states and around the world, safe and happy new year. "erin burnett outfront" starts "erin burnett outfront" starts right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com "outfront"next, trump claims every american will now have access to a vaccine by april. how is that possible when a safe and effective vaccine has still not yet been proven or approved? dr. scott atlas who was closely advising the president on coronavirus is my guest. long lines outside polling stations as early polling is under way in several states as the president is making claims of voter fraud. a pastor who called himself a no-masker is in the icu with coronavirus. we have that story. ets will go "outfront." good evening, i'm erin burnett. president trump putting lives at risk holding another crowded rally, this time in minnesota, a state where there has been alarming increase in new

infections, nearly 1,100 new cases, the second highest number of new cases since the start of the pandemic. these are the images, people jammed together phones up trying to get a glimpse of the president. live pictures here in minnesota. despite the governor, this program just days ago asking, pleading with the trump campaign not to do this, said wear masks, socially distance. that is the requirement of that state. it is categorically not happening in the pictures you are seeing there. instead, the president is doing the opposite of what we have in our hands that is known to save lives right now, which is masking. so, just a short time ago the president refusing to answer questions about why the white house scrapped plans in april. and that time they had a plan to send -- get this -- 650 million masks -- you heard me right -- 650 million masks to areas that were being ravaged by the virus at that time. >> the postal service had

planned on sending 650 million face masks to americans back in april. why not? >> i don't know. i don't run it to be honest. that's run by a commission, and they run it. the post office has been a mess for many, many generations. but for certainly decades. and it loses a lot of money. it's always lost a lot of money. and one of the reasons it loses a lot of money now is that it's delivering all these packages. and every time they deliver a package, they lose $3 a package or whatever the number may be. so, i would suggest that they raise the price of packages. >> okay. what does that have to do with the fact they were going to send 650 million masks to, at that point, just a few places in this country. that would have been a bunch of masks for every person. he's talking about issues with pricing. then he went on to talk about amazon. he completely deflected and didn't draft it. let me show you the news

release. 650 million face coverings is in partnership with the white house coronavirus task force. now, it never happened. and the coronavirus task force, this is in the heat of everything, when it was then at its worst. the president claims to know nothing about it even though it was in partnership with the white house coronavirus task force. there is one thing the president did know at that time. obviously was not promoting masks at all at the time saying they weren't for him. but he knew how dangerous and contagious the virus was. he knew that in february, two months before the scrapped plan to distribute 650 million masks. and he confirmed again what he knew in april. >> it goes through air, bob. that's always tougher than the touch. the touch, you don't have to touch things. but the air, you just breathe the air and that's how it's passed. so, that's a very tricky one. that's a very delicate one. it's also more deadly than

your -- even your strenuous flus. >> this is a scourge -- >> it is the plague. >> it's the plague. the president will not tell us why the plan to send masks was scrapped. according to "the washington post," the administration didn't want to spark panic. let me remind you, if you've forgotten, if you lived in new york at that time or washington or many other places, you were trying to get a mask and you couldn't. people were desperate to get masks. do you remember that? i mean, look at the pictures from march and april. those were the empty shelves if you went and tried to buy masks in any store, immaterial willed quantity two, per customer. i remember ordering masks on amazon at that time. i ended up five weeks later being able to get them from somewhere else. i waited another three weeks for the ones i ordered at that time on amazon. i'm not the only one. i'm sure many of you have the same experience. imagine if five months ago the

postal service started this initiative and 650 million masks were sent to americans. where would we be today? would we be on the milestone of massing 250,000 americans dead as we are likely to do this weekend. kaitlan collin is live "outfront" tonight. kaitlan, the president about to speak facing new questions about scrapping plans to send hundreds of millions of masks to americans, masks that still would not be worn by many where you are tonight. >> reporter: yeah, not a lot of masks at all. very little social distancing as well. when the president was asked earlier today why was that plan scrapped, what was the reasoning, he said issues with the postal service and never really explaining why, saying he doesn't run the post office. but erin, those documents we saw said it was officials in the domestic policy office in the vice president's office that

have scrapped that plan out of concern that it would cause fear in american households. of course we never got answers on that. there has been a real question this week about whether we're playing politics over science in this administration because you saw the president undercutting the cdp director after he said something on vaccines the president didn't like. then you saw the president talking about every american having a vaccine by april, a timeline that's even medical experts in his administration have not agreed with. so, that comes as, tonight, the president is at another rally, this week one of several he's had. we are luckily outside in minnesota, and there is no ordinance requiring people to wear a mask when you're outside. but there's very little social distancing and a lot of his supporters are crowded here together tonight, erin. there's more this week of how they've been treating this pandemic. >> all right, kaitlan. thank you very much. live from minnesota.

and tonight we do have some troubling new numbers about the pandemic. 30 states now seeing a rise in new cases compared to a week ago. nick watt is "outfront." >> reporter: today the cdc is finally once again recommending that asymptomatic people are tested after contact with an infected person. >> we know that asymptomatic spread is one of the primary drivers of this pandemic. >> reporter: we've long known that. but in late august, cdc guidance was changed to say asymptomatic people didn't necessarily need a test after a possible exposure. two sources told cnn the change came from outside the cdc and was perhaps not properly vetted. the cdc director denies that. there was fierce backlash. >> shame on the people in the cdc. >> reporter: the white house testing czar said at the time the tweak was to get

appropriate, not less testing. >> i think this is an intentional effort by the administration to conceal the true extent of transmission and the numbers. >> reporter: now, as we head into fall, this weekend we'll likely pass 200,000 american dead. >> it does appear that we're trending in the wrong direction. >> reporter: yesterday, wisconsin, scene of another largely maskless maga rally reported its highest number of new daily covid cases since this pandemic began. nearly 18% of tests coming back positive in mississippi, average new case counts right now rising in 30 states. here's a cautionary tale. italy had an horrific spring, crushed the curve in the summer. but today logged the highest daily case count since may 1s. >> this can be overcomed. you will. i know you will. >> reporter: can we?

will we? >> we don't have enough testing. >> reporter: and do we have the will? >> there's no chapter in the pandemic playbook for a highly divisive presidential election and a social justice movement the likes of which we haven't seen since the '60s. >> reporter: and erin, some interesting data out of south carolina today that masks really do work, but also that making people wear masks works. they compared counties that had mask mandates and counties that did not have mask mandates. and the counties with those mask mandates saw their cases falling much, much quicker. >> thank you very much. we see that again and again. "outfront" now, dr. scott atlas, member of the white house coronavirus task force. doctor, i appreciate your time. a lot to ask you about tonight. i wanted to start off with the vaccine comments the president made today when he said all americans will have access to a

vaccine by april. we do not yet know if there is a vaccine which is both safe and effective. do you feel comfortable about this time line? how is it going to happen? >> yes, thanks for having me. well, i mean, i happen to speak to the people at hhs and dr. mansa today who is running the vaccine development program. and the president is exactly right. pending approval, of course, of a safe and effective vaccine, there's more than 100 million doses being manufactured by the end of the year. there are hundreds of millions being manufactured and delivered during the first three months -- this is of course pending the approval. and the first deliveries will go out within 24 hours of the fda's approval process saying that there's emergency use authorization. and every american who wants the vaccine will be able to get the vaccine by april. that's factually true. i just went through the entire documents with the hhs. i mean, the president is exactly

right on this. i'm not sure why there's some kind of comment about it. >> so, i'll tell you why because you're saying every american gets it by april, that's factually true. the reason is because the timeline you're giving is not the one the cdc director robert redfield gave earlier this week. let me play, doctor, for you what he said under oath. >> if you're asking me when it is going to be generally available to the american public so we can begin to take advantage of vaccine to giet bak to our regular life, i think we're probably looking at third -- late second quarter, third quarter 2021. >> that's why. are you saying that his view of this is just wrong? you are saying that. why aren't you on the same page? >> i can't control what someone else says. i don't know who told dr. redfield that and i'm not criticizing dr. redfield. i can tell you what the factual

information is that pending approval -- of course it depends when the approval goes. pending approval -- i've seen the numbers, hundreds of millions. the president is right. there is no question about -- >> he's assuming the same thing on approval you are. he laid out health care workers first, the whole properioritiza you're aware of. you're saying he doesn't have the facts or he's wrong in his interpretation or got the wrong information but what you have is right and what the cdc director put out there under oath is not right? >> listen, i just -- if i can repeat it, the hhs people in charge of the program showed me the documents. it is factually true, what i said. it is factually true, what the president said. you saw the press briefing. that is the timeline, period. >> so, you know, obviously you have to find a vaccine that works, and as you point out we don't yet know we have one. this is what you're saying is

pending. your timeline is pending approval. the two leading vaccines in the united states, pfizer and mon moderna, we've spoken to the people running those trials. you've got to store their vaccines at 94, 98 degrees negative. you can't do that in pharmacies and grocery stores. that kind of technology isn't just out there. you've got all that lined up, the ability to transmit a not fully stable vaccine and then store it and then distribute it and get it in peoples' arms in a very quick period of time? you've worked all that out? >> well, i didn't work it out. i'm new here. but the people running the vaccine distribution have been working on this for months. yes, the president's operation warp speed team has it worked out. there's a 57-page document of the plan sent to the states. it involves the distribution, the refrigeration, the iv that's

necessary because it's a double dose vaccine, the retail outlets -- there's over 51,000 outlets where people will get the administration of the vaccine. there's something like 14,000 centered and low-income areas specifically so that lower income people and families are accessing the vaccine. of course there's no mandate to get the vaccine, by the way. if people want to get the vaccine, it will be available, and it's hundreds of millions of doses during the first three months, totaling on the order of 700 million by april. i mean, that's just -- >> which two doses a person -- yeah. i understand that. again, i just am confused at the two different story lines here. but you've laid your argument out. i want to ask you about a letter, and you know this letter. i'm holding it up here. it's a letter from some or your colleagues at stanford. you're a senior fellow. they write that many of his

opinions and statements run counter to established science that guides public health policy. they're referring to you. your lawyers said they have until the end of the day today to retract those comments or you're suing for defamation. have any of them reached out to you to do so? >> i'm not going to comment on that. that's a distraction. i think the people embarrassed themselves enough, and there's no issue there. there are people that are blind to fact. it's okay. i understand. it's a very polarized setting. but let me put it this way. when i was asked by the president to help, i'm a person in health policy. i've been working in health policy for 15 years and 25 years in medical science. if the president of the united states asks somebody in health policy to help them in the biggest crisis in the century, there would be something mentally wrong with you if you said no, so i did, and i'm thrilled to be here because i'm doing something important. the president is right in

understanding the common sense approach to policy. it's not stopped covid-19 as he said at all coasts. the cure cannot be worse than the problem and that is a statement that has really proven true because we must consider the impacts of the policy. and this is coming out all over the world. so, i think this is a very balanced approach. it's all about the data. it's not just saying it's about the data, it's actually using the data, understanding the data and understanding the impact of the lockdown. i think we're going to do okay here. americans -- of course, it's a big tragedy. 200,000 people have died. there's nothing to minimize that. but everything is going well here. we have a lot of reasons for optimism. people are doing much better in the hospital. there's a lot of drugs that have been developed under this administration with the facilitation of massive amounts of ppe and the vaccine. i'm cautiously optimistic here and americans should be too. >> i'm just holding up a mask here because the one most common sense thing that we all know

works the best that we have now is this, right? i'm holding up just the basic surgical mask. you can buy it on amazon. one of the points in the letter they make is about the importance of using face masks to reduce the spread of coronavirus which is not controversial. your colleagues say in their letter say that quote, the use of face masks, social distancing, hand washing and hygiene have been shown to reduce the spread of coronavirus, crowded settings significantly increase the spread of coronavirus. that's very basic. they're saying you said these things that are counter to their statements here. here's what you told tucker carlson about masks last month, dr. atlas. >> the reality is that, you know, there's certain data that's very controversial about masks. you know, there's no really good science on general population, widespread in all circumstances wearing masks. >> in those comments, doctor,

you are questioning actimasks. >> well, if you listen to my comment, i said there's no sound science -- in fact i'll say it again. there's no sound science that shows that you should have all populations wear masks in all circumstances. quote/unquote if i may quote myself. and that is very much in concert with exactly what's posted on the w.h.o. website. and that's in concert with the president's own policy, which is a reasonable policy, which is wear a mask when you cannot socially distance, particularly when you're in areas where there are high risk people. that's what the w.h.o. says. they say it. i'm not sure what the controversy is here. if you think it's sound science to walk out in the middle of a desert wearing a mask when you're all alone or in your own car all alone wearing a mask or running through a park all alone and you should be wearing a mask, i'm sorry, that's neither scientific nor rational. >> okay. so, tonight the rally in minnesota -- this should be very easy by your logic. this is the video. this is what we see.

there are no masks. there is not social distancing. this is what's been happening at rally after rally. i would imagine you've told the president this is wrong, right? >> the president sets the policy and i agreed with his policy, which is wear masks when you can't socially distance. >> but they're not doing that. >> we don't put them in prison for not wearing a mask. i'm sorry, i don't think he's going to be willing to do that. >> he's holding a rally with them there. do you think he bears responsibility. they do it again and again. he keeps holding the rallies. it's hard to argue that. there he is. he's walking out right now. >> i think it's very simple to argue that the president's policy is the right policy. it's a common sense policy, and he's not in favor of mandating or putting people in jail for not wearing a mask. i'm sorry. that's irrational. that's not what the presidential guidelines are for.

and i'm completely comfortable with his policy. and you know -- >> so, i understand you keep saying about his policy -- >> most americans understand. >> but what i'm asking you is clearly people at the rally don't understand because they're not doing it. and what they're doing is wrong and it's wrong by your own logic. and he is okay with it. and he is supporting it by holding rally after rally and walking out there and he's not going to tell them put your masks on people, save lives. he's not going to do it. i'm saying as a doctor, don't you have a problem with that? >> i have no problem with people taking independent responsibility for their lives once they understand the recommendations, the guidelines, you know, people are -- i actually don't underestimate american people. they're going to understand what they think they should do. i don't think there's anything wrong with that. >> right. i mean, we've talked to some of them. they say if it's good enough for the president, it's good enough for us. he doesn't wear one, god has my

back. that's what they're saying. >> yeah, except the thing is i don't make decisions based on anecdotes of individual people like you just did. >> those are the people going to those rallies. i have to say i don't understand -- i understand you're saying if you're in a desert by yourself, in a car by yourself, i get it. that's logical. but what i'm seeing in those pictures is not logical, and i'm trying to understand as someone with the record you have both as a medical professional and in public health, whether you've told the president, hey, guy, this isn't okay? >> what i've said and i'll say it again is the president's policy is exactly right. wear a mask -- that's his guideline -- when you cannot socially distance. and it is not the policy to mandate masks. >> no, it isn't. i know -- i think we're going back and forth. the hypocrisy of saying that you support his policy when his actions are completely against that, that he's showing at the

moment that you and i happen to be talking, is just extremely hard to swallow. you support his policy when everything he's allowing people to do around him is against his own policy. i feel like i'm talking to a wall here. maybe you feel the same way, but this is absurd. >> i don't think you're a wall, no. but i do think that i articulated and president's policy. the policy is not absurd. to think that he's going to literally control every single person and mandate a policy or a national mandate for a mask is absurd, and it's not what america is all about. >> so, i guess -- >> they get educated and they get the guidelines. >> but i guess the bottom line is you're saying you do not think he needs to lead by example or stop holding these rallies which go against his own policy? you think that is okay? >> i think the president does lead by example. i think he articulates the policy. i think he treats people like

adults. i think he uses common sense, and i'm completely comfortable with the president's policy as articulated multiple times including multiple times by myself in this interview. i'm not sure how much longer we can beat that dead horse. >> because his actions go against his policy as they are this very moment. that's what i'm having trouble with. one other thing i want to get to because we have talked about this, is the herd immunity issue which i know you've talked a lot about. it also comes up in this letter that you are threatening a defamation lawsuit over. so, the letter states that herd immunity of the virus is best achieved through use of the vaccine. the idea of herd immunity as something achieved through community transmission is an idea you've been linked to since joining the white house because of prior comments and the president himself credits you with that. here's the president. >> it would go away without the vaccine, george, but it's going to go away a lot faster --

>> go away without the vaccine? >> sure, over the period of time. with time. >> and many deaths. >> and you'll develop a herd mentality. it's going to be herd developed and that's going to happen. that will all happen. but with the vaccine, i think it will go away very quickly. >> got to take a quick break. >> but i really believe we're rounding the corner, and i believe that's true. >> as you know, dr. fauci disagrees with that. >> a lot of people do agree with me. you look at scott atlas. you look at some of the other doctors from stanford, some of the other doctors. they think we could have done that from the beginning. >> so, he specifically credits you with herd immunity. you've said you're not pushing that idea on the president. he is giving you credit. have you told him that he's wrong? >> he's not crediting me with herd immunity. i didn't invent it. it's a known biological phenomenon -- >> but you're in support of it. >> if i can finish. what i am telling you is that the president is saying many people understand herd immunity

and understand that population immunity is a factor in the development -- that is exactly why vaccines are given. and i would suggest to you and your readers that you educate yourselves and listen to people like michael lev it or one of the world famous epidemiologists, listen to her interview from september 17th on the bbc. you have to know the facts. you can't just say it's all about the science, not know the science, not understand the science and then accuse other people of not knowing the science. i suggest you educate everybody. go through the reading and actually by the way, the letter never articulated anything i said. they were just saying what they said. that's a separate point. i think there's something very clear here is that first of all, no one is advocating pursuing a herd immunity strategy. that has never been advocated to the president by me. he has never advocated that. he is, though, cognizant of the

biology of what's going on because he's actually listening to the science. there is a reason why new york city does not have cases after being completely devastated with the people on the street. >> maybe that's why there's so much spread. a lot of people look at scott atlas like you let it rip since the beginning. >> i never said anything like that. you can set up a strawman argument and attack the strawman argue. >> i'm just giving you a chance to say what he said. >> he never said that. i'm sorry. you have to be fair in an interview. that's really a falsehood what you just said. >> he said herd mentality, i guess, perhaps that's what we're disagreeing on. >> there is a herd mentality going on, i think you're right. "outfront" next, you just heard the administration's timeline for a vaccine. dr. atlas saying that april is

what he has the facts on, going contrary to the cdc director. dr. sanjay gupta and dr. jonathan reiner join me next. in person early voting is underway. in virginia the turnout is massive. what does that say about what's happening and election day. president trump turning on chris ray after ray said russia is interfering with the election. will he last? ta-da! did you know liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need? given my unique lifestyle, that'd be perfect! let me grab a pen and some paper. know what? i'm gonna switch now. just need my desk... my chair... and my phone.

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ at morgan stanley, a global collective of thought leaders offers investors a broader view. ♪ we see companies protecting the bottom line by putting people first. we see a bright future, still hungry for the ingenuity of those ready for the next challenge. today, we are translating decades of experience into strategies for the road ahead. we are morgan stanley.

inflammation in your eye might be to blame.ck, into strategies for the road ahead. looks like a great day for achy, burning eyes over-the-counter eye drops typically work by lubricating your eyes and may provide temporary relief. ha! these drops probably won't touch me. xiidra works differently, targeting inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. what is that? xiidra, noooo! it can provide lasting relief. xiidra is the only fda approved treatment specifically for the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. one drop in each eye, twice a day.

don't use if you're allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. don't touch container tip to your eye or any surface. after using xiidra, wait 15 minutes before reinserting contacts. got any room in your eye? talk to an eye doctor about twice-daily xiidra. i prefer you didn't! xiidra. not today, dry eye. after everything our walls have been through the past few months, they deserve some thanks. they deserve benjamin moore.

all right. we have a breaking news right now. i want to go to sanjay gupta. sanjay, just to give you a chance here, ruth bader ginsburg has passed away. tell me what you know. we literally are just getting this right now. supreme court justice. >> yeah, well, that's tough to absorb. i'm just hearing it right with you, erin. we know she's had a long medical history. most recently of pancreatic cancer and a few procedures. we know that recently, i can't remember the exact time line now. a couple months ago, i believe, when she was hospitalized. at that point there was concern that the type of therapy they were giving the former supreme court justice was more therapy to try and ameliorate the symptoms. i think it was clear at that point looking at her medical history that they knew this was

an aggressive cancer that would be very difficult to treat. so, tough news to hear. pancreatic cancer, a very difficult cancer to treat under any circumstance. she's been dealing with it for some time. and as you know, erin, she had been dealing with other medical issues. she had lung surgery last year as well. she had colon surgery sometime in the past. so, she's been through a lot. i think this pancreatic cancer and the concern about the spread has been something that her doctors have been concerned about for sometime erin. >> and i know, look, a headline that the whole country will stop to hear, a sad loss. she, of course, was 87 years old. obviously, as you said, pancreatic cancer complication is reason. 27 years she served on the court. in the past year, sanjay, we do know she had been in and out of the hospital for cancer and other complications.

you mentioned lung. the last time we talked, you did think the most recent drug she was on was one that did not indicate there was much more they could do. this time line i think was more abbreviated than you had hoped for. >> yeah, i think more abbreviated than anybody hoped for. it's one of these situations where even after that therapy, you'll remember, she was out and about. we saw her being ruth bader ginsburg and was always tough with her because she bounced back incredibly well after big operations. she had an operation on her lungs. she obviously had been dealing with the pancreatic cancer, had procedures for that sometimes as a result of pancreatic cancer there are certain ducts around the gall bladder that can become obstructed and be painful.

she had treatment. it was the most recent hospitalization and the type of therapy that was given at that point which is not considered curative therapy, but more therapy to address symptoms. i think that's what raised concern. i can't remember exactly when that was, again, but it was not that long ago. and talking to oncologists at that point, they're very concerned this was not going to be an effective treatment for the cancer itself, but just more to make her comfortable. >> sanjay, please stay with me. obviously this is now a moment in american history, a loss of a lion of the court, something that is going to change the balance of power here as well, possibly. i mean, this is an incredible moment that we are now seeing with the sad loss of ruth bader ginsburg. she did die surrounded by her family at her home, so she was at home in washington, d.c. jeffrey toobin is with me on the phone. jeff, what's your immediate

thoughts here when you hear this loss of rbg tonight? >> starting with the enormous contributions that ruth bader ginsburg has made to american law, she's one of the rare supreme court justices who would have been a major figure in american history if she had never served on the supreme court. her contributions to the rights of women under the constitution were epic. she was the thurgood marshall of the women's movement, a feminist. she argued the cases that created the modern american constitution as it relates to women. and then, of course, she served for more than two decades on the supreme court. she was the liberal and conservative times.

she did not have the opportunity to write the majority of opinions that she would have wanted to write. but she was a powerful important voice for liberal values on the court. and most -- and, you know, it's very important who replaces her because the court is now evenly divided. it was with four liberals with ginsburg. but this is an opportunity for donald trump to seal conservative control for the current generation if he can get someone confirmed. and that, of course, is what he's going to try to do. but the politics of it are very difficult and very complicated. and we're going to spend a lot of time talking about it between now and november. but at least today it seems like the right thing to do is to talk about what a giant this very

tiny woman was. >> yes, indeed. as you point out, this is going to usher in one of the greatest political battles that we have seen with what president trump is going to try to do, right? because this could completely change the balance of power on this court. the u.s. supreme court for a generation. our cnn legal analyst joins me. let me give you a chance. we do have comments here out of the other justices as they have just found out this news. what are you hearing? >> well, the court has actually released a statement, as you know, saying she died tonight surrounded by her family at her home. roberts said, he released a statement, our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature, we at the supreme court have lost a cherished colleague. today we mourn but with

confidence that future generations, he said, will remember ruth bader ginsburg as a tireless and resolute champion of justice. keep in mind it was just at the end of last term where she announced that she had been diagnosed back in february with this bout of cancer. she usually had been quite forthcoming. this time she wasn't. she had tried one treatment. she said she was going through biweekly treatments to keep it at bay. i know she had been in contact with people -- in fact just yesterday, the national constitution center had had a ceremony to give her, virtually of course because of covid and the ward, she actually submitted a letter. in that letter, she said that all the people who had praised her made her spirit soar.

so, of course she was ill. i did talk to people since july who had been in contact with her. keep in mind one more thing. ruth bader ginsburg is one of those rare people who was famous before she took the bench for her work as a young lawyer changing the way gender discrimination was seen in the court. that's a rare feat for someone to be so famous even before taking the bench. >> joan, she is the justice americans know, right? she's the one who could go by rbg. she's the one who had that famous friendship, you know, across the aisle. she had become something much bigger, even, than just a supreme court justice. >> that's exactly right. she had an iconic stature as the notorious rbg, someone who stood for rights who early on was one

of only nine women in her law school class at harvard went on to fight for equal protections for women and then slowly built up this reputation on the supreme court. she was the second woman appointed, and for a while she was in the shadow of sandra day ocon for, the first woman. but she really broke out, especially since 2010 when she became the senior liberal and just really found her voice. she was the one who kept the liberal wing together. and i can't tell you enough about what a loss it will be for so manycially for the courts th have been fighting the conservative j conservative jug naught on the court. she would go from appearance to appearance with this bag saying "i dissent." there's so many parts of her

life that have become part of american culture, including the sketch. i think her loss will certainly be deep in america. >> and jeff toobin, she continued to write opinions and be on the bench even during these last few months and the last stint of the court. people would think she was extremely sick. she still managed to have her voice heard. >> erin, this woman was less than 5 feet tall by the end, way less than 100 pounds, and tougher than any nfl linebacker i have ever encountered. this woman had so many diseases and so many and she fought through them all. i don't believe she missed more than a handful of oral

arguments. this woman was determined, and she fought cancer for literally decades. but it eventually caught up with her. she was 87 years old and that's old. >> sanjay, i believe you're still with me. when jeff references she had been fighting cancer for decades, she had surgery for colon cancer in 1999. so, she had been fighting cancer, colon cancer, pandemcrec cancer, literally for decades as she continued full steam ahead. >> it's incredible when you look at her health history and how tough she was coming back from those procedures. we were covering all of her medical therapies very closely. some of these therapies are tough. they just take a lot of out of

you. colon cancer, as you mentioned back in 1999. she was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009, 11 years ago. they thought she had gotten through it. in the middle of it, she had lung cancer. that was 2018. then it was this recurrence of pancreatic cancer wthat really was of concern. she tried immunotherapy. it didn't work. that's when she started the more palliative sort of therapies. >> everyone stay with me. if anyone is just joining, i want to update you on the sad news. the supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg has died at the age of 87. according to a statement, she was surrounded by her family. she died at home in washington, and she died of complications from pancreatic cancer. she was appointed to the supreme court in 1993 and served more than 27 years. jessica schneider has a look at

her life. >> reporter: ruth bader ginsburg's rise from a humble brooklyn neighborhood to the nation's highest court is a classic story. >> what is the difference between a book keeper and and a supreme court justice? just one generation. my mother's life and mine bear witness. where else but america could that happen? >> she was smart, tied for first in her class at columbia law school. the glass ceiling stood firm. >> there were three strikes against her. she was a woman, she was jewish, and she had a young child. >> she turned to teaching law and fighting gender discrimination for the aclu. >> very much with the model of the naacp's legal defense fund led by thurgood marshall, she had the idea you had to build precedence step by step. >> she became a federal appellate court judge. >> so help me god.

>> 13 years later she was named to the supreme court by president clinton, the second woman on the bench. >> the minute justice ginsburg came to the court, we were 9 justices. it wasn't 7 and then the women. and it was a great relief to me. >> as a justice, ginsburg consistently voted in favor of abortion access and civil rights. perhaps her best known work on the court, writing the 1996 landmark decision to strike down the virginia military institute's ban on emitting women. she was also known for her bold dissents like the one she wrote when the court stopped the 2000 florida recount, ended the contraception mandate for some businesses under the affordable care act. >> in our view, the court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay

discrimination. >> no 2007, the high court ruled against lilly ledbetter in a high profile pay discrimination case. ginsburg urged kong to take up the issue in her dissent. 20 months later the fair pay act was the first bill that president obama signed into law. after justice john ball stevens retired in 2010, ginsburg became the most senior of her liberal colleagues. she didn't slow down. steven colbert discovered that the hard way, trying to keep up with rbg's famously tough workouts. >> i'm cramping working out with an 85-year-old woman. >> ginsburg hired a trainer after treatment for colo rectal cancer. doctors discovered cancerous growths on her lung. the surgery was successful but the recovery caused ginsburg to miss oral arguments for the first time in her career.

she was treated several times for pancreatic cancer but stayed up on court work, even after losing her husband of 56 years to cancer, ginsburg was back on the bench the next morning. >> i love the work i do. i think i have the best job in the world for a lawyer. i respect all my colleagues and genuinely like most of them. >> her best friend on the bench was the late justice antonin sciati scalia, her ideological opposite. >> what's not to like? except her views on the law of course. >> they shared a laugh about ginsburg drinking wine before nods off at the state of the union. >> i was 100% sober because before we went to the state of the union we had dinner together. and justice kennedy -- >> that's the first intelligent thing you've done. >> in her later years, she gained rock star status with

millennials thanks to social media. >> it was beyond my wildest imagination that i would one day become the notorious rbg. >> biggie biggie biggie can't you see -- >> the nickname was a play on the name of the late wrapper the notorious b.i.g. there were books, clothing, tattoos, even a recurring snl sketch. >> you just got ginz-burned. >> there was a feature film on the basis of sex. rbg was an unexpected box office hit and the gave the justice a platform to share her life long mission of gender equality. >> people ask me sometimes when will there be enough women on the court? my answer is when there are nine. >> all right. joining me now, erin carmen,

coauthor of "the notorious rbg." you spent a lot of time researching her, spending time with her. what was she like? >> she had a mind like a field trap. she was somebody who remembered everything you ever spoke to her about. one of her friends once said there were no words that were not preceded by thoughts. she was someone who devoted her entire life to the cause of gender equality, to civil rights to, the court as an institution. she was somebody with profound dignity and a profound sense of justice and what is right. >> and how did she feel about her acronym? >> you know, justice ginsburg auz was 80 years old when young people crowned her the notorious rbg and it was a total surprise to her. but she loves the connections she had with the public. she loved the energy of young

people's admiration, and she loved to say she and notorious b.i.g. were both from brooklyn. >> our congressional reporter joins us as well, manu, as you're getting on here, the mediate thing that is going to happen as -- is going to be what happens next here. we have 50 days until election, already the most polarized election in anyone's memory. now you have the balance of the and then. would mitch mcconnell and president trump be able to get a replacement justice, a conservative justice through between now and then? >> it's hard to see whether they can actually confirm someone before november 4 election. it takes time to get a nominee processed, do the background check. begin the paperwork and have that process done through the senate by election day. that's difficult.

what is still possible, though, is for a nominee to get confirmed by the end of the year. so even after november 3rd, even if the democrats take back the senate, win the white house, there is going to be a post election lame-duck session between then and the end of the year and at that point, republican will still be in charge of the senate. they will have a 53-47 majority. and that 53-47 majority could most certainly confirm a nominee at that point presuming they go through the paperwork process. the vetting process goes normal, there is no republican opposition so of course, we'll be in the same situation we were in previous nominees will the republican state unite at that point? they can lose three republicans and get someone confirmed. four would mean they would not. the big question is going to be whether or not mitch mcconnell decides to pursue, get someone

confirmed by the end of the year. i would bet that he most certainly will try to do so. he's made very clear he does not want to leave any vacancy open. he wants to confirm someone even this election year even though he himself did not move forward on the nomination to fill the vacancy of anthony scalia when he died in the 2016 election. mcconnell said at the time because they let voters decide what p hahappens in the 2016 election and said the reason they move forward is because at the time there was a split senate, a republican senate, democrat in the white house and the same party in the senate and the white house. that situation is now different which is why he's willing to move forward now. expect the republicans to try to confirm someone. we'll wait for official word given that everyone is just receiving this news just now, erin. >> i mean, it is going to become one of the most crucial

questions of our honestly, anyone voting now generation because this will determ the entire future of the court. a former clark for ruth bader ginsburg joins me on the phone. with her from 2002 to 2003. trever, what do you remember most about justice ginsburg? >> where to begin. she was, of course, a giant of american law. one of the pomost important justices ever to serve on the court. she was an amazing boss, a tremendous supporter of her clerks and very warm woman who cared for us as people as well as for us professionally. it was a huge honor to work for her. >> what are some of the memories you have of her? >> i remember when i first met her she would, you know,

interview people who would apply to clerk for her and i was warned she has a very deliberate style of speaking and she would speak slowly and measured. i don't think i ever heard her use the word um. i speak very quickly. i had to make sure i didn't talk over her. but from that first interview, you know, she at the same time really set me and others who would meet with her in that context at ease and working for her, what i remember beyond just the personal warmth was her total dedication to her job. she worked extremely hard, extremely long hours, late into the night virtually every day. had the highest standards in her work and it was really inspiring, frankly, to see someone so dedicated to get the law right. >> and aaron, how much time did you get to spend with her? did you also see the same thing and when did you see her humor?

right, the part of her that we all then started to see that made her, i guess, for lack of a better word a folk hero. >> i had the honor of justice ginsburg officiating my wedding in 2017 and recently upon the birth of my daughter, she spent me a note and a t-shirt making her an honorary grand clerk, although i did not have the honor of working for justice ginsburg. she's somebody that drew people in even in her own vereserved w, she's somebody that made you feel like you were part of her caring circle. in eterms of her sense of humor it was very subtle. it was an honor to make her laugh. she seemed like a very serious person but part of the reason she for example, justice scalia got along is he constantly made her life and same thing of marty ginsburg which she had an

incredible marriage of true partnership that rested on the fact he constantly made her laugh. her own humor was more subtle. she was someone who was always ready with a very subtle barb and you had to look for it in her writing. she certainly appreciated family. she appreciated the institution of the court, and i'm just very struck at this moment by the fact that according to npr, she dictated a statement to her granddaughter and said that her greatest wish is that she not be not her successor and installed by this president. it's a piece of her great rev ra she did not want this president to replace her. how much she did not want her legacy being defined by being

replaced by donald trump. >> okay. so man us not with us. let me layout what he said. he said there were a lot of questions but that this is something that if donald trump is reelected, mitch mcconnell would likely move to do during the lame-duck session and gloria borger is with me and man us laying out the math, if you had dem kraocrats take over the sen you know, mitch mcconnell could still push this through. he would have the votes until the new year. and he would have the ability to do that. so she's saying in this letter as aaron is saying and npr saying she dictateed to her granddaughter she did not want her replacement to be installed by this president. that is something that very much may happen. >> right. i mean, mitch mcconnell with all due respect to justice ginsburg

is not going to pay much attention to her final wishes. >> yeah. >> i think this is a political moment for mitch mcconnell and for the republican party and you know that the president has putt out a list just earlier this month about 20 people he would like to see nominated to the court including two members of -- or three members of the united states senate, republicans and i think they're going to make the case. this isn't like margarland and s will be something they want to go full speed ahead with. >> lora coats, the president has been advised on this. this is an event that he forsaw may occur and all the things you have to do with vetting and checking, they are already down the road on in some of those cases. >> they are down the road, erin and let me say how absolutely devastated and so many people are right now particularly

myself because this is somebody that i've idolized throughout my legal career as many, many young women who are aspiring to become lawyers and have their sights on the dream that one day they will be able to have an argument in front of somebody of her stature and charisma and her intellectual deal. it's devastating to see that she is now no longer with us and i think this is a time which she was realizing just how quickly some would capitalize on her absence. she forsaw this previously, which is why she was often so quick to say things about her health and even delay in providing information. i think she saw the sharks constantly swimming around her thinking and hoping perhaps there would be a vacancy, not at the result or death but near time. i think we'll see high mypocris saw with merritt garland and

members, only a simple majority the senate would have to have to be able to have a supreme court justice push through. there would be, of course, a confirmation hearing process but this is one of those moments when i think the nation is holding its breath to see if there remains integrity until the process by which you select somebody with life tenure where the buck stops on so many powerful issues. >> all right. thank you very much. and thanks to all of you for joining us. our breaking news coverage continues now with anderson. erin, thank you very mump. ruth bader ginsburg has died. she was only the second woman appointed to the court and already a legend when she arrived in the fight for gender equality. sandra day o'connor was the first and justice ginsburg was the second. she died at home in washington surrounded by family. we're told from