Return to Transcripts main page
New Day
The Case for Striking Down Obamacare; Graham's F-Bomb Goes Viral; College Admissions Scandal Widens. Aired 8:30-9a ET
Aired May 02, 2019 - 08:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:33:52] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, a major legal development that puts the fate of Obamacare in jeopardy. The Trump administration has made its official argument for striking down the Affordable Care Act, all of it, insisting that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, so is the entire bill.
Actually, what happened is, if the individual mandate is no longer in effect because it was struck down as part of the tax bill last year, they're saying the entire bill is no longer in effect.
Let's discuss with Elie Honig, former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst, and Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Kaiser Health News.
And, Julie, I want to start with you to remind people, look, Obamacare has had an evolution in public opinion. It was very controversial. Then it went into effect and slowly but surely it is gaining in popularity.
But if it were to disappear from a judge's ruling, what would be lost?
JULIE ROVNER, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, KAISER HEALTH NEWS: Well, basically everything that people like, the requirement for people to have health insurance was the only really unpopular piece of the Affordable Care Act. Things like protecting people with preexisting conditions, expanding the Medicaid program, letting adult kids stay on their parents' health plans, menu calorie labeling, allowing for generic biologic drugs, all of those things are quite popular and they would all go away if this law is struck down.
[08:35:14] BERMAN: And, Elie Honig -- and, again, my clunky introduction, the reason I corrected myself about the individual mandate being unconstitutional is because the Supreme Court didn't decide that. What actually happened from a legal standpoint was when Congress passed the tax bill in 2017, they removed the penalty for the individual mandate. And a Texas judge has decided, well, if that penalty is gone, if, in fact, enforcing the individual mandate goes away, then the rest of the bill, all of it falls apart.
How is that legal reasoning in your mind?
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, John, the key legal concept here is what we call severability, and that means basically, as you just laid it out, if you pull out or eliminate one provision of a complex law, and this is about as complex as laws get, does the remainder of the structure stand without it or does the whole thing have to come tumbling down? Think about the kids game Jenga. When you pull out that one block, does the structure remain in place or does it all come crumbling down?
And the administration here has changed its position. Initially the position was, yes, the remainder of Obamacare, ACA, can stand without this one piece, the individual mandate. Now they've changed course and said, no, the whole thing has to come tumbling down.
And, look, there's a real threat to the future of the ACA here. The administration's view prevailed in the district court, in the trial court in Texas. That judge said the whole thing has to come down. Now, that's on hold as we work our way through the appeals courts.
BERMAN: Right.
HONIG: The next step is the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is famously conservative in ideology, and then potentially the Supreme Court.
BERMAN: We'll come back to that in just a moment.
Julie, I do want to ask you about preexisting conditions, because of all the buzzwords surrounding Obamacare, that is the one I think that comes up the most, and one in which the administration and the president insists, he says I'm for preexisting conditions. I will protect preexisting conditions. But -- and this is what I hope you can explain -- in previous Republican versions of bills to replace Obamacare, they would allow waivers for something called the community rating, which means what for people with preexisting conditions?
ROVNER: Well, community rating is what says that insurers have to sell to everybody at the same price regardless of whether they have preexisting conditions and are likely to use that insurance. It was interesting, the Trump administration's original position on this lawsuit was that most of the rest of the law could stay, but without the penalty for not having insurance. The community rating, the selling to everybody at the same price, and the guaranteed issue, meaning selling to everybody even if you're sick, would have to fall down, which, of course, is politically the opposite of what they want and Republicans say what they want is to protect people with preexisting conditions. So they're in this very awkward position. On the one hand, the president keeps, you know, urging Congress to protect pre-existing conditions. On the other hand, they're already protected unless the ACA falls.
BERMAN: And, of course, if the community rating goes, it means that, yes, maybe you guarantee the right for people to get insurance if they have preexisting conditions, but if you don't guarantee the price, that might make it prohibitive for people with preexisting conditions, correct?
ROVNER: That's correct. And, you know, what's interesting is, everybody, including the Supreme Court, thought that the Affordable Care Act wouldn't work without the penalty, to urge healthy people to buy insurance. It turns out that what's been much more important are the subsidies, are giving people help to buy insurance. So what we saw in 2018, or when the penalty went away is that -- or 2019, this year, is that almost as many people bought insurance as bought insurance the year before when the penalty was there because they still had that financial help to buy the insurance. So it turns out the financial penalty maybe isn't all that important to allowing the law to work.
BERMAN: And, Elie, back to the courts, because you said something very important, and William Barr, in testimony a few weeks ago also said very important, he made the strange argument, you know, I don't think the courts are going to overturn all of this, so it may be nothing we have to worry about.
But do we know that for sure?
HONIG: No, I wouldn't be complacent, John, on either side. This is going to be a really close call in the courts. Round one went to the strike it all down side. We're now in round two. Again, they're very conservative. And it could go to the Supreme Court.
Now, if it goes to the Supreme Court, we're going to have a very close call here. In 2012, when the ACA came up for the first time, it was only upheld by one vote. It was a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Roberts surprised a lot of people and swung over and voted with the perceived liberal block to uphold it. But the problem is, Chief Justice Roberts rested his vote on the very thing that is now gone, the individual mandate. He said that's a legitimate exercise of the tax power.
So we're going to be in sort of razor thin margin territory here.
BERMAN: All right, Elie Honig, Julie Rovner, thank you very much for being with us. I really appreciate that discussion.
[08:39:56] Now, other news, a student who was killed during the shooting at the University of North Carolina is now being praised as a hero. What police say he did that may have saved lives. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: Thousands of people turning out last night to honor two students killed in a shooting at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte. Nineteen-year-old Reed Parlier and 21-year-old Riley Howell. Police are praising Howell's actions as heroic from stopping the gunman from carrying out more carnage. Howell's siblings say they're not surprised by their brother.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JULIET HOWELL, RILEY'S SISTER: He put others before himself.
IRIS HOWELL, RILEY'S SISTER: Yes.
J. HOWELL: He always has.
I. HOWELL: Saved a whole room of people just to make sure some people got out there alive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Four people were also injured in the attack, three of them critically.
We were hearing yesterday, this is the end of the school year there. They were expecting to be celebrating. And now they're all coming together, but for a very different reason.
CAMEROTA: This is not normal. This is not normal to be -- to have to go to school and think that you are a sitting duck. We see it time and again. It is obviously all too tragic in our country. And the idea that college students have to rush the gunman. I mean, God bless him, he saved more carnage, but that's not what you're supposed to be doing in college. We have to figure out how to fix this.
[08:45:15] Meanwhile, on a much lighter note, Senator Lindsey Graham dropped the f-bomb on live TV at the start of yesterday's attorney general hearing, and that was music to some ears.
CNN's Jeanne Moos explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEANNE MOSS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): It's not what you usually hear at a hearing.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Trump is a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) idiot.
MOOS: Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham dropped the f-bomb while quoting an FBI agent's text to his then girlfriend. Graham was trying to demonstrate the agent's bias.
GRAHAM: Sorry to the kids out there.
MOOS: Sorry to the networks covering the hearing live.
BILL HEMMER, FOX NEWS HOST: About 90 minutes ago I had a little bit of language slip by us, and for that we apologize to our viewers down the line. We can thank Senator Lindsey Graham for his candid response there.
MOOS: But the people most thankful for the f-bomb were Trump critics. Nice of Lindsey Graham to have created Trump is a bleeping idiot memes for years to come.
GRAHAM: Trump is a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) idiot.
Trump is a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) idiot.
MOOS: Cue the remixes.
GRAHAM: Trump is a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) idiot.
Trump -- Trump -- Trump -- MOOS: My new ring tone is Lindsey Graham saying Trump is a bleeping idiot, though definitely not safe for work. I just accidentally played this in the office and everyone around me laughed. Get yourself some of that joy.
MOOS (on camera): But you know who said the very same thing about candidate Donald Trump, and he wasn't quoting anyone, in his very own words --
GRAHAM: Well, I think Donald Trump is pretty much an idiot on policy and he's a complete idiot when it comes to Mideast policy.
MOOS: And guess who then candidate Trump called and idiot.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And then I watched this idiot, Lindsey Graham, on television today and he calls me a jackass. He's a jackass.
GRAHAM: He's becoming a jackass.
MOOS (voice over): But that was almost four years ago. Idiots and jackasses are now golfing partners and allies. Senator Graham's effort to defend President Trump.
GRAHAM: Trump is a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) idiot.
MOOS: Didn't seem to raise an eyebrow, even if it's not the kind of swearing you expect at a hearing.
Jeanne Moos, CNN --
GRAHAM: Trump -- Trump -- Trump --
MOOS: New York.
GRAHAM: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Idiot.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CAMEROTA: Well, we've set a new low.
BERMAN: So here we are, 2019.
CAMEROTA: Welcome to the fun house.
All right, I'll read.
Federal prosecutors --
BERMAN: When it says, Alisyn, that's a sign.
CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, I -- that was actually a pregnant pause. That one I didn't forget to read, I just was giving it there, OK?
So, federal prosecutors are thinking about charging more people in that massive college admissions scandal. We're going to talk to "The New York Times" reporter who has this story that never goes away, John.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:51:55] BERMAN: All right, new this morning, we're hearing that parents in Los Angeles are beginning to lawyer up as federal prosecutors prepare to charge more people in connection with the college admissions bribery scandal, broadening a probe that has already resulted in several guilty pleas.
Joining me now is Jennifer Medina, national correspondent for "The New York Times."
And, Jennifer, you had a doozy of an article in "The Times" yesterday, which I think raised a lot of alarm bells and eyebrows really across the United States, but especially in California. Let me read a graph of this so people hear it. The prosecutors have informed some of the parents, the exact number is unclear, that they're under investigation in the nation's largest ever college admissions probe, according to four defense lawyers. During a trip to Los Angeles in April, the lead prosecutor conferred with lawyers for at least two of these parents. More coming.
JENNIFER MEDINA, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Yes, that's right, more are likely to come.
BERMAN: From where and what exactly can we expect here?
MEDINA: It's a little bit hard to know exactly what to expect. But what we know is that there is a huge group of parents who hired Rick Singer, the mastermind of this scheme, who was a college counselor. Some of them may have hired him legitimately or what they believed were legitimate services. But there's a large group of those people who are now worried. And some of them are more than worried. Some of them have been told by federal prosecutors that they, too, are under investigation, and so they have hired lawyers and are in communication with federal prosecutors about what they did and did not do.
BERMAN: Yes, you have three people have gotten -- received target letters -- actually, no, students now, three students have received target letters, too, which is a little bit of an expansion in the probe as well because up until this point it was really just the parents.
MEDINA: That's right. What -- we do not yet have anybody who was a student who has been charged, but federal prosecutors are looking at students whose parents or who -- who on their -- on the student's behalf Rick Singer bribed colleges for. And it's very much an open question whether or not prosecutors will, in fact, go after people who are -- they are now adults but who were high school students at the time. And that's one thing that I think people are very curious about, sort of, who's going to take the fall and who's going to be punished for this.
BERMAN: And where the line is. I mean is -- how much do the kids have to have been involved in order for them to be prosecuted. I do want to ask, because the first go around, Lori Loughlin and
Felicity Huffman, they received a lot of the attention because they're well-known actors. The implication, at least the inference I took from your article, in that a lot of these Tony neighborhoods, these well- healed places in Los Angeles, there's a lot of fear. Can we expect we might recognize more of the names that come out of this case as it moves forward?
MEDINA: We really don't know yet and I suppose it depends on who's names you recognize, but certainly it's Los Angeles and certainly there's a lot of money tied up in Hollywood and we know that Rick Singer had a lot of ties to that world, so it's certainly possible, but we really don't know for certain yet until people start to be publicly charged.
BERMAN: Do you have any sense --
MEDINA: You're seeing today also the news of --
BERMAN: Go ahead.
MEDINA: I'm sorry?
BERMAN: Go ahead. You were saying today also the news of --
[08:55:01] MEDINA: You're seeing today also the news of the Chinese families who paid Rick Singer millions of dollars to get their students into both Yale and Stanford. So there's clearly some sort of mix of different families here, it's not only Hollywood celebrities and -- it's a pretty widespread group.
BERMAN: Can I ask, are we talking about numbers in the single digits here or might we see dozens more still charged in this investigation?
MEDINA: I think -- we don't know for certain, but the sense that we have is that it's well beyond the single digits. But, again, just because people are being investigated, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will face charges. So, again, I think we are -- remain to be seen. But there are certainly people in the double digits who are worried. Rick Singer talked very much -- very openly about having hundreds of clients, and so the number of people who are worried is pretty significant.
BERMAN: A wide not -- a wide net, I should say, getting ever wider.
Jennifer Medina, as I said, this is a terrific article. Everyone should go read it. Thanks so much for being with us this morning.
MEDINA: Thank you for having me.
CAMEROTA: All right, John, a House Judiciary hearing is set to get underway moments from now without Attorney General Barr. So what will that look like?
BERMAN: Not William Barr.
CAMEROTA: No, no William Barr.
BERMAN: It won't look like William Barr.
CAMEROTA: It will not look anything like him, but CNN "NEWSROOM" will tell us more after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:00:02] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A very good morning to you and to our viewers here in the U.S. and around world.
END
