Sara, so update our viewers on what's going on. Give our viewers a sense of what's happening now.

SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there were at least a couple thousand people who showed up here in Kenosha in support of Jacob Blake and his family, and also in support of black lives and against police brutality. This is just impromptu.

The actual protest has broken up and the speaking has ended. But right out here where the family had first started to march with everyone, all of a sudden impromptu cars from across town have driven in here and they're putting their fists up in a black power salute.

One of the members of the family is still here, Justin Blake, and he has basically been walking up and down the rows, smiling at people as they are cheering him on. We did also talk to, as you mentioned, Jacob Blake's father, who talked about the officer responsible for shooting his son in the back seven times.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: They came out and they made a lot of allegations. Do you think that the officer was in imminent danger at the time of the shooting?

JACOB BLAKE SR., JACOB BLAKE'S FATHER: How can you be in imminent danger when a person has nothing in their hands? What was he, Superman? You could see the knife through the walls of the car?

The police union means nothing to me. It's a bunch of cats that pay a bunch of dudes to have a title, a union. They do nothing but support their bad cops. He's a bad cop. It didn't take seven shots to find out that.

The first shot told you that the second one was coming. The third shot should have told you with the fourth one he's trying to kill him. The fifth shot said, "Damn, man, how many more times you gonna shoot?" By the time the seventh shot got there, it's attempted murder. He showed he was no threat after the third shot. Now, my son won't be able to walk for the rest of his life.

SIDNER: You think that this officer should be charged with attempted murder?

BLAKE SR.: He should be charged with attempted murder because he didn't kill him. So if he had killed him, it would add to murder one, but it was an attempt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: And so you heard there, very passionately speaking about what he thinks should happen. Of course, the officers have not been charged with anything, the officer accused of shooting Jacob Blake. We've also heard from the Union, they have their own set of details.

They say that Blake was actually armed, that there was a fight between him and police before Jacob Blake got to that van in the infamous video that we have all seen that is so disturbing with his three kids in the van.

And so, the family disputing those details, and they are not the investigative agency. The State Department of Justice is saying, they're still doing an impartial investigation and that the police union does not speak for the ultimate investigation in this. They are an agency that is there to defend police, Wolf.

BLITZER: Sara Sidner on the scene for us in Kenosha. Sara, I know you've been doing great excellent reporting. Thank you very, very much.

Joining us now, CNN Legal Analyst, the criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson. Joey, thanks so much for joining us. So as you know, we now have very differing claims from the Kenosha police union and the Blake family and the Blake family attorneys.

[19:20:00]

I want to show our viewers some of those police association claims once again, how unusual is it for the police union, by the way, to start openly offering its own evidence during an active investigation by an outside agency.

Among other things they say Blake fought with officers, Blake put an officer in a headlock, Blake carried a knife he refused to drop, and the responding officers were aware of an outstanding arrest warrant against him.

So what do you say to those charges from the Kenosha police officers association?

JOEY JACKSON, LEGAL ANALYST, CNN: Oh, I think it's very important to note, Wolf, this is not about what a union does or doesn't do, it's not about a union representing their members or not, it's about this officer's conduct or misconduct.

And it's certainly not about what the officer did or what Blake did before this occurred; whether he was fighting, whether he was not fighting; whether he was screaming, whether he was not screaming; whether he had a criminal record, whether he didn't; it's about what happened at the time that he was shot, and the critical question there that we heard and we're going to continually to hear are threefold.

Number one was the officer in immediate fear of death or serious physical injury. If we have viewers who are the jurors, they evaluate it for themselves. But I would ask if I were in a courtroom and I were prosecuting the case, use your common sense and good judgment. Did the officer appear that he was going to die or be seriously hurt at the time he fired the shot? I think the resounding answer is no. Moving on to the issue of proportionality of the response, the officer

fired seven shots. Ask yourself the question, did the officer need to fire once, much less twice, three, four, five, six, seven times? Is that a proportionate response to any threat that was posed?

And finally, Wolf, in terms of the reasonability, does anyone look at this and believe that this were reasonable? And I want to be just be clear, this is not about even indicting the entirety of the police department. Police are out there and they are serving us with distinction and honor, seven days a week and twice on Sunday. This is about what this officer did.

And you know what, Wolf, we could change the name, we could change the location, we could change the date, we could change the facts, it continues to happen, we have to ask ourselves why? And those officers who overstepped as it appears this one did, needs to be held accountable irrespective of what's being said about what happened before he was shot and paralyzed. It just shouldn't have occurred, it's sickening to watch that video, and there needs to be accountability.

BLITZER: Yes, a key issue will be what the Kenosha police officers association claims. And in their statement they say, Mr. Blake was not unarmed, he was armed with a knife. I guess if they can prove that, Joey, that there was a knife there and he was actually threatening the police officer as he was trying to get into the car, that would be a key element in going forward with prosecution of the police officer, right?

JACKSON: It would, I think, be a key element as it relates to actually securing a conviction. Now, here's the issue, the issue is a knife alone. You can argue that there was not a knife. Now, there will be forensic tests done on the knife, there will be determination as to whether there were prints or sweat or anything that would connect Mr. Blake to that knife. That's number one.

Number two, merely because there was a knife doesn't mean that that knife was going to be used in a way that represented harm to the officer.

Number three, what if any furtive movement was Mr. Blake making at the time that he was shot?

And number four, did the officer at the time, if there were a knife, did he have the vantage point or ability to observe one? So all of those things are going to go into play.

Final point, Wolf, and that's this, what I'm concerned about is the propriety and integrity of the investigation, let me be clear. The investigation itself, I think, it's an independent outside agency that will do it, but after that occurs, it's given that is the facts and circumstances to the local DA.

So I'm concerned about the process. Does a local DA that works with police that depends upon police for prosecution, should they be the one making the call as to whether there should be a prosecution here? So the process, I think, is very flawed and I think we have to move to

a process of independence, and move to a process where people can respect the ultimate outcome of whether a prosecutor prosecutes or not. We'll see what the issue is and the answer to that question is moving forward.

BLITZER: Yes, you are absolutely right. These are really, really sensitive issues and you make excellent points, Joey, as usual. Thanks very much for joining us.

JACKSON: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Coming up, he played a super hero on the silver screen, but was secretly fighting cancer in real life. We'll now go into the life of Chadwick Boseman and the legacy he leaves behind. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:25:00]

BLITZER: All over the world this Saturday, fans are mourning the shocking loss of Black Panther star and award-winning actor Chadwick Boseman. He died at the very young age of 43, after privately battling colon cancer for four years. He was also known for portraying iconic African American figures, including Thurgood Marshall, James Brown and Jackie Robinson. Let's discuss this in more with Van Jones.

Van, a very sad development indeed, our hearts go out to his family, his friends. Share with us the gravity of this loss, the impact that Chadwick Boseman left behind.

JONES: It's hard to find words for it. I mean, he is a hero in every sense of the word. He played almost all of the great black heroes at such a young age, including mythical heroes like James Brown.

"The Black Panther" being the most successful film of the Marvel franchise, I mean, the Marvel franchise massively successful, almost everyone in the films -- in the 20 plus films, you know, made a ton of money, huge, you know, global impact. The most successful film, "The Black Panther."

And I remember when it was in the process of being made, talking to actors like Winston Duke and others who were part of it, they knew they were doing something historic. They knew they're doing something special, and Chadwick more than anyone else, because he was carrying that film, and the responsibility that he felt to do an excellent job shows up in every single scene in that film.

And so it's just devastating. In some ways, he becomes, you know, James Dean of his generation. You know, lost too soon, but with a much bigger body of work. So in that regard he lives on.

But how much more could he have done if he had been able to get to the age of a Sidney Poitier or Harry Belafonte? He had so much more to do. I think that's where the grief comes from. WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST, THE SITUATION ROOM: Yes, so sad indeed,

Chadwick Boseman's death. Also, Van, it came on the day Major League Baseball was honoring Jackie Robinson by wearing his number 42 that really added to this sense of loss, didn't it?

JONES: It really did. You know, we're in this incredible moment, where the culture is trying to come to terms with itself and we have the most diverse country in the history of the world, every kind of human being ever born, and living in one country. We mostly get along, but there's some real tough issues that we've got to deal with both past, present and future.

And, you know, the way that the Major League Baseball had come to embrace and really truly celebrate what an incredible amount of courage Jackie Robinson displayed. That in some ways came out of the film that Chadwick had done.

So there is this incredible interplay between the league and film, and Jackie Robinson and Chadwick Boseman, and it all kind of comes together on the same day, which was just, you know, just made it more of a double punch, but also makes it even that much more epic.

This guy, epic, legend, icon, all of these terms applied to him a week ago, and now it's in a completely different stratospheric level.

BLITZER: Yes, we're going to, later in THE SITUATION ROOM, we're going to play some excerpts from his very moving, very powerful commencement address at Howard University, his Alma Mater here in Washington a couple of years ago. I think you'll want to watch that. It really is significant and as we say, our hearts go out to his family and his friends, may he rest in peace, and may his memory be a blessing.

JONES: Absolutely.

BLITZER: Before I let you go, Van, I want to turn to another major story this Saturday. The emotional scene today at the NBA, so-called bubble in Florida.

Players from the Milwaukee Bucks and Orlando Magic kneeled during the National Anthem as the league returned to action today after a three- day work stoppage. That was in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Did the players make their point with their protests?

JONES: I think so. And I think what's unbelievable is, you know, athlete protest is not new. You know, Muhammad Ali protested. You know, Kareem Abdul Jabbar protested. You had the 1968 Olympics.

The difference is, this is not a single athlete standing out from the pack. This is a generation of athletes saying we don't know what the political people are going to do or what the police are going to do, what the courts are going to do, what the Supreme Court -- we know we have a platform, and we want to use that platform to be in solidarity with people who want to see positive change. And for it to be a generation standing up, that has never happened

before and this is coming four years after Colin Kaepernick was the solo voice, you know, taking a knee. Now it's, you know, multiple leagues of athletes taking a knee. I just think it's unbelievable.

They are showing more and better leadership as young athletes than many of our elected officials.

BLITZER: Van Jones, as usual. Thanks so much for joining us.

JONES: Thank you.

BLITZER: Coming up, very disturbing news out of the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. They resumed classes on campus less than two weeks ago, and now they are reporting more than a thousand -- more than a thousand new cases of coronavirus since classes resumed two weeks ago. What that means for the school, what that means for other college campuses around the United States -- that and more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:38:55]

BLITZER: At a time when schools are struggling to find a way to reopen, the news today from Alabama was deeply troubling. More than 1,200 students have now tested positive for COVID-19 at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa that according to the school. A thousand -- a thousand of those cases have come since classes resumed on August 19th, only two weeks ago.

Dr. Megan Ranney is joining us now. She's an emergency physician at Lifespan Brown University. Dr. Ranney, what's your reaction to this news of more than a thousand students at the University of Alabama over the past two weeks alone have tested positive for coronavirus.

DR. MEGAN RANNEY, EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN, LIFESPAN/BROWN UNIVERSITY: You know, Wolf, it makes me sad for those kids and for their parents. This is exactly what many of us in the public health world were worried about.

When you're taking kids from a bunch of hot spots across the state or across the country, putting them all in close quarters. They're not going to stay apart from each other. Right? They haven't seen each other in months. It's human nature as a young adult to want to go to the bars or go to parties or of course go to their own classes.

And so it's inevitable that those youth are going to bring infections from wherever their home is to the university, and also that they're going to pass it among each other.

[19:40:15]

RANNEY: As we reopen more universities across the country, we're going to see more stories like this, and then I worry not just about those youth, but also about the community around them, about all the people that are selling them groceries and working at restaurants and selling them textbooks. They are all at risk as well.

BLITZER: And then we did some checking, 481 cases, Dr. Ranney have been identified at the University of Alabama since last Tuesday alone, 481.

Now these young people, they may be asymptomatic or only have minor symptoms, but they're fully capable even if they're asymptomatic of transmitting this virus to their family, their friends, to anyone else, right?

RANNEY: That is exactly right. We know that about 40 percent of people with COVID-19 infections are asymptomatic, but being asymptomatic does not mean that you can't pass the infection on.

In fact, we think that many infections are spread in a couple of days of where people get symptoms. It's why that asymptomatic testing is so important, especially among closed populations, like at a university so that we can identify hotspots, quarantine people and keep it from spreading.

But absolutely, those kids can and likely are spreading it. The cases that we're seeing today may reflect infections that they came into the school with, or maybe just the beginning of the spread among the folks that are already back at school since it's been about two weeks since they came back.

BLITZER: Yes, I checked with some other medical experts and what really worries me, Dr. Ranney, is that even if they're asymptomatic, and they're young people, they're strong, they're vibrant, even if they have minor, minor symptoms right now, we don't know what the long term ramifications of this disease could be on their health down the road. That's something that the experts are trying to figure out.

Dr. Megan Ranney as usual, thanks so much for joining us.

RANNEY: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, coming up, we are just 66 days away from the presidential election here in the United States. The Republican Party is working to try to recast the President after the Republican Convention this past week. But will it work? We're taking a closer look when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:46:49]

BLITZER: The two National Conventions here in the United States are now over, which means it's a sprint to the finish here with just 66 days until the election.

For President Trump there's one number he would love to see, an approval rating that shows at least half of all Americans think he is doing a good job. But when you look at the polls right now, the numbers just aren't there, at least not yet for him. That doesn't mean he can't win a second term. Let's go to our senior political writer, the analyst, Harry Enten who

is joining us right now.

Harry, some Democrats are worried about the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin following the shooting of Jacob Blake. Tell us what you think is going on right now here in the United States as far as politics are concerned?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER AND ANALYST: Yes, you know, there was a recent Marquette University Law School poll from the State of Wisconsin. Now, this was taken before the Blake shooting, but I think it gives you an indication of why Democrats are concerned.

What you see as the net approval rating for the mass protests following George Floyd's death have tumbled since June from plus 27 percentage points to minus one percentage point. So there's been a real degradation of the support for those protests.

At the same time, we've seen a degradation of support for the Black Lives Matter movement in Wisconsin. What we see there is that the net favorability rating, while it is still positive, it dropped from plus 33 percentage points back in June to just plus 10 percentage points in August.

Now, obviously this wouldn't be a big deal if we weren't seeing some movement in the presidential race as well. But what we do see in the State of Wisconsin, at least according to a Marquette University Law School poll is we do see that while Biden is still ahead, he was up by eight points in June, that has dropped down to four points in August.

I should say the average is a little better for Biden, but there is no doubt, Wolf, looking at the numbers that the numbers are not nearly as good for Biden in August as they were in June, and that does seem to be at least somewhat correlated with the degradation of support for the protest, at least in the State of Wisconsin.

BLITZER: We don't know what the polls are going to show in the next few days. In the aftermath of these two presidential conventions right now, Harry, 66 days to go until the presidential election, what do you expect these next two months will be like?

ENTEN: This is rather key and, you know, I think that each side is going to try and hit on the issues that they feel are best for them. So what we're going to see is Donald Trump talk a lot about crime. He is going to try and tie these protests and what he calls these riots. He is going to try and tie this to the larger crime issue because he's leading on crime, right? He is also leading on the economy versus Joe Biden is going to try and make this a larger picture, right?

He's going to try and say, look, I'm for uniting the country and he is going to try and bring race relations into this, because those are the best issues for them. Whichever side wins out, whichever argument wins out, I think that is going to be the side that ends up winning this election.

If it turns out that these protests are more about race relations at large, that's good for Biden. If it turns out it's about more about crime at large, that's going to be a good message for the President.

BLITZER: Yes, I think it's fair to say this contest is by no means over, 66 days to go. It will happen in those next 66 days, including three presidential debates, one vice presidential debate, which will have potentially a lot of impact as well.

Harry, thanks so much, as usual for joining us.

I want to dig deeper right now with our senior political commentator David Axelrod. He is joining us. He is a former senior adviser to President Obama, the host of "The Axe Files" podcast. So what do you think, David? What's your reaction first of all, to what we just heard from Harry?

[19:50:13]

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think there is some concern about that. What we saw in the last week was the President signaling very strongly and of many speakers at his convention, that they were going to try and make this the focus of the campaign and there's a good reason for it, because right now, the country is riven by a killer pandemic. The economy is mired in the effects of that pandemic. And the conditions are not very good for an incumbent President running for reelection.

He wants to change the subject, and he needs to rally his base, and he needs to get some of the suburban voters back and his message to those suburban voters, if you elect Biden that somehow your security will be threatened, your safety will be threatened.

And he wants to pump up these riots or protests that became violent as symbolic of something larger. There's also an undertone of race here, Wolf, and we shouldn't be -- we shouldn't ignore that factor.

He is touching a very, very sensitive rail here hoping to galvanize his vote and bring some voters back to him who were with him four years ago.

The only thing I disagree with on Harry is it's not -- it is about who is going to define this issue because Biden has to be firm about his opposition to these riots, even as he is firm about the need to deal with the excessive force by police against citizens of color.

But this race is really being controlled right now by the virus, and so it's really going to be whether Biden can keep the focus on the virus and the President's mishandling of that virus and the impact of it, versus the President trying to change the subject, because crime is not one of the top issues of concern that people have right now, the virus is, the economy is and that's an advantage for Biden.

BLITZER: You and I watched every minute of the four nights of the Republican Convention. Do you think, it would be accessible President Trump in rallying, shoring up his base going into these next 66 days?

AXELROD: You know, I suspect you will see in polling that he was even, if it doesn't show up in points, it will show up in terms of their ratings of him.

You know, he was trying to do two seeming conflicting things, which was to make it say acceptable to be for him by saying he's not a racist. He's not a misogynist. He's actually really compassionate person at the same time that he pushed this very hard crime message and that was aimed largely at suburban women.

What I'm going to be looking at is, did he get some of those women back? But this race is going to close Wolf, you know, Barack Obama won a, a smashing victory in 2008 and the margin was six points.

You know, that is in a very divided, polarized country. That is a big, big victory. So the fact that Joe Biden was sitting there with a double digit lead at the apex of the summer for him was not predictive of what's going to happen.

This is going to be a tough race. These battleground states are battleground states for a reason. And the President hopes that in those states, he can get some of these non-college, white voters who are the core of his base who didn't vote last time to come out and I think this issue, this crime issue is one of the ways in which he wants to do it.

BLITZER: We're only a month away from the first presidential debate, which will be of course televised on all the networks and everything, three presidential debates, as I said, one vice presidential debate, how significant are those debates in impacting a presidential election?

AXELROD: I think they can be critical, especially here, you know, Trump has made such an effort to try and denigrate Biden's mental acuity and his strength and his capacity to lead and if Biden shows up on that stage, and is the person who gave the acceptance speech, for example, at the Democratic Convention, he could take a big leap forward to kind of cementing his lead in this race.

If it goes badly for him, it could -- it could be otherwise. But one thing I would say is the President will be fighting history here because the history of presidents in their first debate after having not debated for four years is pretty grim.

I can testify, too, that having worked for Barack Obama, I still have Mitt Romney's tire tracks on my back from that debate, and so Trump will be fighting not only his own rustiness, but the bar that he sets so low for Biden there.

That said Trump is a showman. He is a performer. We know that. And it's going to be a very interesting -- I'd circle September 29th as perhaps the most important date in this campaign.

BLITZER: Yes, must watch TV and we will all be watching TV and Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker said this week to Vice President Biden, don't do these debates, but he says he will show up for all three debates.

All right, David Axelrod, as usual, thanks so much for joining us.

AXELROD: Great to see you, Wolf.

[19:55:15]

BLITZER: Thank you. Coming up. We're going to take you live to Wisconsin where the family of Jacob Blake is leading a march today. How they are disputing a new account of what happened from the Police Union. We have new information. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:00:00]