Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Willing to Overrule FDA on Vaccine?; President Trump Refuses to Commit to Peaceful Transfer of Power; Interview With White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows; Trump Stands By Refusal to Commit to Peaceful Transfer of Power, Trying Again to Cast Doubt on Integrity of Vote; Kentucky Calls for State Attorney General to Release Breonna Taylor Records. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired September 24, 2020 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:24]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM.

We're following breaking news on President Trump's alarming new threat to the heart of U.S. democracy. Tonight, he's actually standing by his refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he were to lose the election. And he's again trying to sow doubt about the integrity of mail-in voting.

And there's also breaking news on the coronavirus crisis. As the U.S. death toll now rises above, above 202,000, the CDC is now forecasting up to another 24,000 additional deaths here in the United States over the next three weeks alone, this as the head of the Food and Drug Administration is now insisting that approval of a COVID-19 vaccine will be based on science, not politics.

Dr. Stephen Hahn and Dr. Anthony Fauci are both pushing back at the president's claim that he can override the FDA's vaccine standards. This hour, I will ask the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows. He's standing by live. You see him there.

We will discuss that and a whole lot more, including the president's just announced new vision for health care reform here in the United States.

But, first, let's go to our chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta.

Jim, the president seems to be doubling down, refusing to commit to a standard followed by every president before him. What's the latest?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf.

White House officials are struggling to explain President Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the November election. The press secretary today said the president will accept the results

of what she called the results of a free and fair election. But that's hardly an ironclad commitment. The president is not backing away from his comments either. It's another sign the president is threatening to ignore the will of the American people.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA (voice-over): In what may be a warning siren to the world that American democracy is in serious trouble, President Trump is standing by his comments that he may not accept the results of the November election.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know that it can be with this whole situation -- unsolicited ballots.

ACOSTA: The White House is giving the president plenty of wiggle room to offer up his own definition of an honest election.

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president will exempt except the results of a free and fair election.

ACOSTA: Something Mr. Trump hinted at when he was asked whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

QUESTION: Will you continue with the plan to completely invalidate the ACA or...

TRUMP: Well, we're going to have to see what happens. You know that.

I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster.

ACOSTA: The president continues to rail against the use of mail-in ballots to help shield voters from the coronavirus in the November election.

But Mr. Trump's own FBI director noted what experts have said for years, that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the U.S., including ballots sent through the mail.

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: We have not seen historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise.

ACOSTA: Democrats are accusing the president of behaving like a dictator.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): You are not in Russia, Mr. President. And, by the way, you are not in Saudi Arabia. You are in the United States of America. It is a democracy.

ACOSTA: Republican leaders sound as though they believe the president is bluffing himself.

SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT): I will let him speak for himself, but I have indicated pretty clearly that there will be a peaceful transition of power.

ACOSTA: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tweeted: "The winner of the November 3 election will be inaugurated on January 20. There will be an orderly transition."

Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse said: "The president says crazy stuff," while South Dakota's John Thune insisted the GOP would push back if Mr. Trump refused to accept an election loss.

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): Republicans believe in the rule of law. And we believe in the Constitution. And that's what dictates what happens in our election process. And so, yes...

QUESTION: You would stand up to him if he tried to do something like that?

THUNE: Yes.

ACOSTA: Oddly enough, the president tweeted an endorsement for vote- by-mail ballots in Florida, but Mr. Trump has stated why he has confidence in Florida's system in the past.

TRUMP: Florida has got a great Republican governor, and it had a great Republican governor.

ACOSTA: The president caught a rare glimpse of Americans who want to vote him out as he paid his respects to the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though Mr. Trump later claimed he really couldn't hear the chorus of boos.

TRUMP: We heard a sound, but it wasn't very strong.

ACOSTA: On the pandemic, the administration is trying to reassure Americans that they will be able to trust a vaccine for COVID-19.

ALEX AZAR, U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: I want to reassure you and the American people politics will play no role whatsoever in the approval of a vaccine.

[18:05:01]

ACOSTA: That's after Mr. Trump insisted the White House will have the final say on how the vaccine is approved.

TRUMP: We're looking at that. That has to be approved by the White House. We may or may not approve it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: And the president is unveiling what the White House is calling a health care plan, something Mr. Trump has hinted at for months.

But the president's plan appears to have some gaping holes in it. While he claims he will protect people with preexisting conditions, the president is not saying how that would be guaranteed if his administration is successful in its efforts to overturn Obamacare in a case that will be heard at the Supreme Court after the election.

If Obamacare is scrapped, health care experts believe a new law would likely be needed to protect people with those preexisting conditions. And, as for the upcoming election, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution today declaring its support for a peaceful transfer of power.

That doesn't appear to be having much sway over the president -- Wolf.

BLITZER: It's so worrisome that the Senate even had to approve such a resolution, very, very worrisome, indeed.

ACOSTA: Unbelievable.

BLITZER: All right, Jim Acosta, thanks very much.

Let's discuss all of this with the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows. He's joining us from North Carolina right now.

Mark, thanks very much for joining us. Appreciate it very much. You got a lot going on.

MARK MEADOWS, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Great to be with you, Wolf. Thanks. Yes, thanks.

BLITZER: All right, thank you.

So, the president again today would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power. He said he's not sure the election can be honest here in the United States.

Is he saying that, if he wins, he will accept the results; if he loses, he won't commit to a peaceful transition?

MEADOWS: Yes, I haven't heard him say that.

I can tell you what I have heard him say, Wolf, is really overwhelming concern about mail-in ballots.

But more importantly than that is the unsolicited mail-in ballots. And I can tell you that, here in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, a few other states, where we all of a sudden -- we're starting to see judges extend the time for those mail-in ballots to come in, some many days after November 3

What we want to make sure of is that we have a free and safe and fair election. And what that means is no more than one ballot per person and make sure that that ballot actually goes from the person casting the ballot into the ballot box.

And yet we're seeing some activist judges across the country interpret the law that really is not on the books. They're actually making the law. And so I think that that's what most of this is about, is just making sure that, as long as it's free and fair, if it's free and fair, we will accept the will of the American people.

We believe that will be the reelection of President Donald Trump.

BLITZER: So, you say we will have a peaceful transfer of power here in the United States if it's a free and fair election.

But President Trump previously said the only way he would lose the election, if the election is rigged. That's his word. The only way he loses if the election is rigged.

So who decides if it's free and fair?

MEADOWS: Well, I think what we want to do is make sure that the laws are -- that are on the book, that have been passed by the state legislatures are not changed by unappointed or appointed and unelected judges.

And so when we look at that is making sure that it's certified in the proper manner, when we're having all of these different lawsuits that are filed. The one here in North Carolina, actually, it seemed to be a Democrat suing a Democrat and allowing a consent decree to be made to actually bypass the legislature to put forth a law.

That's not what a nation's laws is all about. So this is a president that supports the rule of law, supports the Constitution. And I'm hopeful that we will be able to see a free and fair election on November 3, and the results will be what they are.

And with that, we're planning and planning for a second term. But I want to remind you. You're here talking to me today. Perhaps we ought to get Hillary Clinton on, because she was the first one to tell Joe Biden, no matter what the results are, you shouldn't concede.

So there's a little bit of hyperbole on their side.

BLITZER: But, as you know, Mark, with all due respect, Hillary Clinton isn't running against President Trump this time. She tried to do that. She lost four years ago.

MEADOWS: But it was advice -- but it was advice to Joe Biden.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But the president...

(CROSSTALK)

MEADOWS: Hold on. I didn't hear him push back at all. Did you hear him push back?

(CROSSTALK)

MEADOWS: Did you hear him push back?

BLITZER: Yes, Joe Biden -- Joe Biden and his campaign, they said publicly they are committed to a peaceful transfer of power.

I heard that. And I'd like to hear the president... MEADOWS: Well, that's different -- that's different than what I just -- hold on. That's different than what I just said, is because what I heard was, she -- he was advised not to concede.

And when that happened, you know what we heard? The sound of silence. There was nothing there.

BLITZER: No, Biden and his campaign say they will accept a peaceful transfer of power.

It was an extraordinary moment. You served in the House of Representatives for a long time.

MEADOWS: Sure.

BLITZER: The U.S. Senate today actually would convene. They passed a resolution reaffirming the commitment to a peaceful transfer of power.

[18:10:01]

And, in the House, the number -- the number three Republican, Congresswoman Liz Cheney, a woman you know well, she said this.

And I will put it up on the screen: "The peaceful transfer of power is enshrined in our Constitution and fundamental to the survival of our republic. America's leaders swear an oath to the Constitution. We will uphold that oath.

BLITZER: Here's the question. Mark, here's the question.

(CROSSTALK)

MEADOWS: And we certainly will.

OK, go ahead. Sorry.

BLITZER: Will you commit here right now to upholding that same oath, what we heard from Liz Cheney?

MEADOWS: Without a doubt.

I have raised my right hand to uphold the Constitution. And there's not as much difference between what Liz Cheney said about upholding the Constitution and supporting a free and fair election. You have to have both of those, because, if you don't have one without the other, then you don't have a democracy.

And I would agree with that. So, as long as we're upholding the Constitution and the rule of law, I fully expect that we will have a peaceful transition of power that the president not only will support, but that Americans across the country will support.

And I call on my Democratic colleagues to suggest to Vice President Biden to -- if the results are not to his liking, to concede as well.

BLITZER: The president also says, Mark, that he wants his Supreme Court nominee -- he's going to nominate a woman on Saturday at 5:00 p.m. He once that nominee confirmed before the November 3 election in case the Supreme Court actually has to weigh in on the election results.

And he wants his nominee to potentially break a tie in what he calls a scam -- his word -- by Democrats.

Do comments like those compromise the independence of our judicial system?

MEADOWS: Well, I think the independence -- independence of our judicial system is -- has a great foundation.

As we know, there's a nomination process. It's with the advice and consent of the Senate, where they confirm those justices. And just like we don't talk about how they might rule on a particular case, even during the vetting process, that independence has served us well for many, many years.

And I don't doubt the independence of the Supreme Court. Whether you like the way a particular justice may or may not rule, the independence is not going to be swayed by the president of the United States or anybody else.

They, likewise, uphold their constitutional duty to make sure that they have -- hopefully, Lady Justice has a blindfold on.

BLITZER: Well, I want to turn to the coronavirus crisis.

MEADOWS: Sure.

BLITZER: But, very quickly, would the Supreme Court nominee that the president puts up there, nominates -- and let's say she gets confirmed before November 3 -- would she have to recuse yourself from any decision about the election, given the process that's unfolding right now?

MEADOWS: No, I mean, no more than anybody that was confirmed under President Barack Obama or George Bush or anybody else recusing their self.

I can tell you that, during the vetting process, the questions that you're talking about as it relates to elections are not part of the process.

I have been involved in that process. So I wouldn't imagine that any of the justices would need to recuse themselves, no matter whether they were nominated by a Democrat president or a Republican president.

BLITZER: I want to talk about the coronavirus crisis.

Yesterday, the president said the White House may actually overrule the FDA if it tries to put tougher standards in place to approve a vaccine. He accused politics that are playing out at the FDA right now. Does the president stand by that? Would you feel comfortable if the

White House were to overrule the FDA in coming up with guidelines to make sure that any vaccine is safe and effective for the American public?

MEADOWS: Well, I want to make sure that your viewers understand very clearly what this is and what it's not.

I can tell you the guidance that we're talking about would actually be new guidance that's coming along at the 11th hour as we look at a vaccine approval. That guidance, the rules that actually support vaccine development are well-established.

They have been long established for a long time. In my conversations with Dr. Hahn, and as that guidance goes through the (INAUDIBLE) process, this is more a function of making sure that it is based on good science. Politics won't play any role in that. But a lot of this...

BLITZER: Well, why is the president, Mark, why is the president raising the issue of politics at the FDA, as he did yesterday?

MEADOWS: Well, I can tell you, it's very concerning to a number of us to see guidance that comes out after we have already spent over $30 billion to actually get a safe vaccine delivered to the American people.

That guidance, as long as it's based on science, will certainly be supported by the president, certainly be supported by the administration.

But I found -- I found it very interesting that we would actually have new guidance that came out just a few weeks before we're hopefully going to have some very good results on clinical three trials from some of these vaccines.

[18:15:08]

It's essentially allowing them to go ahead with phase one, phase two, and now phase three clinical trials, and at the last minute come out with some guidance that may perhaps change the parameters.

We want to make sure it's based on science. My preliminary review by some of our doctors, and working in conjunction with the FDA, is that there's probably a bigger story here than there actually is action. And we're hopeful that, in the next 24 to 48 hours, that that will all be cleared up.

BLITZER: I know you got to run.

Final question, Mark. The president just announced some new executive orders on the issue of health care...

MEADOWS: Yes.

BLITZER: ... which is so critical for the American public. But there are no details on exactly how he's going to implement his

long-promised plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, assuming it were unconstitutional and goes away. Why should voters trust him on health care, when we still have not seen a specific plan, for example, how we would guarantee that Americans who have preexisting conditions, for example, would in fact be able to still get health insurance at an affordable rate?

MEADOWS: Well, he's been consistent in his support of preexisting conditions, Wolf, just signed another E.O. to say that anything that comes along will never get his signature unless it supports preexisting conditions.

But this is just a reaffirmation of something that he said not once, not twice, but multiple times.

I can tell you, the big news coming out of this is, 33 million American seniors, the people that are perhaps tuned in right now, those 33 million American seniors in the month of October will start getting a discount card for $200 to help with co-pay.

It's the first time that money came from big pharma back from their pockets in the pockets of American seniors. And so that's something really To celebrate. So, if they have any question about if he's for real, wait until that card gets in -- is received in the mail.

BLITZER: And very quickly on the preexisting conditions, assuming the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, as it's called, were to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court...

MEADOWS: Right.

BLITZER: ... would the president need congressional action, legislation passed in the House, passed in the Senate, signed into law by the president, to make sure that the preexisting conditions clause remains in effect, that Americans don't have to worry about getting health insurance at an affordable rate, if they have -- if they have some preexisting conditions?

MEADOWS: Yes, that's a great question. Yes, that's a great question.

I'm glad you asked it, because part of the leverage of having the ability of Medicaid and Medicare providers is the insurance companies that actually provide that. Part of that leverage is to be able to tell them that, unless you cover preexisting conditions, you don't qualify for some of these other plans.

So the answer to your question is, no, we wouldn't actually need congressional help there.

What we would need congressional help with is actually a number of the other things that will drive down prices to provide for better choice, lower prices and better coverage.

Hopefully, we will find a willing Congress in the next Congress that will help this president implement that. BLITZER: Mark Meadows, thanks very much for joining us. I know you got

a lot going on. I appreciate it very much.

MEADOWS: Thanks, Wolf. Thanks so much.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Thank you.

Just ahead: the pushback by top health officials, as the president claims he can override the FDA on approval of a COVID-19 vaccine. Will science prevail over politics?

And we will break down a new CDC forecast on how many more Americans are likely to die of the coronavirus in the coming three weeks.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:22:59]

BLITZER: Breaking news tonight: The FDA commissioner is insisting that approval of a coronavirus vaccine will be determined by science, not politics.

Let's get some more from our national correspondent, Erica Hill.

Erica, the president's claim he could override the FDA is getting a lot, a lot of pushback.

ERICA HILL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's getting a lot of pushback.

Here in New York state, Governor Cuomo announcing that he's putting together a coronavirus vaccine task force of doctors, scientists and health experts who will look at any vaccine that's approved by the federal government, citing concerns that those efforts are becoming politicized, this on the same day that we heard more from Dr. Stephen Hahn, the commissioner of the FDA.

He talked about any change to emergency use authorization guidelines, what we have heard so much about. He said that simply would be to provide clarity to developers. He also said any conversations that the FDA has had with manufacturers have not been political, and went on to say -- quote -- "Our experts who know about vaccines will make this determination, and it will be only based upon the science and the data, not politics. That's my pledge," doubling down there on his testimony Wednesday that science will guide the FDA.

This after the president seemed to suggest otherwise.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DR. STEPHEN HAHN, COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: Science will guide our decisions. FDA will not permit any pressure from anyone to change that.

HILL (voice-over): A straightforward pledge, as the FDA works to boost confidence in a vaccine, even considering tougher standards for emergency use authorization.

The president's reaction?

TRUMP: To me, it sounded extremely political. Why would they do this when we come back with these great results? And, ultimately, the White House has to approve it.

HILL: Dr. Fauci noting that's not the traditional route.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: That the scientists and the FDA have put this forth as what their proposal for the criteria for EUA. Under normal circumstances, that decision is theirs, the secretary approves it, and that's it.

Something that comes from without that is not a scientific consideration would be troublesome.

HILL: Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar batting cleanup.

[18:25:01]

AZAR: Politics will play no role whatsoever in the approval of a vaccine. The president's been clear, I have been clear. FDA has been clear. Science will drive this. FDA is going to make the call on whether a vaccine is safe and effective.

HILL: An antibody test that can be administered in a doctor's office just granted emergency use authorization, as new information suggests the virus is becoming more contagious, though not more lethal.

The CDC reports more than 20 percent of confirmed cases between June and August were people in their 20s.

FAUCI: The only way we're going to end this is if everybody pulls together.

HILL: Officials in Colorado just banned all gatherings, even outdoors, for anyone aged 18 to 22 in Boulder. Colorado is among the 21 states seeing new cases rise over the past week.

DR. ALI KHAN, FORMER CDC OFFICIAL: As you look at that map, what you're seeing is an inconvenient truth, which is that many states allowed schools and colleges to reopen, when they had not gotten the disease under control.

HILL: Some of the highest spikes in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Better news in Ohio and Indiana.

GOV. ERIC HOLCOMB (R-IN): We are moving in the right direction.

HILL: Masks still required in the Hoosier State through mid-October, but restaurants and bars and nightclubs can open at full capacity this weekend.

Meantime, new signs the economic recovery is slowing. Another 870,000 Americans filed for firs-time unemployment benefits last week.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, FORMER CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: You got the K-shaped recovery, with some people doing very well and millions of people really struggling. We're going to live with that for some time.

HILL: Tennessee out with a sobering look at the pandemic's impact on children, estimating a 50 percent decrease in reading proficiency, a 65 percent dip in math skills for its third graders, since schools moved online last March.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HILL: And, Wolf, I just want to update you on the latest forecast from the CDC, this ensemble forecast, which, again, looks a few weeks into the future.

They're now projecting that, by October 17, as many as 226,000 lives could be lost to coronavirus in this country. This builds upon their last forecast, which looked out to October 10 and found as many as 218,000 lives could be lost by that date, at this point, Wolf, we more 202,000 lives already lost in this country.

BLITZER: That would mean 26,000 more Americans will die over the next three weeks alone. That is so heartbreaking, indeed.

All right, Erica, thank you very much.

Let's discuss with Dr. Ashish Jha, the dean of Brown University School of Public Health.

Dr. Jha, you heard Dr. Fauci call the idea that an outsider would overrule the FDA on vaccine authorization troublesome, his word, troublesome.

What are your thoughts on the president's threat to do just that, accusing FDA of playing politics right now by potentially expanding the trial to make sure that these vaccines are safe and effective?

DR. ASHISH JHA, DIRECTOR, HARVARD GLOBAL HEALTH INSTITUTE: Yes, so Wolf, thanks for having me on.

The new criteria that the FDA put out just a couple of days ago, incredibly reasonable, basically, two months of follow-up after people have had their second shot, so we have at least two months of safety data, and evidence that it's reducing severe infections. And that is what we really care about

What the FDA put out was clinically really reasonable. And then the idea that the president or the White House would review that strikes me as very unusual.

What -- in most administrations, Republican, Democratic, is, when the FDA puts out statements like that or evaluations like that, that's it. The FDA makes that call. I don't know why the White House is reviewing it, but it is worrisome.

BLITZER: Certainly is.

The FDA commissioner, Dr. Stephen Hahn, he weighed in, as you heard, once again pledging their politics won't influence the process at all. Are you confident though, Dr. Jha, that scientists like Dr. Hahn, Dr. Fauci would come out with clear public opposition if the White House were to attempt to overrule the FDA?

JHA: Yes, so I think what I want to see and what I want to hear is from the FDA scientists themselves.

So, unfortunately, I think Dr. Hahn, with what happened with convalescent plasma, has got a real credibility challenge at this moment, but there are fabulous scientists at the FDA, Dr. Peter Marks, but others as well, who have a lot of credibility. They're great.

And so hearing from them , hearing from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, head of the NIH, those things would, I think, give the American people a lot more confidence if -- that the process is going well.

BLITZER: Yes, if they said get a vaccine, I would get the vaccine.

If it's just the president of the United States saying, get a vaccine, I'd say, well, let's hear what the doctors and the scientists are saying. I'm sure you would do the same.

Dr. Jha, thanks so much for joining us.

JHA: Thank you.

BLITZER: Just ahead: the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Adam Schiff, on President Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he were to lose the election.

We will be right back.

[18:30:05]

BLITZER: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Tonight, top Democrats are sounding the alarm as President Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he were to lose the election.

And joining us now, the chairman of the Housing Intelligence Committee, Congressman Adam Schiff. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

[18:35:01]

Let me get your reaction to President Trump's refusal now to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose of the election. What did you make of those remarks?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D:CA): You know, I they are exactly what they appear to be, that is the president telling the country that he will not accept the results of the election if he loses, that he will throw out some unknown number of ballots. And if he can't throw them out, he'll deem the election illegitimate and he won't go peacefully.

He is making it abundantly clear, he is making this clear as he can, no one should be surprised therefore that if we get through the election, and the president loses, that we have a chaotic aftermath. This is what he is saying he's going to do.

And I think it really calls on people of good conscience in both parties to speak out, including people who are in the administration who ought to resign over this, and former people of the administration ought to stop this stoic silence in the face of this assault on our democracy.

If not now, and they wait until the chaos that follows, they will bear a bare share of responsibility for what they're putting the country through.

BLITZER: Well, if that scenario you just laid out, where to actually go into effect if the president were to lose but refuse to leave, what, if anything, could you do about it?

SCHIFF: Well, you know, there is just no clear roadmap, Wolf. You know, we're trying to obviously game out the different scenarios if the president violates the law or violates his oath of office and tries to cling to power. But we never went through this before. We've never had a president say, I am not leaving, the only election results I'll accept are those which show that I win, even if I lose. So we haven't been down this road before.

And so, you know, I'd like to say that there's a clear path where, you know, there's this mechanism in the House or that mechanism in the Senate. But when you have one party that is so completely abdicated, its responsibility, like the GOP, so made itself into cult of personality around the president, it means that the future is very much in question if this election is close and contested. And maybe even if it isn't that close, depending on just what extreme lengths the president is willing to go to.

So we have to do everything to avoid that in advance, which is, you know, again, why it's so important for people of conscience to speak out.

When the president did that blasphemous demonstration in front of the church, clear and peaceful protesters had, you know, the chief of staff, military chief of staff show up in fatigues, the defense secretary present, they were castigated by senior former military officials. We can't wait for that same thing to repeat after the election. People need to speak out now.

BLITZER: Despite the president's unfounded claims about the integrity of the election, the FBI director, Christopher Wray, testified before Congress today. He said, historically, there has been no, in his words, no coordinated national voter fraud effort. Should that give Americans faith in the integrity of the process, whether or not you actually show up and vote at a polling station or whether you do it by mail?

SCHIFF: I think it should give Americans confidence that there isn't going to be the kind of massive voter fraud that the president keeps talking about. Basically, FBI Director Wray is saying the president is full of baloney. There is no evidence of this. It would be very difficult to do, we're not seeing this.

But I'll tell you what we are seeing, Wolf. And that is we're seeing the Russians amplify the president's false messages.

So here, there is a confluence of interest once again between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump wants to delegitimize the American election and so does Vladimir Putin. So we're not seeing the kind of fraud the president is suggesting, but we are seeing the Russians push that whole idea out, something that Christopher Wray tried to put to rest, but it's very hard when both the president and his Kremlin amplifiers are continuing to push this propaganda.

BLITZER: You actually just introduced a bill, I understand, in the House called the Protecting Our Democracy Act, aimed at curtailing potential abuses of a presidential power. Tell us more about what this legislation would do.

SCHIFF: It's a whole package of reforms that I worked on with a number of the other chairs and other members that addressed the abuses we have seen during the Trump era. So, their measure is to strengthen the enforcement of the Hatch Act, so that the president can't essentially dragoon federal employees into helping his campaign.

[18:40:03]

There are measures to allow expedited enforcement or congressional subpoenas so a president can't stiff-arm the Congress and say, we're not going to bother to testify, we're not going to provide any material for you to do your oversight responsibility.

They're designed to curb abuses of the pardoned power so the president can't pardon himself, can't pardon people who lie to Congress on his behalf, can't commute the sentences or make cases go away of people that lie on his behalf, to protect the independence of the justice department, from an attorney general, like Bill Barr, who would turn that department into a sword to go after the president's enemies or shield to protect those that commit crimes on his behalf. And any number of others reforms.

The challenge, Wolf, of this package is, every time we got ready to introduce it, there would be more abuses to add to the list. But we're really trying to fold example of the Congress after Watergate, respond to the abuses we have seen and take corrective action so that we don't see those things happened again in the future.

BLITZER: All right, Congressman Adam Schiff of the Intelligence Committee, thanks so much for joining us.

SCHIFF: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Just ahead, two officers were shot in Louisville, Kentucky, as tensions boiled over after the decision not to bring charges directly related to Breonna Taylor's death. We'll update you on the latest, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:56]

BLITZER: President Trump is standing by his refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election, telling reporters that mail-in ballots are a big scam, his words, a big scam, once again casting doubt on the integrity of the vote.

Let's discuss with our chief political correspondent Dana Bash and Michael Gerhardt. He's a University of North Carolina law professor.

Michael, you were a witness during the president's impeachment trial at the time that Democratic lawmakers said the charges against the president demonstrated just how far he was willing to go to hold onto power.

Are we seeing those fears come to fruition right now with his latest threat?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Yes, we are seeing those concerns come to fruition. There are a lot of people who are concerned who care about the Constitution like I do. It sends a chill up your spine. The president has said he's not going to leave office peacefully. In fact, he wants to rush this appointment so he can have somebody on the Supreme Court hear his case when he challenges the election.

BLITZER: Would that person have to recuse herself?

GERHARDT: That's a really good question, and I think that would be one of the questions that comes up in the hearings that the Senate would be holding in the near future.

BLITZER: Yeah, we heard Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, say he didn't think she would have to recuse herself, but we'll see if, in fact, that happens.

Dana, some people might right this write this off as bluster, but this is truly an extraordinary and unprecedented threat from a sitting American president. How do you see it?

BASH: Absolutely. I mean, he has to be taken seriously.

You know, Corey Lewandowski, his first campaign manager famously said you have to -- you should take him seriously but not literally. In this situation, you've got to take them both because it's not only about what is potentially going to happen after election day. It's also what he's doing right now. And as much as the president is trying to, you know, kind of prepare his supporters for the event in which he potentially doesn't win, either on election day or afterward, he's hurting his own vote right now.

And this is something we consistently hear from Republican strategists both outside and in and around his campaign, because they're actively trying to get people to vote in places like North Carolina where you just spoke to his chief of staff from and others where you can begin to vote, whether it's by absentee or, you know, soon early voting, and it's oftentimes done by mail.

So if he's continuing to downplay and to falsely allege that it's just rife with fraud, if you are a Trump supporter, why would you go vote that way. And if the Trump campaign, what they're seeing is the potential for those voters who are listening to the president to, you know, either forget to vote or not have the ability to vote in person, and they lose those votes.

BLITZER: You know, Michael, step back and do the big picture for us because you've been studying this for a long time. Have you ever seen anything like this, a discussion about a peaceful transfer of power going on here in Washington around the country in your expertise? Have you ever seen it?

GERHARDT: No, I have not. I've had to think a lot about that. In fact, I just finished writing a book about Abraham Lincoln. In August of 1864, Abraham Lincoln thought he was going to lose the election to George McClellan. But Lincoln didn't come out and disparage the election. He actually prepared a memorandum to allow for a peaceful transfer of power.

That has been the norm and that's been the rule for American politics for every president who's lost or for anyone who's lost a presidential election.

BLITZER: You know, Dana, how is this going to play out?

BASH: Boy, if I could answer that question, I would go play the lottery right now. I mean, we really, truly don't know. There's so many unknowns here.

Just starting with even the best of situations, the best of scenarios where you didn't have a president trying to undercut, you know, a basic of democracy, which is voting, and doing so in a way that most people think is safe during a pandemic, which is by mail or even, you know, dropping it in -- taking it in person early, the ballot.

Because of the pandemic, there are so many unknowns about how the voting system is going to go, never mind the fact that you have many states which are allowing early voting and voting, you know, by mail, absentee across the board. And so, there is a lot of unknown. But again, the irony is that the president's own campaign is preparing for that and is, you know, trying to advertise and get out the vote in those various states where the president appears to be undercutting that. BLITZER: The fact that the U.S. Senate even had to pass a resolution

today supporting a peaceful transfer of power. The fact that even came up speaks volumes about this extraordinary situation right now.

Dana, thanks very much. Michael, thanks to you as well.

Just ahead we're going get the latest on the situation unfolding in Louisville, Kentucky, where two police officers were shot last night during last night's protests over the Breonna Taylor case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:56]

BLITZER: Two police officers were shot and wounded as protests in Louisville, Kentucky, turned violent after the decision in the Breonna Taylor case.

Tonight, calls are growing for the state's attorney general to release more information from the grand jury.

Joining us now to discuss, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson, as well as Charles Ramsey, the former police chief, police commissioner in Philadelphia, former police chief here in Washington, D.C. He's a CNN law enforcement analyst as well.

So, Joey, we could get more information on this investigation, specifically grand jury transcripts, if those are actually released.

What additional information would you like to see?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think we want to see everything, Wolf. And what does that mean? You know, a grand jury is a process wherein of course the prosecutor controls and they determine whether there's reasonable cause to believe there was a crime committed, the subjects of the investigation committed.

However, ultimately you know the expression the grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. The issue will be, what information was presented? What information was kept from the grand jury? What charges were they asked to evaluate? What specifically were they shown?

And I think with regard to transparency, the community wants to see everything. Having said, there's never an excuse to, you know, to shoot police officers or to shoot anyone else, but I think ultimately, in terms of accountability, society wants to know. Certainly Kentucky, the people there want to know. The country wants to know.

Breonna Taylor's family wants to know what this particular prosecutor did. Did he do it appropriately, did he do it fairly and was justice served?

BLITZER: You know, Chief Ramsey, there are so many outstanding questions about this case. Do you think more transparency about the investigation is going to do anything to address concerns that the Kentucky attorney general didn't pursue this case potentially as aggressively as the critics say he should have?

CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I think it will. I think he has to come up with some additional information, and I agree with what Joey just said, but I would add to that even though the grand injury didn't hear this information, I guess the FBI is looking at it. I want to know more about the warrant. I want to know why they were there to begin with.

The officers that were involved in executing the raid were not the ones that applied for the warrant. What was that information? What was the source of the information? Was it a confidential informant based on investigation? How fresh was the information?

Was this something that just occurred that would lead you to believe that there was either proceeds of a crime or instances of a crime in that apartment at the time that warrant was executed? I mean, these are all important questions to have answered. And right now, we really don't know.

BLITZER: That's a good point.

You know, Joey, the FBI is still looking into this case, we're told. Do you think there's a chance we potentially could see more charges leveled by federal authorities?

JACKSON: I don't see that for this simple reason. Remember that a state has so many more tools in the tool box as it relates to charging anyone. The only jurisdiction the federal government will have is to show there were civil rights violations. Those will have to be willful to the extent it will be difficult in this instance to show willfulness.

I think the federal government will not be involved. I think the state should have and could have done more and I think it ends at that level.

BLITZER: Do you think the FBI is going to come up with something, or is it over?

RAMSEY: I don't know. I have no idea what it is they're looking at. I'm not optimistic there will be any federal charges filed in this case.

The bottom line is that once the officers went inside, they were fired upon. They returned fire. It's tragic. There's absolutely no question about that.

But I think if anything, when you look at that warrant, was there a legitimate reason for them to be there at all? Was everything in that warrant truthful and based on facts? Can they back it up?

I worked narcotics for a lot of years when I was in the Chicago Police Department, about seven altogether, participated in hundred of raids. You've got to look at this and look at it very, very closely to make sure that everything is above board. That's a huge piece of this. And the feds right now have that. BLITZER: Chief Ramsey, as usual, thanks very much. Joey, thanks to you

as well.

To our viewers thanks for watching.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.