Return to Transcripts main page


Trump Falsely Claims Google "Manipulated" Votes In 2016 Election, Citing No Evidence; WH Official Admits Tax Cuts May Be On Table Amid Recession Fears. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired August 19, 2019 - 19:00   ET


WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: The missile was launched from an island off California and it hit a target more than 300 miles away. I'm Brianna Keilar and Erin Burnett OUTFRONT starts right now.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next, Trump floats a new conspiracy theory on voter fraud, this time blaming Google for costing him the popular vote. Why is he going there? Plus, breaking news recession fears. The White House reportedly considering a new tax cut to keep the economy going. So why is the President then saying the economy has never been better? And Elizabeth Warren apologizes for the controversial DNA test. Is it enough to silence her critics? Let's go out front.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Kate Bolduan, in for Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, Trump is pushing a new conspiracy theory once again about voter fraud. This time though, it's Google's fault, apparently. Here's his tweet from today.

"Report Just Out. Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Election. This was put out by a Clinton supporter," he continues, "not a Trump Supporter. Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought."

Bigger than thought. There is no evidence of that. There is no real evidence of that, I should say. His theory based off not a new report even but congressional testimony from last month. Testimony that got little attention and was largely ignored. That is until the theory appeared today on Fox Business, discussing claims by a researcher named Robert Epstein who claimed Google may have shifted millions of votes to Hillary Clinton. How? Well, Epstein, the researcher, blames bias in Google search results.


ROBERT EPSTEIN, PSYCHOLOGIST: In 2016, Google search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that shifted at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton. The 2.6 million is a rock bottom minimum. The range is between 2.6 and 10.4 million.


BOLDUAN: But to be clear, there is no evidence that search results were skewed. Additionally, Google denies that and take it one step further if search results were biased. There's no evidence that it changed a single vote. But in typical Trump fashion, none of that context matters or the fact that all real evidence shows that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.

Clinton was quick to respond to the President's new claim tweeting this, "The debunked study you're referring to was based on 21 undecided voters. For context that's about half the number of people associated with your campaign who have been indicted." Clearly, still, no love lost there.

And here is the thing, this isn't the first time that the President has pushed baseless claims about millions of illegal votes in 2016. Remember this from President Trump's policy advisor Stephen Miller.


STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR POLICY ADVISER: Having worked before on a campaign in New Hampshire, I can tell you that this issue of busing voters in to New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who's worked in New Hampshire politics. It's very real. It's very serious. This morning on this show is not the venue for me lay out all the evidence.


BOLDUAN: There was no evidence. There's no evidence of that. I myself have spoken to the offices of the Secretary of State of New Hampshire and the Attorney General's Office way back when he was talking about this and they didn't then have any evidence of seeing any buses coming in. So there's that and then there is this.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Many places like California, the same person votes many times, you probably heard about that. They always like to say, "Oh, that's a conspiracy theory." Not a conspiracy theory, folks. Millions and millions of people.

There was much illegal voting.

They're voting like really early and we have to discuss that early thing. That's sort of - so many things are going on, so many things. I wonder what happens during the evenings when those places are locked.


BOLDUAN: Again, no evidence, no matter how many times you say it. But don't take my word for it. The President's own commission to investigate widespread voter fraud found none before it disbanded. I'm going to speak to a member of that now debunked commission in just a moment.

But first Kaitlan Collins, she's out front live outside the White House for us. Kaitlan, why is the President - conspiracy theories we know that he has an affinity for, but why is he pushing this latest conspiracy theory and why now? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the President

has long had this accusation that Google is biased against him. He once claimed they were suppressing positive stories about him without any evidence and now today on a day where the President had a light public schedule. He clearly saw this clip that you just played of this psychologist.

But also we should note the President is citing the study wrong. He's claiming that Google manipulated votes. But in the study, the study that we should note is widely disputed and denied by Google. The psychologist is simply saying that there was bias in the search results for Google and that is what gave those votes to Hillary Clinton even though this person doesn't explain what he means by Google gave these votes to Hillary Clinton.

[19:05:06] However, the President has taken this claim. He's run with it and even put his own spin on it. And, of course, even though it doesn't even match what the author himself said which he told CNN's Daniel Dale today, the President is still maintaining that there was a change in the votes. This fits a pattern that the President has had where he has long insisted privately and publicly that he should have won the popular vote.

It's been something that's bothered him ever since election night in 2016 where the President defeated Hillary Clinton, of course, in the electoral college. But even just yesterday, you are playing these clips of the President talking about voter fraud. Just yesterday as the President was leaving his vacation in New Jersey and coming back here to the White House, he was alleging that there was voter fraud.

He was talking about voter ID laws and how they're needed to be stronger ones in the context of him talking about guns,. which reporters questioned what the two had to do with each other. And when reporters pointed out your own voter fraud commission disbanded because it couldn't find anything. The President continue to make these allegations even though there was nothing to back him up.

Of course, here, Kate, but this also helps the President use this tactic of feeding into this distrust of tech companies, something he thinks can help him in the election.

BOLDUAN: Yes, it's like a value meal deal of his like favorite conspiracy theory topics. It's great to see you, Kaitlan. Thanks so much.

Out front now, David Gergen, former Presidential Advisor to Four Presidents, Samantha Vinograd, Senior Adviser to the National Security Adviser in the Obama administration and Matthew Dunlap, he's Maine's Secretary of State. He was also a member of President Trump's commission to investigate voter fraud. Thank you guys for being here.

David, the President is pushing yet another conspiracy theory about voter fraud. We've kind of laid it out. Kaitlan laid out kind of how he didn't even get the theory right, if you follow the theory. Why now? Why again? What is this? DAVID GERGEN, FORMER ADVISER TO FOUR PRESIDENTS: He's so bloody

insecure. This has been an issue as Kaitlan pointed out that has been with him since the elections because he feels that people don't see him as a legitimate president unless he won the majority of vote and he wants to sort of convince people otherwise.

But he have to look at it himself, he's been spinning out conspiracy theories more frequently now than he used to. Just this last few days, he's accused the press of trying to bring him down on the economy, so it wouldn't be good for him. But in this case, if you look at it, this testimony was weeks old, it just came up on Fox by the way and the person, Mr. Epstein - Professor Epstein, this is not peer reviewed argument, it's not a peer reviewed article anywhere. It's not an article that appeared anywhere if anyone can tell.

Professor Epstein on the internet appears to have last been an academic at the University of South Pacific and he was not a tenured personnel. He had a non-tenured job. So what typically in disputes like this, their academics have a chance to peer review. They have a chance to talk it over and compare notes. It's not one man carrying a spear and can get it on national television.

BOLDUAN: Until now.

GERGEN: Until now.

BOLDUAN: Until now. Sam, if you allow for the logic that the President is laying out here, just go with me, then President Trump, it seems to me, would also have to accept that Russia's interference and disinformation in the 2016 election also as he put it manipulated votes. But that would be manipulated votes for him, right?

SAM VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: That's exactly right. President Trump continues to adhere to the double standard diet. He is quick to point the finger at interference or influence that is unhelpful to him while opening the door to accepting foreign dirt or using media platforms like Fox News to spread conspiracy theories.

It's a double standard and to David's point, the President's insecurities are making America insecure in a very specific way. We've been reading today about the Chinese government, the communist government using information warfare to spread lies about protests in Hong Kong. We know that Vladimir Putin sows conspiracy theories and amplifies them on social media.

The President of the United States is doing exactly the same thing. We can analyze why he's doing it, but the fact to the matter is that it's almost like he's waking up every day and deciding that he's going to make Vladimir Putin's job a little bit easier by spreading these lies about our democracy.

And at this point, he doesn't need to get information on voter fraud or influence from a tenured or an unintended professor. He has an intelligence community. He has a new Acting Director of National Intelligence. He has new officials at DHS.

He's getting his election security briefings or cherry-picking them, I should say, from television rather than engaging with his actual team.

BOLDUAN: And let's go to one of those people who was part of a place to gather actual information on these actual topics.

[19:10:04] Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming on. You were on the President's voter fraud commission. Were there any conversations, questions and let alone any evidence offered of Google searches impacting votes during the brief time that this commission was together?

Matthew Dunlap: Google was never brought up in any of our discussions and this is really institutional gaslighting in its worse form. The President's own intelligence community has told everyone that not a single vote was manipulated or changed in either the 2016 or the 2018 elections. And yet here he is going off talking about some phantom menace that's, once again, disrupted our election system.

The fact of the matter is all 50 states certified their election results in 2016 and 2018. Every single vote was counted accurately in Maine. I won't speak for the entire country, but it'll sound like I am. We used paper ballots, how do you hack a felt, pen and paper ballot? So no votes were changed certainly in Maine.

And so this effort to bring doubt upon the entire election system only does harm to our electoral process in terms of the diminished voter confidence that our voters should expect to see when they walk into a polling place. Elections are run at the local level. They're not run from the White House and they're certainly not run from Google or any other search engine. This is categorically untrue.

BOLDUAN: And David, but is all of this - I'm trying to get the thought of, one, you lay out why the President is obsessed with this concept. But he think it works? Like is this a strategy of I will so distrust in the electoral process and that somehow turns out my base more or is it more laying the groundwork to, if need be, question the outcome in 2020?

GERGEN: Well, there is a, one might say, is a conspiracy theory on the left. Exactly what he's trying to do is lay the groundwork for calling into question on the election night at 2020 and the days that follow, whether it's a fraudulent election and if he can claim that it's a fraudulent election then he could then say, "I should stay in power until we get this resolved. We have a new election and so forth and so on."

So there are people on the left who have that fear. I see, so far, no basis for that here.

BOLDUAN: Right. Yes. Right, there should be no basis of that fear because we're going to try to not deal in conspiracy theories ...

GERGEN: Exactly.

BOLDUAN: ... until you can pull reality out of my cold dead hands. Sam, if Trump really believes this, who is left? You kind of get to this. Who's left in is National Security team to actually set him straight? DNI Coats, who was seen as a well-respected voice, straightforward, a straight shooter in his National Security team. He left last week.

VINOGRAD: Kate, stacking his cabinet with sick offense may make the President feel better in the near term, but as we've just discussed it is not protecting our country. And at this point, it's not just a question of who's willing to tell him things that he doesn't want to hear. There has been multiple streams of reporting that information is being censored before it even reach his desk.

We have no indication he reads the presidential daily briefing, but there's been reporting that the chief of staff told the former Secretary of Homeland Security not to bring up election security in front of the President. There's been other reporting that he doesn't like talking about Russia because it makes him uncomfortable and it feeds his insecurities as David was referencing.

So at this point, we really have to be aware of the fact that the President is getting his intelligence briefings from a shadow cabinet of foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin and media personalities that have no access to classified information and have a bias one way or another.

BOLDUAN: That's the craziest bit about this is when you have access to more information than anyone and you still base it off of something that you see on cable TV. Secretary, you alluded to this, but I want to hit this as a final point. You're in charge of overseeing elections in your state.

What is the real impact of the President, any president pushing a conspiracy theory like this? Do you think it has an impact on voters?

DUNLAP: I think it does tremendous harm and it's reckless and irresponsible for him to do that. Like I say, our stock and trade is not results of elections. Our stock and trade is voters believing in the process. We have our country's leader saying that the results have been manipulated either from an internal or external source for people who care so much about this process and are then persuaded that their vote may not matter.

They may stay away from the polls, which could be an end goal for some folks. I find it incredibly objectionable that anybody would sew that kind of disinformation without anything to back it up.

BOLDUAN: Thank you guys very much. I really appreciate it. Thanks so much. OUTFRONT for us next, breaking news, the White House reportedly considering a new round of tax cuts to boost the economy, but why? According to President Trump, things have never been better. Plus, is President Trump already backing away from the stronger background checks that he said that he wanted? If so, what can Democrats do?

[19:15:01] And Elizabeth Warren takes on the controversy of her past claims of Native American heritage. Will this silence her biggest critic, President Trump?


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I know that I have made mistakes. I am sorry for harm I have caused.



[19:18:53] BOLDUAN: Breaking news, The Washington Post is reporting White House officials are now considering a new tax cut as recession fears mount of payroll tax cut specifically. Though one White House official is pushing back tonight, telling CNN that more tax cuts are certainly on the table, but it's not under consideration at this time.

At the same time, President Trump is dismissing concerns about the economy. In a tweet today saying this, quote, our Economy is very strong despite the horrendous lack of vision by Jay Powell and the Fed, but the Democrats are trying to "will" the Economy to be bad for the purposes of the 2020 Election. So how does this all impact the 2020 race? Out front now former Republican senator and presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, and former Democratic Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm. Guys, thanks for being here.


BOLDUAN: Senator, let me ask you first, if the White House is discussing a payroll tax cut or let me expand it to any tax cut at all, how do you square that with really the glowing statements on the economy and basically complete dismissal of concerns about that very same economy we're hearing from the White House?

FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R-PA): Yes, look, I think the President understands that we've had a very strong economy for the last two years. It's dramatically picked up since the Obama administration and he's done a lot of positive things like regulatory cuts and tax cuts.

[19:20:08] And he even admitted it today. I saw some comments from today. He said that this war that he's engaged in with China, I mean, it's a battle that's having an impact. It's creating uncertainty in the markets. It's creating uncertainty in business investment and it's probably knocking off a couple of tenths of a point off of GDP and it's slowing down the economy a little bit and so he's trying to look at things that that may counter that.

But I would just say this, I got to give the President credit. I mean, President Obama didn't take on China and he probably wasn't in a very good position economically, so the economy wasn't that strong. President Bush didn't take on China, President Clinton didn't take on China. And Jennifer knows because she's from Michigan, there's a lot of folks in the industrial Midwest who want us to take on China who are tired of China eating our lunch and at least give the President high marks for doing the battle and risking his economy in doing so.

BOLDUAN: It's one thing to take on China. It's another thing to not accept reality or acknowledge reality that tariffs are going to be impacting consumers and businesses, that's the difference. SANTORUM: Well, he said that. He said that in the short-term that

this trade war could have an impact on the economy, but in the long- term it's essential for our survival of a country that they are taking our technology.

BOLDUAN: But, Senator, over and over again I've heard from Peter Navarro and down, Peter Navarro even saying to Jake Tapper on Sunday that the tariffs are having no impact on Americans.

SANTORUM: What he's talking about, what Peter Navarro said because I was on the show yesterday.


SANTORUM: What Peter Navarro said was that it's not having an impact on consumers and I think that's true. But it is having an impact on business investment, because of the uncertainty out there. It is having an impact on certain industries like the agriculture industry and so it's having an impact on the overall GDP.

But I agree with Peter Navarro when you have inflation at under 2%, it's hard to make the claim that the consumers are paying a lot more as a result of the war.

BOLDUAN: Governor, if they would go forward with a payroll tax cut, the last one happened during the Obama administration to try and boost the economy during the last downturn. Do you think that this could be a good move both politically and economically for Trump?

GRANHOLM: Well, I certainly think he thinks it would be and he would have to get Congress to go along with it at a point where he has racked up a trillion dollar deficit, so I'm not sure that you would find that. And it's also clearly an indication, as you suggested, that he knows that the economy is not as rosy as he and all of his economic advisors are acknowledging.

I appreciate Rick saying or at least acknowledging that. But today, there was a report out from the National Association for Business Economics, they surveyed hundreds of economists, business economists, 74 percent of them say there will be a recession in the next two years. The vast majority of them saying before the elections.

So it is shaky out there, but can I just say one other thing that is really important to keep in mind? All of these top level economic indicators, the stock market GDP, they don't have any impact on the bottom half of the economy, which are the people who aren't investing in the stock markets of which it's half of America.

This is amazing to me, 43 percent of Americans who are working cannot afford the basics. They're called asset limited income constrained employed people, 43 percent. So there are two economies. The people at the top are doing great, the ones who got the tax cut, the businesses who got that huge tax cut, but everyday citizens are not.

People who do not have retirement, people who do not have health care, who are in the gig economy. So I think that regardless of whether a recession is imminent or will happen before the election, there is this second economy that the Trump policies have only hurt and that's a problem.

SANTORUM: Well, that's a good example of what the President is talking about that Democrats talking down the economy. The reality is that wages and wages are --

GRANHOLM: This is the reality, Rick. I'm not talking it down. I'm just giving you facts. This is just facts.

SANTORUM: Well, yes, the fact is that wages have been going up faster than any ...

GRANHOLM: No, no, no.

SANTORUM: ... yes, they have.

GRANHOLM: Wages are down.

SANTORUM: No, as a matter of fact they have.

GRANHOLM: Wages are down right now. Between first and second quarter wages have dropped.

SANTORUM: If you look at since --

GRANHOLM: Housings have dropped. Manufacturing output has dropped up to 2 percent. These are all signs of what is going on. I'm not talking up or down. Nobody wants to see a recession. But what I'm saying is that the basic economic indicators are showing a weakening economy and those don't even address the half of the economy that is not in the stock market.

BOLDUAN: Go ahead, Senator.

SANTORUM: OK. So I would make the point that if you look at the look wages since the President has taken office, they have grown stronger than in any time and I think the last 20 years. They've been outpacing inflation, which hasn't been done for low wage worker for a long, long time.

So the reality is that lower wage workers are doing better as a result of this president and we're seeing more people back into the workforce and we're seeing very low rates of unemployment.

[19:25:07] So all of that helps low wage workers and I think his trade war while it does - you say it does hurt business investment and it does hurt the economy, I think ultimately this is for working men and women to make sure that these manufacturing jobs stay here or stay close by so we can have strong economic growth that's going to benefit wage earner. So he's out there fighting for the little guy.

BOLDUAN: I hear you. I mean I'm just going to end with this. I have talked to - I wouldn't call them big business, I'm calling them farmers from Ohio and other farmer states.

SANTORUM: Farmers are getting hurt, no question.

BOLDUAN: They are absolutely getting hurt.

SANTORUM: Yes, they are.

BOLDUAN: And it's very difficult to make a short-term pain, long-term gain argument to folks when they really can't hold out any longer.

SANTORUM: I agree. And the President, as you know, has put forth a plan to try to help sew that problem. But there's no question, certain elements of our economy are going to get hurt by this trade war. But it is a war that - look, Jennifer Granholm has been out there saying, "We need take on China." Now we're doing it, don't complain that we're doing.

GRANHOLM: No. We don't have a deal about it.

BOLDUAN: I think --

GRANHOLM: Rick, it's a question of how you do it. It's a question of how you do it. The tariffs are a blunt instrument. He is not cutting a deal yet and all of these economists ...


SANTORUM: We're doing it. He's the first to do it, Jennifer. Will you admit he's the first to do it.

BOLDUAN: Well, let's just --

SANTORUM: Are you admitting he's the first to at least try?

BOLDUAN: Well, let's just see how much more of those tariffs actually go into effect, because now the President knowing that there actually can be an impact is now - continue just to single them and is holding them off. Guys, thanks so much. We have many more months to talk about the economy. Thanks, guys.

OUTFRONT next, Nancy Pelosi takes on the President shifting language on background checks. Is Donald Trump going back on his word? And the President admits he does want to buy Greenland, listen.


TRUMP: Strategically for the United States, it would be nice.


BOLDUAN: Is it strategic or is it about ego? A man who has been in the boardroom with Donald Trump is my guest.


[19:30:50] KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: New tonight, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has this message to President Trump on new gun measures. She says, quote: I pray that the president will listen to the 90 percent of the American people who support universal background checks.

Why is this speaker saying this right now? Because maybe of these remarks from President Trump about those very same background checks.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Just remember this, big mental problem. And we do have a lot of background checks right now. Just remember, we already have a lot of background checks, OK?


BOLDUAN: The president sounding a different tune today or just days ago.


TRUMP: I've spoken to Mitch McConnell. He's a good man. He wants to do something. He wants to do it. I think very strongly, he wants to do background checks and I think a lot of Republicans do.


BOLDUAN: So what changed?

Sunlen Serfaty is OUTFRONT.

Sunlen, what are you hearing about this?

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kate, those comments right there really do underscore this dynamic that we've seen play out with President Trump so many times before on Capitol Hill, that he is always the wildcard hanging over every negotiation.

The president, he speaks in these broad strokes. He's vague at times. He changes his position very often. And that does not help with congressional deals coming together.

Now, after the president said that, he appears to be backing away from supporting tougher background checks for gun sales. The Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is saying point blank, we have seen this movie before.

And top Republicans will tell you that nothing is going to move on guns. Nothing has a chance at all unless the president fully endorses something and then sticks to it. So, while lawmakers are spending part of their recess going over options with the White House, there is a bipartisan group trying to see what can pass. Comments like these, Kate, the president really changing his tune injects so much uncertainty into an already uncertain situation.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely right. Thanks so much, Sunlen.

OUTFRONT now, Democratic congressman from Ohio and presidential candidate, Tim Ryan.

Congressman, it's great to have you. Thank you for being here.


BOLDUAN: When you heard the president say that which is remember we already have strong background checks, does that worry you? Do you think he is -- do you think he's signaling something?

RYAN: I have no idea. It's hard to follow the president anymore. You just showed the two clips back-to-back, where he's saying one thing one day, something else a day or two later. Either he is intentionally trying to manipulate the American people, slow walk this, the old Potomac two step, right? We'll just keep talking and then things will die down, or he has diminished mental faculties, because he's saying something completely opposite of what he said two days ago --

BOLDUAN: You really think that could be part of it, or it's not just the part that he is trying to walk back from something that he very clearly knows what he is saying?

RYAN: I think when it comes to him, it's really hard to tell, because I've seen him call Dayton Toledo. I have seen him make these mistakes consistently. But I also see him trying to manipulate the media and manipulate the American people by saying, hey, we'll do something and then he doesn't.

But what he needs to understand is the ground is shifting on this issue. And I think the Republicans, you see it in the polling with suburban moms and dads who may be Republican who are hell bent on getting background checks. They're worried about sending their kids to school. They lived in communities like Dayton, El Paso, Sandy Hook, all of these different areas of the country that have experienced it.

This is personal. I don't think the president is connecting that. And he's playing the old game with the NRA and he's going to lose.

BOLDUAN: Let me ask you then, because "Axios" is reporting that sources are saying that when it comes to action on the Hill, it's September or bust because of the fragile momentum that comes on the heels of tragedies like what happened in Dayton. Do you agree that that is the reality?

RYAN: I think so. I think the honest assessment is something should happen in September. We need to apply the pressure.

But here's the other piece that I don't think we've seen before. That the pressure, the groups, Moms Demand Action, Gabby Giffords group, Sandy Hook, they have built themselves up now to where they can go head to head with a diminished NRA because of the problems the NRA had.

[19:35:08] BOLDUAN: They got real money.

RYAN: They've got real money. They've got real support. They've got moms that are very, very active and men who are strong enough to be with the moms.

So, this is not going away. But this is different now. And the pressure is going to continue to be applied. And so, we may be able to get past December.

We have to get rid of Mitch McConnell, period, end of story. He is the bottleneck. He is another one with the Potomac two-step. He's going to talk his way around this. We've got to get rid of him.

So, they can do what they want and maybe they can slow-walk it and maybe they can bottleneck it, but they are all up for election and will be gone because this movement is stronger than it's ever been.

BOLDUAN: Let me ask you about another big conversation right now in the 2020 race, which is about the economy. With fears of a recession looming, Vice President Mike Pence, he was out -- he was out today speaking. He said that if you or any Democrat would win the presidential race, this would happen. Watch this.

RYAN: Can't wait to hear.


MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I honestly believe if any one of the Democrats on that debate stage wins the presidency, the gains of the last 2 1/2 years would be wiped out. Taxes would sky rocket. The stock market would tank. Jobs would vanish, and we would get that recession these naysayers keep talking about.


BOLDUAN: What do you say to the vice president on this?

RYAN: Oh, it's a joke. You know, Vice President Pence when he was the governor of Indiana, completely almost tanked the economy in Indiana. He was going to lose his reelection. Supply side economics was tried in Kansas by Senator Brownback. Almost destroyed the economy in Kansas.

And here we are, we have trillion dollar deficits. Mr. Pence and Trump were talking about deficits. We have a $22 trillion debt.

BOLDUAN: There is not a single deficit hawk left in Washington.


RYAN: I would like to consider myself semi responsible on this issue.

BOLDUAN: You are a lone man on an island.

RYAN: A trillion dollars a year deficit of money we're borrowing from China and other countries. They cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the country, and we saw yesterday, CEOs got a 940 percent increase in their pay since 1978. The worker got a 12 percent increase in pay.

So, yes we are going to ask those people to pay a little bit more in taxes. But the reality of it is, they are destroying the economy because the average person is living paycheck to paycheck.

BOLDUAN: Can you just gut check me? Pence mentioned the debate stage. The deadline to make the next debate stage is next week.

RYAN: Yes.

BOLDUAN: What's your path to that right now?

RYAN: Well, we're on the move. We've had literally the best fundraising two weeks we've had in the campaign, the best few days were right after the last debate. We've got some good announcements coming up of significant people that are going to be helping us with our online move. And we're going to run hard to try to get on. The same standards apply at the next debate, too.

So, it's not like you're completely out of the game, and we're picking up huge endorsements. We've got Joe Biden's former coach --

BOLDUAN: If you don't make this debate, you still --


RYAN: Oh, yes, oh, yes. We're picking up momentum. I mean, my issue is name ID. Everyone else has 70 to 80 percent name identification, mine is smaller because I'm from Youngstown, Iowa. I'm not a senator. I'm not from a big state. I don't have an Ivy League network to help me raise money.

So, we're a startup. But we're making progress, we have the most transformational message across the board, on trauma-informed care for our kids and our schools, making sure there is a mental health counselor in every school.

BOLDUAN: I really look forward to checking in with you.

RYAN: Yes, thanks.

BOLDUAN: Seeing your updates all throughout. We'll see you on the trail.

RYAN: Thanks for having me. Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Thanks so much. We really appreciate it.

OUTFRONT for us next, Elizabeth Warren and other candidates, she says she is sorry. Is it enough to stop these attacks?


TRUMP: We'll have to hit Pocahontas very hard again if she does win.


BOLDUAN: And President Trump says he really does want to buy Greenland. Why? A man who has done business with Donald Trump is my guest. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:42:56] BOLDUAN: Tonight, the fight for 2020. Elizabeth Warren tonight taking head on the controversy that has followed her campaign from the very beginning, her past claims of Native American ancestry.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I know that I have made mistakes. I am sorry for harm I have caused. I have listened, and I have learned a lot. And I am grateful for the many conversations that we've had together.


BOLDUAN: Importantly, Warren was addressing a Native American presidential candidate forum in Iowa. And with this apology, Warren's campaign is hoping to move on from it once and for all.

Did they pull it off?

OUTFRONT now, Patrick Healy, "New York Times" politics editor, and Laura Barron-Lopez, national political reporter for "Politico".

Patrick, what did you think of for today? With this apology, has Warren turned a page?

PATRICK HEALY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, it came from clearly a very sincere place. I remember when we interviewed Warren late last fall, she absolutely refused to apologize. She said she didn't have anything to apologize for, in terms of taking the DNA test --


HEALY: -- and her claim to Native American ancestry.

But I think over these months, she's clearly talked to a lot of Native American leaders, groups. She has come to I think a pretty full understanding of why even if this was family lure, it troubled people. But I got to tell you, Kate, we did -- we did interviews with dozens of Democrats this summer about Warren.

You know, she's grown in the polls, rising in strength. And over and over, they brought up the Native American issue and the potential for Donald Trump to do real harm to Warren if she's the nominee and it was this -- it was this general concern. It was this concern that President Trump has an ability to demonize his opponents the way he did with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and others, and that -- and that if she's the nominee, he will be able to beat her.

Now, you know, we don't know that. And the electability question is a very tricky one. But at this point, the reality is she has done a lot of good today with this speech, but whether that inoculates her in the general election if she's the nominee, impossible to tell.

[19:45:06] BOLDUAN: Yes, an electability, how do you judge it, it depends who you are talking to.

HEALY: Sure.

BOLDUAN: When it comes to electability.

Well, it has been almost a year since Warren released that much- criticized video which he received. The result of the DNA test about her heritage, and, you know, that was yet another time that she found herself having to apologize.

What does -- does it say anything that she is still apologizing? Does it say anything to you? Or is it more that the questions keep coming at her?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, I think that the reason the questions came up in the last week was because Warren's campaign decided that they wanted to address these issues right now. She came out with a Native American proposal just at the end of last week. And that was one of the most exhaustive and comprehensive policy plans she's put out to date. It's about double all of the other plans. It's 9,000 words or so.

And so, they put that out in the lead up to this Native American conference. And then she decided when she was out on that stage to address it head on. And that's why we're again talking about it. And, you know, I have actually heard different on the campaign trail when I have been out on the trail with her or also following around other candidates. I haven't been hearing from voters concerned that much about those attacks where I think the vulnerability for her was more in the primary and whether or not progressives and Native American leaders feel satisfied with her response.

BOLDUAN: It is striking, though, that how you have President Trump who never apologizes by rule. And then you have a candidate, you have Elizabeth Warren who on this issue is continuing to apologize. I don't know the answer to it yet, but I do just wonder how that, if that impacts voters.

HEALY: I think people are impressed that she has taken the time to listen and sort of understand the harm that she caused. I mean, I think a lot of people are very used to the fact that President Trump does not apologize, that that is not just a political strategy, but sort of goes to who he is. You know, whereas, for Elizabeth Warren, I think what she's trying to do very much in this primary is make sure that the elites who are supporting her now, the activists, liberal groups sort who support her sort of understand that she's done basically everything that she can to address this.

Now, you have the news today, Jill Biden was up in New Hampshire basically saying, you may like another candidate, but you really need to vote for Joe, because he's the one who can win, again sort of ejecting the electability question. So, you can apologize all you want, but the -- you know, at least the opponents seem to be saying you know that person might be great, but you have to vote for Biden.

BOLDUAN: It almost sounds like Donald Trump with the tag line last week, when it comes to the economy, like me or hate me, you've got to vote for me.

HEALY: Right.

BOLDUAN: That is the tag line of 2020. That is where we are today.

Great to see you guys. Thanks so much.

OUTFRONT for us next, the Danish prime minister says no deal after Trump admits that he's interested in buying Greenland. Will that deter the president?

Plus, Jeanne Moos on how much someone was willing to pay for former President Obama's blood, sweat, and tears?


[19:51:36] BOLDUAN: Tonight, absurd. That is what Denmark's prime minister is saying about President Trump's confirmation that he wants to buy Greenland.

So, what do you with that?

OUTFRONT now, Jack O'Donnell. He's a former president and chief operating officer of Trump Plaza Casino in Atlantic City.

Jack, thank you for coming on. You know Trump the businessman, the real estate developer. Does this surprise you that the president is interested in Greenland?


Does it surprise me? No. Because this covers a lot of headline and a lot talk and Trump likes that. But it's curious to me quite frankly that Greenland, a country that probably represents one of his failed -- greatest failed policies in climate change that he would be interested in this.

But it doesn't surprise me because it's big and it could be just that simple with Donald Trump. You know, he likes the biggest and I'm sure somebody put it in his ear or he found out somehow green land was the biggest island on the planet. It could be that simple why he wants it.

BOLDUAN: I was actually wondering your take on that because he talked about it being strategic when he spoke to reporters. Do you think it's about some strategic national security reason at all or the natural resources? Or it as simple as kind of you're suggesting, that it's just ego?

O'DONNELL: Well, this could be a legacy purchase and I think that could be very much what's driving this for his presidency. If he was able to pull it off, which we all know he's not going to be able to, but there are great natural resources there so I've read, I'm not an expect.

BOLDUAN: Yes, right.

O'DONNELL: But, you know, strategically, you know, I don't know how much more America could get out of it. You know, who knows, maybe there is some nefarious plan in his mind where, you know, that could be the jumping off point for all immigrants as an example. Who knows on that one, Kate?

BOLDUAN: Definitely not heard that one yet.

The Danish prime minister not only called it absurd at the whole concept but also said this: Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland. I strongly hope that this is not meant seriously.

And when I was reading that, I actually started wondering, does the statement like that a full this is not going to happen never denial, does that deter the president or does it make him want it more?

O'DONNELL: Well, I think it makes him want it more. A good example, Kate, was the Plaza Hotel in New York City. You know, I think most New Yorkers were horrified at the thought of Donald Trump owning the Plaza thinking that he would glitz it up in his style and ruin that iconic building. And the more he heard that, the more he wanted it, and ultimately because of that, it wound up paying twice as much as the property was valued, and it went into bankruptcy after he bought it.

BOLDUAN: Yes, this time, he wouldn't be working with his own money, though. He would be working with American taxpayer dollars, something very different.

Thanks, Jack. Appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

O'DONNELL: Thank you, Kate. All right.

BOLDUAN: OUTFRONT next, the pretty penny someone shelled out for Barack Obama's old jersey.


[19:57:53] BOLDUAN: Someone just made a lot of money for President Obama's old clothes.

Here is Jeanne Moos.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): You know how presidents are always being given jerseys? Well, how much would you give to own a president's game worn jersey from his days in prep school playing basketball?


MOOS (on camera): There is a hole in it? (voice-over): Bidding on Barack Obama's holy jersey left a $120,000

hole in someone's bank account, sold to an anonymous collector of historic items.

Obama was America's most basketball-obsessed president, who jokingly dreamed of making the big play.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: Marv Albert is making of course the call.

UNIUDENTIFIED MALE: So it's Obama with the ball top of the key. Three seconds left.

UNIUDENTIFIED MALE: Unleashes for three. Yes!

MOOS: Obama's jersey was salvaged by another basketball playing student at Punahou School in Hawaii.

(on camera): The jersey in question was destined for the trash.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She shoots, she scores!

MOOS (voice-over): Peter Noble also wore the number 23 and was assigned to get rid of old jerseys being replaced by new ones at the prep school a few years after Obama left. Sentimental about the number, he saved it.

And after Obama became president, realized Obama wore number 23. And an auction house called Heritage Auction's photo matched the jersey to a yearbook picture of Obama wearing it.

PROVENZALE: It matches perfectly.

MOOS (on camera): Every detail?

PROVENZALE: Every detail.

MOOS (voice-over): Every seam, every stripe, another striking detail, Obama's number 23 would later turn out the number worn by Michael Jordan and LeBron James, two of the game's greats.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Incredible coincidence.

MOOS: Bidders don't want items off the rack, they want them off the backs of athletes.

(on camera): They want body odor.

PROVENZALE: Blood, sweat, tears, odors, those all make it more valuable.

MOOS (voice-over): $120,000 valuable. The winning bidder probably thinks it's a steal.

Jeanne Moos, CNN.

(on camera): But it doesn't smell.

PROVENZALE: It just smells like history.

MOOS (voice-over): New York.



BOLDUAN: That's how he put it.

Thanks so much for joining us.

"AC360" starts now.