Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Democrats Face Off in First Primary Debate; Mueller to Testify before Congress; Kevin Hassett on Mideast Plan; Broward County Deputies Fired for Neglect. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired June 26, 2019 - 09:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:04] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Just hours from now the first real test for the very crowded field of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Candidates facing off. They'll all try to stand out in the first primary debate tonight.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Everyone except Elizabeth Warren is keeping a low profile today, huddling with advisers, doing debate prep. Not Elizabeth Warren. Next hour she will tour an unaccompanied minor migrant child facility. This is in Homestead, Florida.

SCIUTTO: Joining us now is CNN political commentator Jess McIntosh. She was a former director of communications outreach for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Good morning to you.

JESS MCINTOSH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good morning.

SCIUTTO: So it's a big field.

MCINTOSH: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Debates can make a difference on the positive or the negative side. I mean Carly Fiorina, for instance, she had a great moment in the 2016 election, and there was a jump in her numbers right after the debate, a very significant one. But then you see past examples of where debates were not the greatest moments. The famous Rick Perry, couldn't remember the three agencies he's going to eliminate. The Rubio-Christie exchange during the 2016 Republican debates here.

You have potentials on the positive and negative side for these candidates.

MCINTOSH: Oh, absolutely. This is -- this is the first moment that we've had since everybody got in the race where the candidates really get to stand out and differentiate themselves. So, I mean, this is -- this is the big show. This is the really exciting moment where we get to see who's actually up to the task and who isn't.

I'm excited for tonight, maybe even more than tomorrow, even though tomorrow has more of the marquee names, Bernie and Biden are tomorrow, because tonight has the policy heavy hitters. Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Julian Castro have really been dominating the field when it comes to very bold progressive policy platforms. I'm excited that the three of them are on stage because I think they -- one, they complement each other really well. They work with each other. They're regularly citing each other as inspiration to create the kind of agenda that a Democratic nominee should have. So I think allowing that to be highlighted tonight is really -- it's exciting. You know, we've got to figure out what we're going to do post-Trump. That's what this is all about, how do we get out of this mess and then what happens? And I think the candidates tonight actually have some really strong ideas about that.

HARLOW: One Democratic strategist told "Axios" this morning, you want complex carbs not a sugar rush. And that made me wonder, do you, if you're the team behind the candidate, want your candidate to have a viral Twitter moment, or do you want the American people to walk away saying, I know a little bit more about him or her?

MCINTOSH: I mean ideally it's both. Like, as you think about Cory Booker, right, he has to make up some 45,000 new donors before the next debate in order to be included in the debates in Detroit in July. So a viral moment would be really important for him. That's the kind of -- like, viral moments are great fundraising.

HARLOW: Sure.

MCINTOSH: Substance creates voters. So at this point some candidates really want that fundraising bump because that's how they make it to round two.

HARLOW: Yes.

MCINTOSH: And some candidates who are a little more secure might be able to say this is really where I want to communicate my biography, this is really where I want to get weedy on the policy.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: So in recent polls, here's what voters say they want to hear about in the first debate. And these issues coming up frequently. Health care up there 20 percent, immigration, border security. I mean health care is consistently at the top of these lists. Immigration, of course, very much in the headlines now. You think of the photo down at the border --

MCINTOSH: Yes.

SCIUTTO: The Trump administration policy.

How much is the administration's tough policy at the border helping Democratic candidates at this point?

MCINTOSH: I mean, honestly, it's hard to say that that's helping anybody politically. It's just so devastating to see those images and hear those stories coming out of it. Obviously, I think it allows Democratic candidates to draw a much sharper contrast. Certainly that would never be happening under I think anybody on the stage. I haven't gone into everyone's proposal, but I'm pretty sure keeping children with their families and not keeping them in those kinds of conditions would be a part of any Democrat nominee's agenda. So I don't know that it helps the candidates differentiate themselves.

But I think part of this primary process is showing America -- a lot of America who didn't vote in 2016 -- that there really is a very clear difference between the parties, regardless of who our nominee is. You're looking at two very different Americas if we re-elect Trump versus if we go in a Democratic direction.

[09:35:08] SCIUTTO: Elections matter.

MCINTOSH: Yes, very much.

HARLOW: A late night for everyone tonight.

MCINTOSH: Oh, yes.

HARLOW: No one's going to bed early.

Jess McIntosh, thank you very much.

Moments ago the president just seemed to threaten China with more possible tariffs. This ahead of the G-20 talks where he's going to meet with President Xi. We'll ask the White House's top economic advisor about it after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

We are waiting to hear from the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which, in just 20 days' time, will have a chance to question the special counsel, Robert Mueller.

Our Manu Raju is on The Hill as we await Nadler to speak to reporters.

Manu, what are we expecting him to address here? I imagine the scope of the questions he and the committee members will have for Bob Mueller.

[09:40:07] MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think we'll hear more about what he expects out of this hearing. We tried to ask him this morning about the hearing. He decided to wait to make this public statement before his hearing that's about to begin at 10:00 a.m. this morning.

Expect there to be a lot of discussion about the impact that this hearing may actually have. Already talking to Democrats this morning, some are saying that this could change the dynamics, for instance, on an impeachment inquiry. These two members who I spoke with who support an impeachment inquiry, Veronica Escobar and Jan Schakowsky, both told me they believe this could change the dynamic, shift public opinion towards their support for an impeachment inquiry. But Adam Schiff, the Intelligence Committee chairman, who will also question Bob Mueller, tamped that down. He told me just moments ago, Jim, that there should be realistic expectations about exactly what to expect.

So we'll hear for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, what he expects, what he wants Mueller to ultimately answer.

Jim.

HARLOW: OK. So, Manu, that's what we're expecting. Obviously your trying to figure out what he will actually be willing to say, if anything, going beyond the report, right, because he said he's going to stick to those 448 pages.

RAJU: Yes, that's right. And Schiff told me last night when I asked him about whether or not you expects Mueller to stick to the four corners of the report, as Mueller said, he said he's going to ask questions outside of those four corners. So what Mueller will say, of course, is a completely different question we just can't answer at this point, guys.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: He's a public servant. They get called before House/Senate committees all the time.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: He'll have to face those questions.

Manu Raju, thanks very much.

HARLOW: All right, happening now, member of the Trump administration this morning are in Bahrain. They're rolling out the first part of this Middle East peace proposal, spearheaded by the president's son- in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner. And the goal is to raise some $50 billion in investments for the Palestinian economy.

Notably, though, not there in Bahrain this morning are Palestinian leaders, many of whom have rejected the plan.

So let's talk about the man really at the center of this alongside Jared Kushner, and that is Kevin Hassett, the chairman of the White House Counsel of Economic Advisers.

Kevin, in your final CNN interview, we thank you for being on this show and talking us through all of it.

KEVIN HASSETT, OUTGOING CHAIRMAN, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Oh, thanks (ph).

HARLOW: What you're -- what you're doing in Bahrain today is a $50 billion proposal. And you've made the argument, Kevin, in the presentation you just made, that looking at the data, per capita GDP in the West Bank and Gaza should be $8,700 higher. What's the plan? HASSETT: Right. So basically if you look at it, there are two

relationships that we've studied. We've studied the relationship between education and literacy and GDP per capita, and also the relationship between capital, you know, how much infrastructure you have in a country and GDP per capita. And if you look at Gaza and the West Bank, then what you see is that given their very high level of talent and literacy, their GDP should be about three times as big as it is. And we understand that there are a lot of political problems that need to be resolved by non-economists.

But what the president and Jared asked me to do is to just, you know, dream about a future in Palestine that was prosperous, to look at the economy, go down to the nitty-gritty detail and come up with a plan with lots of proposals, which could get them back to sort of where they should be given the talent level of the people.

HARLOW: So --

HASSETT: And so today what we've been doing at the conference is laying out a plan that basically portrays a vision of a very positive, prosperous Palestine. And I think that that's a positive contribution regardless of the politics of it.

HARLOW: So, Kevin, but the politics of it are really, really at the crux, right? I hear you on the economic argument and all of the people in need of a better economy there, but you don't have Palestinians at the table. They haven't come to the conference. The Palestinian Authority prime minister told my colleague Christiane Amanpour that this issue for Palestinians is 100 percent political before it is economic. That this is a, quote, intellectual exercise that you guys are engaging in.

How can you make economic progress without any political solution?

HASSETT: Right. So again, as you know, Poppy, I'm not a politician and I respect, you know, those comments. But the thing is that if I were, you know, the mayor of a town someplace in Gaza or the West Bank, then what I would do is I would go through our plan and look through the hundreds of projects that we talked about, like, for example, taking their power plant and moving it from using diesel fuel to using natural gas. And then I would take those ideas and I would start to act on them.

And the Palestinian people, they want to be prosperous. They want to have an economy that's worthy of their talents. And we've laid out a plan to do that. And so the politics is another thing. It's not my lane really. But I think that it would be incorrect and wrong for Palestinian leaders not to look at the plan and then steal the best ideas, you know, at the very least.

HARLOW: So, Kevin, you know the president on his way today to Japan for the G-20, right? He's going to meet with Xi Jinping.

HASSETT: Right.

HARLOW: Everyone wants to know, are they going to finally make progress again towards a trade deal?

[09:45:02] The president, just moments ago, said this, quote, plan b with China is taking in billions and billions of dollars with tariffs. Actually it's, you know, you know it's the taxpayer that pays those. But he also said, and doing less and less business with them. His plan b on China, if there's no trade deal, is doing less and less business with them.

Is that a good idea when even, you know, big CEOs like Fred Smith, the CEO of FedEx, who's a Republican, said last night on the earnings call that America is becoming a protectionist country?

HASSETT: Right, well I think that the, you know, first best for everybody is that we get a great deal out of the G-20 meeting. And that's certainly what we're hoping for.

And, you know, I think that we were very close to a deal before that was a big positive for China and a big positive for U.S. workers in U.S. firms. And that's -- that's the president's choice. You know, that's what he wants. But if China continues to engage in some of the practices we're trying to, you know, convince them to change, then -- then, you know, I think the president's right, that the president's going to stick to his guns and there will be tariffs on Chinese products into the U.S.

But, again, don't forget, the -- like the U.S. sells about as much stuff to China as they sell to us. It's just that, you know, if you're going to sell stuff in China, they kind of make -- make it in China. And so, you know, they sell stuff to us that they made in China too. And so we have this big trade deficit in part because they have this asymmetric trade policy. And so the president wants to fix that. And if doesn't get fixed, then he's right about what he's going to do. And that's what he's going to do.

HARLOW: Well, those are tariffs that --

HASSETT: I know him well. That's -- correct.

HARLOW: I hear you, those are tariffs that the American -- you know, Americans pay and then you do less and less business with China and that just blows up a lot of the business models of American companies.

But I've got to get to you on a few other things before we go.

HASSETT: OK. Sure.

HARLOW: The Federal Reserve. We just heard the president say moments ago in this -- in this interview that Jerome Powell never should have raised rates and that, quote, he's trying to prove how tough he is.

Do you think that the chairman of the independent Federal Reserve is just trying to prove how tough he is?

HASSETT: Look, as you know, forever and ever I respect the independence of the Fed. And the president, you know, appointed a very strong, independent Fed, and he also expresses his opinions. You know, I think that most market participants look back at the move last year in December and they think that it wasn't the best move, but that's not my job as CEA chair to criticize it.

But, you know what --

HARLOW: OK.

HASSETT: Invite -- invite me back in a week or two when I'm on the outside and I'll speak more frankly about Jay Powell.

HARLOW: Yes.

HASSETT: But I really like him a lot. I had lunch with him about once a month over my two years at CEA.

HARLOW: And then let me ask you this -- let me -- let me ask you this finally because immigration is such an important issue right now, Kevin, as you know, and the crisis at the southern border. You have written extensively about this while you were at AEI and you've said that the U.S. economy would benefit from admitting more immigrants, given declining fertility in the U.S., U.S. labor shortages, et cetera.

As you leave the White House, Kevin, and go on to the next phase, do you believe that the president could help the economy by letting more immigrants into the United States?

HASSETT: Right. And that's why Jared and I and Stephen Miller worked so hard on the immigration reform plan that we rollout out few weeks ago. And, you know, Jared jokes that if Kevin and Stephen Miller can agree on illegal immigration reform, you know we do.

HARLOW: But you do. That's a -- that's a yes?

HASSETT: Yes, we could absolutely improve the economy with immigration reform. And that's why we rolled out -- we rolled out a plan to do that, you know, I guess a few weeks ago now.

HARLOW: OK.

HASSETT: And so absolutely 100 percent immigration needs to improve in the U.S. So we need a point space system like Canada or Australia.

HARLOW: That -- well, but it's actually -- the policy -- no, I hear what you're saying, Kevin, it's just the policies of this administration have been to limit even legal immigration to this country. The antithesis of what you have made the economic argument for, for so long, are you -- are -- is the White House misguided on the immigration policy that you think could most benefit the American economy?

HASSETT: If we move to a points based system where we're getting the workers that American firms need into the country, then, you know, I think that you could ask the president yourself, but I think that everybody would support expanded legal immigration in that circumstance. HARLOW: OK. Support expanded legal immigration.

We'd love to ask the president. He's welcome to call in now, just as he did to Fox News. Talk to him about that and a lot more.

HASSETT: Yes.

HARLOW: Kevin Hassett, we're getting the wrap from your folks there.

HASSETT: He's a big supporter of the plan. We -- yes.

HARLOW: You have to go, I know.

HASSETT: OK.

HARLOW: I guess, just very quickly, what tropical island are you going to relax on, and are you writing a book at your time in the White House?

HASSETT: Well, yes -- oh, cut it out. You know, that I can say as a last thought, Poppy, that I've really enjoyed our time together. That I know that there's not always the best relationship between the White House and folks in corners of the media, but you guys have always been fair with me. You've asked hard questions. I've probably made more news on your show than I wanted to. But, you know, thanks a lot for making the time available to me for the last few years.

HARLOW: Oh, well, look, that's our job. Jim and I so appreciate you coming on. And anyone from the White House is welcome to join us every day on this program.

Kevin Hassett, good luck. Enjoy some time with the family.

HASSETT: OK.

HARLOW: Thanks very much.

HASSETT: Thanks. Thanks, Poppy.

HARLOW: You got it.

HASSETT: Yes, we'll do.

HARLOW: All right, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:54:17] HARLOW: All right. Welcome back.

This just in.

Two sheriff deputies in Broward County, Florida, have been fired for neglect of duty in responding to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, of course, in Parkland.

SCIUTTO: It's a remarkable thread to this story. CNN's Rosa Flores, she is in there following this story.

So what exactly did these officers not do and for how long, and how are they being held accountable?

ROSA FLOES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim and Poppy, the sheriff really did not get into the details of what they did and what they didn't do. But what he did announce was that this is part of their announcement that their internal investigation into the response of its own agency, the Broward County Sheriff's Office, has been completed. The sheriff announced that they investigated seven deputies, four of them were terminated, the other three will be allowed to continue on their duties. And of those four that were terminated, two of them were terminated yesterday, which is the ones that you were referring to.

[09:55:15] But, of course, the most well-known officer that was terminated is Scott Peterson. And I was actually just handed this piece of paper by the sheriff's office. And they said that this is why it's important, for two reasons. First of all, because Peterson was terminated, he will not get his sick leave, which is $48,955. And if anyone asks this agency for a reference on Peterson, they will be able to say that he was terminated.

Jim and Poppy.

SCIUTTO: It is quite a price to pay there. Thanks very much, Rosa Flores.

HARLOW: Lawmakers will finally get their chance to publicly question the man who spent nearly two years investigating the president and Russian interference in the election. Robert Mueller will testify in public on Capitol Hill in 21 days.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: The House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, is speaking now. Let's have a listen.

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): To Mr. Mueller. He is going to obey that subpoena. He's going to appear before first the Judiciary Committee and immediately thereafter the Intelligence Committee in the same hearing room at -- which will be here on July 17th.

RAJU: Do you -- some of your colleagues on your committee this morning believed that his testimony could change the dynamics for an impeachment inquiry. Do you think this would have such a profound impact that it could strengthen calls for an impeachment inquiry?

NADLER: Well, I don't know. It might. But I think it will have a profound impact because, you know, the Russians attacked our democracy. The Trump campaign certainly welcomed that assistance. The Trump -- the Russians attacked our Democratic election with the -- with the goal of helping Trump win the election. The Trump campaign welcomed that help, and that's the words of the report. Mueller and his assistants investigated for two years. There was a lot

of obstruction in that investigation. And they issued their report. But their report, I don't think all that many people have read it. The attorney general, Attorney General Barr, led a campaign of misinformation to deceive the American people about what was in the report. The president joined in by repeatedly saying no collusion, no obstruction, which is not what the report found.

So I think it's very important that the American people hear from Mr. Mueller as to what he did find, what the results of that two-year investigation were, and not have to rely on the misinformation spread by the attorney general or on reading the report, which most people also --

RAJU: But will he be able to tell you anything different than beyond what was in the report?

NADLER: I -- I think just the fact -- just if he says what was in the report and says it to the American people so they hear it, that would be very, very important because they've been subjected to months of deception as to what was in the report by the attorney general and by the president. And that will be important itself. Whether he goes farther than that, we'll see.

QUESTION: So, Mr. Chairman, what changed yesterday after two months -- basically two months after you invited him, you've been negotiating, why were you ready to subpoena yesterday versus some other day or --

NADLER: I'm not going to get into the details of the negotiations, but we reached the point where we believe that if we issued the subpoena, he would -- he would obey it and he would testify, and that's what's going to happen.

[10:00:02] QUESTION: Can you say when the discussions went from voluntary to compelled?

NADLER: No. No, I'm not going to say --

QUESTION: Do you.

END