Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) is Interviewed about Relief Bill; Help from Relief Bill; Jury Selection Begins in Chauvin Trial; Bezos Ex- Wife Marries. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired March 08, 2021 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:31:03]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Tomorrow, the House of Representative votes on final passing of the $1.9 coronavirus relief bill. This plan includes $1,400 direct payments for many Americans, enhanced unemployment benefits, increase child tax credits, healthcare subsidies and more money for schools, states and vaccines.

Joining me now is Democratic Congresswoman Ro Khanna.

Congressman, thanks so much for being with us.

Now, there was this last-minute frenzy on Friday where Joe Manchin was temporarily standing in the way. There was concern about too many concessions. But as you sit here this morning, on a scale of one to ten, how happy are you with this bill?

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): John, an eight. It's a good bill. It gets checks into the hands of the American people. The most important part of it is it's going to give every working class and middle class family a $3,000 check for every child that they have. That is an extraordinary policy that progressives have been pushing for decades.

Now, there's a disappointment that the minimum wage increase wasn't in there. It should have been in there. We're going to continue to fight. But, overall, it's a good, strong bill.

BERMAN: What's the chatter on the progressive member of Congress group text right now? Do you have a sense of whether or not any progressive will vote against this? Does this have the votes to pass tomorrow?

KHANNA: It does have the votes. There are a couple people who are concerned and a lot of frustration that the minimum wage increase wasn't if there. We believe that the best way of getting that was through reconciliation. If you don't have a single Republican willing to vote for this bill, that's sending checks to people, it's hard to imagine they're going to vote for a minimum wage increase. So there's definitely a frustration about that.

But, overall, no one wants to play games with people's lives. People are suffering. And the fact that this is going to get checks and money directly into the pockets of people and cut child poverty, cut poverty, I think is going to be the overriding concern. So I believe it will have the votes to pass.

BERMAN: So you know, and you read every day, the stories about tension and rifts within the Democratic Party. What's your take on it? How big of a deal is it the difference between you and Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema?

KHANNA: I mean there are difference. Obviously there are differences, but that's part of a democracy. I represent a district in Silicon Valley. Senator Manchin represents the state of West Virginia. Senator Kyrsten Sinema represents Arizona. Of course there are going to be difference.

But here's the important point. We are coalescing around a $1.9 trillion stimulus that's going to help the economic recovery that's going to pass with every Democrat ultimately most likely for it. So I think that the unity of purpose outweighs the difference and the differences are healthy because, ultimately, we're each fighting for our convictions.

BERMAN: You know, I asked you a scale of one to ten question and you actually answered it, which is rare. So, thank you for that.

I'll ask you another one then. On a scale of one to ten, how happy are you with how President Biden has implemented a progressive agenda?

KHANNA: I give it the same number. I mean -- there was candid disappointment and disagreement on the lack of the minimum wage increase. And we need to have a clear game plan of how we're going to get the raise. But when you look at the child tax credit, when you look at the increase in the earned income tax credit, when you look at funding for public schools, when you look at funding for mass vaccine, those are all important priorities.

And here's my question, John. I voted time and time again for President Trump's budgets on COVID relief. I didn't agree with a lot of it. I didn't agree with the corporate tax handouts. I didn't agree with the tax breaks. But I voted for it because it was going to help the American people. Why isn't there a single Republican willing to do that now?

BERMAN: Why?

KHANNA: I don't know. I mean you never get in these bills, you know, John, you never get everything you want. But the point is, people need checks. We need money to open up our schools.

[08:35:01]

We need money to make sure that vaccines get in the shots of people's arms. So, OK, you have a Democratic president and you have more Democratic priorities. When Trump was president you had more Republican priorities. But on a national crisis, usually people come together. And I think it says something about how broken the Republican Party is that you don't have a single Republican willing to vote. And people need to point out that almost every Democrat voted time and time again for President Trump's COVID relief efforts.

BERMAN: Well, what does this tell you then about what's going forward and how you think Democrats should handle it? And I do want to play one bit of sound from Joe Manchin because he talked about the filibuster. You -- even though you are in the House, you are for doing away with the filibuster in the Senate, which would let things pass with a simple majority, not 60 votes.

This is what Joe Manchin now says about this. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): If you want to make it a little bit more painful, make them stand there and talk, I'm willing to look at any way we can but I am not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So he does not want to do away with the filibuster, but he might support making them literally stand there, like in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and speak the whole time.

How much progress would that be as far as you're concerned?

KHANNA: It would be constructive. I mean I think we have to look at any form of institutional reform. Ideally remove the filibuster. At least make it more difficult.

And then look at what we can put through in reconciliation. I still believe you can get a minimum wage increase through reconciliation. As you know, I disagreed with the parliamentarian ruling and I think we need the look at those tools to get this agenda going forward. But there's no way we're going to get progressive change and meet the moment without institutional reform in the Senate, otherwise a lot of the ideas are just not going to get the 60 votes.

BERMAN: Congressman, Ro Khanna, I didn't even get to ask you about the Oprah Winfrey interview last night. But maybe we can talk about that in the future.

Thanks so much for being with us today. I appreciate it.

KHANNA: Thank you, John.

BERMAN: Alisyn.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: So how soon could millions of Americans see those direct payments?

CNN's chief business correspondent Christine Romans joins us now.

What's the answer, Christine?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: You know, families looking at many thousands of dollars in relief here, Ali, the child tax credit is actually bigger for families than -- than that check in the mail, the stimulus checks. So let me break it down for you and show you what's going to be coming here. $1,400 direct stimulus checks, phasing out for people who earn $80,000 or more.

If history is a guide to answer your question, once President Biden signs the bill into law, it could be a matter of days before this hits your bank accounts. People with bank information on file with the IRS, you're likely to get the money first based on your most recent tax return. That's 2019 if you haven't filed for 2020 yet. Others may get paper checks or pre-paid debit cards in the mail.

But the bigger payout, Ali, here, really important, it may well be that expanded child tax credit. This is a critical and historic effort to eradicate child poverty. It gives parents with children six and under $3,600 per child for a year, and $3,000 per child age seven to 18. Key here, direct monthly payments, making it easier to pay bills instead of getting a lump sum at tax time.

Some back of the envelope math here for you. Consider a family with two parents, two kids, making say $96,000 a year. That's a $1,400 stimulus check four times. That's $5,600, $3,000 for each child under 18, that's $11,600 for that family.

Another example, a single mother with one child, stimulus check and child tax credit equals about $5,800.

And something new this time, adults who are dependent, adults dependent now qualify for stimulus checks, elderly relatives, or college age kids, that's $1,400 for them, too. They were not included in the last go around.

This brings American families more money than previous rounds of stimulus here. And this really is kind of an anti-child poverty piece of legislation as well. There's also tax credits in there for elderly care, for child care. There is a lot in here to try and make families whole, especially low-income families in the middle of the coronavirus epidemic.

Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Yes, and we look forward to seeing what impact it has going forward. And I know that you, of course, will have your finger on the pulse of that as always. Christine, thank you very much.

So, jury selection is set to begin in the George Floyd murder trial. Are there still impartial jurors for such a highly publicized case?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:44:06]

BERMAN: Jury selection begins this morning in the murder trial of the former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Prosecutors say Chauvin put his knee on George Floyd's neck for nearly eight minutes. We've seen the video of his knee on his neck for eight minutes.

So how hard will it be to find a jury in this high-profile case? Joining me now, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig.

Elie, thanks so much for being with us.

Just, first, just so people understand, you know, we see courtroom dramas on TV. We like the opening arguments, the closing arguments, the cross examination. How important is jury selection in the final hours?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, John, when I was a young prosecutor, a very wise defense lawyer once said to me, jury selection isn't just important, it's everything because ultimately it is the jury that will decide this case that will render the verdict.

BERMAN: In the case of this trial, what will be most important in jury selection?

HONIG: Yes, look, there is a process in place that's designed to winnow out any juror who has a predisposition.

[08:45:01]

Here's how the process is going to work. First of all, every potential juror in this case has already filled out a 16-page written jury questionnaire. I've looked at those questionnaires. They're extraordinarily detailed. They go into depth about each juror's background and each juror's knowledge of and views of the facts and the parties in this case.

Then, starting today, each juror will be questioned, live, in person, in the courtroom by the judge and by the attorneys for both sides. And, again, they're looking to get at whether this person is biased and will be able to decide the case fairly based only on the evidence at trial.

At that point the attorneys can ask the judge to strike or get rid of certain jurors, what we call for cause, meaning, if you can show that a juror has some pre-existing bias, that's up to the judge.

And then, finally, the parties get to exercise what we call peremptory challenges, meaning they can essentially remove any juror who they don't like for almost any reason. In this case, the defendant, Derek Chauvin, has 15 of those peremptory strikes. The prosecution has nine. It is normal for the defendant to have more than the prosecution. And at the end of that process, we will end up with 12 jurors and four alternates. Those are the people who will decide this case.

BERMAN: Now, you would like to think that what we all want is an impartial jury, and that is what society wants. But if you are the prosecution, if you are the defense, what are you looking for in a juror?

HONIG: Yes, so, look, the key thing that you're looking for, I think, especially if you're the prosecution is, you want people who can judge this case fairly, who can sort of takeout emotions, take out any personal feelings or bias. And if you look at those jury questionnaires, they are remarkably detailed. They go way farther than any jury questionnaires I've seen. They ask questions, for example, like, what do you know about this case? Have you expressed any opinions about the police, about George Floyd himself? Do you have any opinions about Black Lives Matter? Do you have any opinion about Blue Lives Matter? Have you participated in any of the protests? Do you know somebody here who lost property as a result of the protests?

So you want to go through all that information. And, yes, both sides, certainly, John, are trying to win. The prosecution, I think, wants people who will be willing to convict a police officer. And I think the defense wants people who will be sympathetic to Officer Chauvin.

So, look, it's a human exercise, so it's inherently imperfect. But I think that's what both side are going to be looking for.

BERMAN: And this is a Hennepin County jury, right? And Hennepin County is less diverse than metropolitan Minneapolis, correct?

HONIG: Correct, yes. But it is important that the judge decided to keep the case in Hennepin County, where Minneapolis is located. The defense actually tried to get the case moved to another county. And if you look county by county in Minnesota, Hennepin County is actually the most racially diverse, about 13 percent African-American. If you look at the rest of Minnesota, there's only one other county that has even 10 percent African-American population, and something like 47 counties have less than 1 percent African-American population. So I think it's important that this case is kept in Hennepin County. That's where the crime occurred. And you're going to have the most representative jury pool.

BERMAN: Now, how complicated is it that -- it would be impossible, you would think, to find anyone who doesn't know a fair amount in that county about what happened to George Floyd. So how does that complicate things?

HONIG: Yes. Yes, or in the entire United States or maybe the world, John.

BERMAN: Right.

HONIG: It's important that people understand, the goal here is not to come up with 12 jurors who know nothing about this case, who have never heard of Derek Chauvin or George Floyd. I mean if you had people who've never heard of this, they're probably not people who you want on a jury. They're probably living under a rock somewhere.

The point is to get 12 jurors who can put aside whatever they know, put aside whatever their personal beliefs are, who can decide the case fairly, and this is important, only based on the evidence that they see in that courtroom. So they have to do a little bit of a mental gymnastics here to separate everything they've heard in the media, in the press, from friends and family. And that's what the lawyers are going to be trying to assess today.

BERMAN: What's the judge's role in the jury selection?

HONIG: Yes, so the judge has an important role. He -- the judge here will lead the questioning, the individual questioning of the jurors. And the judge, remember, gets to decide who gets thrown out essentially for cause. The judge is the one who decides, yes, this person can be impartial or no they cannot be impartial. That's really important because as the parties, you want to save those peremptory challenges, the ones where you can exercise them for pretty much any reason. You want to save as many of them as possible, just tactically. So the more you can get the judge to agree with you on getting rid of certain jurors for cause, then the more of those sort of special peremptory challenges you get to hold on to.

BERMAN: This could take a few weeks. We'll know within a couple days that hopeful (ph) cause issue, how much of a hurdle that will be.

Elie Honig, I expect we'll be talking to you quite a bit over the next several weeks.

HONIG: Thanks, John.

All right, thank you.

BERMAN: All right, a new revelation about one of the richest people in the world. More on billionaire philanthropist MacKenzie Scott's new love.

CAMEROTA: (INAUDIBLE).

BERMAN: Not a prince somewhere?

CAMEROTA: No, I mean --

BERMAN: I think the guy she married is a prince. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:54:01]

CAMEROTA: Two years after her divorce from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, MacKenzie Scott, a multi-billionaire herself, has just remarried.

CNN's Laura Jarrett has more.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR: Amazon's first employee and the third wealthiest woman is now remarried. Her new husband, not a multi- billionaire, (INAUDIBLE) only few can imagine.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JARRETT (voice over): Philanthropist Mackenzie Scott, one of the world's (INAUDIBLE) knot with Dan Jewett, a science teacher at the Seattle school attended by her children. Her ex-husband, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, writing in a statement, Dan is such a great guy and I'm happy and excited for both of them.

In 2019, Scott and Bezos ended their 25-year marriage. In the divorce settlement, she received 4 percent of Amazon stock and currently Forbes has her wealth estimated at $53 billion. That same year, Scott pledged to give away the vast majority of her

wealth as part of the Giving Pledge, an organization created by Warren Buffett, along with Bill and Melinda Gates in 2010, where a number of billionaires have committed to dedicate the majority of their wealth to charitable causes.

[08:55:11]

BILL GATES, CO-CHAIR, BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION: When you're lucky enough to have a great success, you know, then you have a question, are you going to choose to spend it on yourself? Are you going to choose to have your children start as incredibly wealthy people, or do you want to give it back to society?

JARRETT: Scott writing when she first made her donation, quote, there's no question in my mind that anyone's personal wealth is the product of collective effort and of social structures which present opportunities to some people and obstacles to countless others.

Back in December, Scott announced she was giving away nearly $4.2 billion to almost 400 organizations. And five months earlier, she donated $5.7 billion to more than 100 other groups and has focused on causes of racial equity and economic mobility.

Now, Jewett is supporting Scott's efforts, writing, quote, I join with the kindness and most thoughtful person I know in making this pledge. Grateful for the exceptional privilege it will be to partnering giving away assets with the potential to do so much good when shared.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JARRETT: MacKenzie Scott has mostly stayed out of the spotlight, so it's not clear exactly when she remarried, but her Amazon page now reflects the news, saying she lives in Seattle with her four children and her husband, Dan.

John and Alisyn, back to you.

CAMEROTA: I mean, I do have more questions. I do want to know how they met. But more on that tomorrow.

CNN's coverage continues next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:00]