Return to Transcripts main page


Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) is Interviewed on Impeachment Probe; Trump's Stock Market Effect; California's College Athletics Law; Draymond Green is Interviewed about the New California Athletics Law. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired October 1, 2019 - 08:30   ET



REP. KATHERINE CLARK (D-MA): That we are squarely focused on the whistleblower complaint, the allegations of abuse of power by this president, putting his political gain over the interests of our national security and the American people. That is what we are going to be investigating in this impeachment inquiry.

And we are doing it with urgency. But I have to say, the facts are coming fast and furious. And we will proceed with urgency, but we also want to do it with consistency and fairness. And so that is how we are going to conduct this inquiry. But it really stems from the whistleblower complaint.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: OK, so let's talk about what that's going to look like. Let's tell our viewers and the American people what to expect this month, because it does seem as though things have shifted into a higher gear. So, just, for instance, I mean this week the House Intel Committee will be calling former ambassadors, they'll be calling the inspector general. I mean that's just this week. And then also Mike Pompeo, the documents have been subpoenaed from Rudy Giuliani, or they're asking for them, from Mike Pompeo.

So what is -- are you saying that this has all shifted into a higher gear just because of the whistle-blower complaint?

CLARK: Exactly. What we have had revealed to -- to Congress and, more importantly, to the American people is that the president has put his self-interest once again above that of the American people. And as these facts come out, the facts are what is going to set the timeline for this inquiry.

But we do think it is important to note that when the office of the inspector general for national intelligence reviewed this complaint, it met the -- it met the standard of being urgent and credible. And we have to continue our investigation, meeting that same standard. You know, call the credible witnesses, the leads we have from the complaint and do it with an urgency.

This is -- this is about a betrayal of the oath of office. This is about a threat to our national security. And it is about a president who is willing to put the integrity of our elections coming up in just a year at risk for his own political gain.

CAMEROTA: And so, in terms of that timeline, are you saying that you believe that some articles of impeachment will be ready for a vote this month, October?

CLARK: Again, Alisyn, the truth is going to set the timeline. And we are going to move forward, as you've already seen, with subpoenas for documents, for live witnesses. We're moving forward with depositions.

But this is about getting to the bottom of the whistleblower complaint. Getting the allegations fully investigated so that we get to the facts. We get to the truth.


CLARK: And we're going to do that as expeditiously as possible.


CLARK: But the timeline will really be driven by how these facts unfolds.

CAMEROTA: Got it. And just in terms of the scope, very quickly, because we've heard from Maxine Waters that she would like to include the Deutsche Bank records, as well as obstruction of justice that may have been seen in the Mueller report. Are you saying that the focus will only be about the whistleblower complaint and what happened with Ukraine?

CLARK: As a caucus, we have decided, as -- as the speaker has said, that the impeachment inquiry does cover all six committees that have oversight jurisdiction. But because of the dangerous nature of this whistleblower complaint and the direct actions that are evident in the evidence that the White House itself has put forth to the American people, they are the ones that put forth a memorandum of this call.

And within that memorandum, there is direct evidence of abuse of power by this president. So that is naturally the focus of our investigation.


CLARK: But we have not cut off any other area of national import, a threat to our Constitution --


CLARK: Or to our elections that may arise.

CAMEROTA: OK, Congresswoman Katherine Clark, thank you very much. Sorry for the short time. We've had so much news this morning. We really appreciate you telling us what to expect next.

CLARK: Thank you, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: John. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, the president likes to brag about the stock market gains on his watch, but how does it compare to prior administrations?


The numbers don't lie, coming up.



BERMAN: President Trump has repeatedly touted the stock market as one of his biggest achievement. The S&P is up 19 percent this year and 31 percent so far in his presidency.

CNN's chief business correspondent Christine Romans here to say how that measures up.


You know, John, those are good numbers. The S&P 500, in the last quarter, rose just enough to make it the best year so far since 1997. So let's see how those stock market numbers stack up.

Since Trump's inauguration, the S&P, up 31 percent. Pretty close to the same period of the Reagan administration. Less than George H.W. Bush. Less than Bill Clinton. Far better than 23 percent the loss there for George W. Bush as the dot com bubble burst.

And Trump's stock market trails that of one Barack Obama, where the S&P 500 rose 44 percent from the ashes of a financial crisis.

But it seems the president doesn't want to come second to President Obama. The president tweeting this morning, you cannot judge my stock market performance since the inauguration, which was very good, but only from the day after the big election win. In fact, since the election win, the S&P 500 is up a little bit better, 37.6 percent.

You know, he's done this before, you guys, moving the goalpost to exaggerate what is already good news. Now, presidential protocol is to not take credit for a stock market rally because then you have to take the blame for a crash. But this president has smashed that protocol.

Now, if history is any guide, October could be unpredictable for investors and a president who cheerleads the stock market. There are three big fourth quarter hurdles. There's still the tug of war of the U.S./China trade war. There is the next meeting between the two biggest economies this October 10th. The Fed meets again on interest rates. And earnings season begins, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Christine, thank you for all of that context. Really helpful.

So now this story. A Texas jury will resume deliberations to decide the fate of former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger. She is charged with shooting and killing a neighbor inside his apartment.

CNN's Ed Lavandera has been covering this story. He is live in Dallas with more for us.

What's happening today, Ed?


Well, Amber Guyger arrived here at the courthouse just a short while ago.

This jury is expected to resume deliberations in about 45 minutes or so. They deliberated for about four hours yesterday afternoon before retiring for the night. The jury has been sequestered in a hotel, so they're back at work here this morning.

And one of the things that this jury can now consider is a lesser charge. Of course, Amber Guyger is facing the murder charge for the shooting death of 26-year-old Botham Jean about a year ago here in Dallas, in an apartment complex just a few blocks away from Dallas Police headquarters. But this jury was instructed in their instruction that they could consider the lesser charge of manslaughter. That was determined yesterday just before the jury began deliberations.

And they can also consider what is known as the castle doctrine, this idea that you're able to defend yourself using deadly forcing if needed if you're in your own home. So defense lawyers are arguing that because she thought she was entering her own apartment, that she was defending herself and she had every right to use deadly force. The prosecutors are calling this defense garbage.

So these are some of the intense opinions and the intense attitudes that we're hearing in this -- these deliberations as this jury has a lot to mull through. So this could take quite a bit of time as this jury continues its deliberations here in Dallas.

Alisyn and John.

BERMAN: That's an awful lot for the jury to have to consider and make sense of.

Ed, thank you very much for that. Please keep us posted as the jury deliberates.

Now, here is what else to watch today.


ON SCREEN TEXT: 9:00 a.m. ET, Education secretary speaks.

10:00 a.m. ET, Voting rights field hearing.

11:15 a.m. ET, EPA administrator remarks. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right, a new law in California could change college athletics as we know it. We'll explain, next.



BERMAN: A new California law could be a game-changer for college sports, allowing college athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. But it puts the state of California at odds in a big way with the NCAA, the organization that oversees student athletes.

CNN's Lucy Kafanov explains.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hulu Pass (ph) 5 (ph) sports (ph). Hulu Pass 5 sports.

LUCY KAFANOV, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): For pro athletes, it's more than just a sport --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll never tell you to drink Sprite, even if I was in a commercial for Sprite.

KAFANOV: That brings big bucks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Before I pitch, I hit Subway for my go-to.

KAFANOV: Commercials, endorsement deals, even video games.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take it to the ball!

KAFANOV: But for college athletes, those lucrative revenue streams have been off limits, until now.



NEWSOM: Let's do it, man.

JAMES: All right.

NEWSOM: All right. There's now law in California.

KAFANOV: An historic new law signed Monday by California Governor Gavin Newsom would let college athletes earn big paychecks for endorsements.

NEWSOM: The gig's up.

KAFANOV: Joining LeBron James on HBO's "The Shop." NEWSOM: Billions and billions of dollars, 14 plus billion dollars goes

to these universities, goes to these colleges, a billion plus revenue to the NCAA itself and the actual product, the folks that are putting their lives on the line, putting everything on the line are getting nothing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Young athletes have been taken advantage of for a long time.

JAMES: That's what we all believe.

KAFANOV: Known as the Fair Pay to Play Act, the law allows college athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness, to sign endorsement deals and hire licensed agents to represent them.

MICHAEL MCCANN, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED LEGAL ANALYST: This isn't about colleges paying players anything. This is about the right of players to gain compensation through third parties, video game publishers, apparel makers, camps that might want an athlete to sponsor them.

KAFANOV: The law pits the state against the NCAA, which pulled in more than a billion dollars in revenues during the 2016-2017 school year, and powerful universities, Texas, Texas A&M and Ohio State each raking in more than $200 million in 2017-2018.


In a statement the NCAA says, quote, it agrees changes are needed to continue to support student athletes, but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA's rules making process. Unfortunately, this new law already is creating confusion for current and future student athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not just in California.

The law is set to go into effect in 2023. California's hoping that gives other states time to change their laws, but experts say a legal battle could loom.

MCCANN: This will get tied up in court.

KAFANOV: A game changer if the law holds up.

Lucy Kafanov, CNN, Los Angeles.


BERMAN: All right, and joining me now is Draymond Green, forward for the Golden State Warriors and a great college basketball player for four years at Michigan State.

Thanks so much for being with us.

You are hugely supportive of this new law. Why?

DRAYMOND GREEN, FORWARD, GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS: First off, thanks for having me. And I'm supportive of this new law because it's the right thing to do.

You know, for 50-plus years you've had young college athletes going out and, you know, putting on shows in their perspective fields, and not being compensated for it.

You know, I think it's -- this is a huge step in the right direction. It's kind of ironic to me that the NCAA would continue to fight this and no one's taking money out of their pocket directly. Now, indirectly, yes, because some sponsors will go directly to the source, which is being an athlete, but it's not taking money out of their ticket sales, it's not taking money out of the team sponsorships or university sponsorships that they sell and yet the dictatorship wants to continue to go by the same system that's been broken for several years.

BERMAN: You just called the NCAA a dictatorship. What do you mean by that?

GREEN: You know, it's their way or no way. You know it's -- if a kid is broke in college, can't find food, don't have the money to get food, don't have the time to get a job, that kid is not allowed to take money from pretty much anywhere outside of family or you're ineligible, you're suspended, but yet these colleges can go or the NCAA can go and make a ton of money off these student athletes. That's -- that's a dictatorship. I'm going to tell you exactly what I want you to do. I'm going to take all of the profit. And if you do this, then you have to deal with the consequences.

BERMAN: The difference in a dictatorship is that as a resident of one of those countries, you don't necessarily choose to live there. You're born into it. Students choose to go to these colleges, correct?

GREEN: Yes, but what's the alternative? You know, there's only so many athletes who can go straight to the pros, even if the rule wasn't in place. And so what's the alternative? Is the alternative to just go overseas and play? Because if that's the alternative we're going to follow, then, you know, you're pretty much telling me that these athletes shouldn't go to college.

Well, if that's the case, then these colleges don't profit anyway. No one wants to see a crappy product on the floor.

BERMAN: Look, and I'm thrilled to be talking to you about this because you went to Michigan State for four years. You know, LeBron James and Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, signed the bill will LeBron James. LeBron James went straight to the pros. You were in college for four years. How would this law have changed your college experience?

GREEN: It would have changed it a ton. You know, the several (ph) nights that you are trying to figure out what you want to eat, the nights that you're trying to figure out, you know, how to get money to go on a date or just hang out with your friends or, you know, whatever the situation is, there was several times that I didn't have it and, you know, some of my teammates didn't have it. And so what do you do next? You know, so I think it's great of LeBron for speaking up on this

issue. You know, and I'm sure a lot of people will say, oh, well, this didn't affect him, he went straight to the pros. Well, ask yourself the question, if LeBron James was able to be compensated for his likeness, maybe he would have went to Ohio State and then that's an entirely different narrative for that university. But because he weren't able to be compensated, he probably did the smart thing in going straight to the NBA and capitalizing on his likeness more so before letting anyone else capitalize on it.

BERMAN: Yes. It certainly changes the equation for athletes making that consideration.

I want to read you -- Darren Rovell writes about sports and he had an interesting take on this and I just want to get your response. He says, I'm not arguing for or against college athlete endorsements, but this is what comes with it. Number one, the end of the NCAA. Number two, fewer rules, more cheating. Number three, complete professionalization of college sports, players won't be tied to academics, likely won't need to go to class.

How do you respond to that?

GREEN: I disagree with that. Just because -- just because you're making money don't mean you'll go to class?


Like, that really doesn't make sense to me. There's a bunch of students on campus with jobs that still go to class. Now, they're probably not making as much or near as much as what a college athlete would make off their likeness, but it's no different than any other profession. There's a ton of professions that don't make as -- near as much money as an NBA player, as a NFL player. You still have to go do your job. Those students are still attending class. And so I completely disagree with that. Just because you make money don't mean you lose all responsibility and just ride off into the sunset. You still have your responsibilities. And a part of you being able to capitalize on that likeness is being eligible.

BERMAN: Right.

GREEN: Well, in order to be eligible, you have to attend class.

BERMAN: Draymond Green, thank you very much for coming in and joining us this morning. Thank you for being part of this fight. And please come join the Celtics as soon as you can.

Thanks for being with us.

GREEN: All right. Thanks a lot. Appreciate you having me.

BERMAN: All right.

GREEN: I think he just agreed to your demand.

BERMAN: He did. He -- I just signed him.

CAMEROTA: I think you did.

BERMAN: Right.

CAMEROTA: All right, there are big developments in the Ukraine scandal and the push for impeachment. CNN "NEWSROOM" has it all covered after this very quick break.