Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Strong Jobs Report Crushes Forecasts; Reps. Jordan, Scalise Rally Support To Lead The House; Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) Talks About Biden Border Policy And Republican Division; Appeals Court Hears Arguments In Trump's Motion To Stay His Civil Trial, Fraud Ruling. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired October 06, 2023 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:47]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A surprisingly strong jobs report crushed economists' expectations this morning. U.S. companies on a hiring tear in September, creating 336,000 new jobs, nearly double what economists were expecting. President Biden did hope to take some credit for it, talking up his Bidenomics plan to help the economy. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President ...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President ...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... can you be specific about what you did to try to re-appropriate those border funds, especially when Democrats controlled both chambers?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was told that I had no choice, that Congress passes legislation to build something, whether it's an aircraft carrier, a wall or provide for a tax cut. I can't ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: So that's not the right soundbite. Nevertheless, President Biden did try to take credit for the surprising jobs report.

We have CNN's Matt Egan here to break it all down for us.

Matt, walk us through it, where were the biggest job gains?

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well, Boris, these were blockbuster numbers and the best part is virtually no one saw it coming, 336,000 jobs added. That is spectacular growth in any economy. But in an economy where you're dealing with high borrowing costs and high inflation, it really is impressive, as you mentioned, about double consensus. But even more impressive is if you look at the range of forecasts, this was 80,000 jobs stronger than even the most optimistic forecaster had anticipated. Now, there really was strength across the board, as you can see, hiring heating up. When you look at the sector breakdown, we saw tens of thousands of jobs added last month in health care, government, leisure and hospitality. We see bars and restaurant employment is finally back to pre-COVID levels. The unemployment rate is now at 3.8 percent. It stayed unchanged. This is really low, miles away from that spike to almost 15 percent back in the spring of 2020.

So you put all this together, it paints the picture of a strong economy, a strong jobs market. It should go a long way towards quieting those recession fears. I mean, an economy adding 300,000 jobs in one month is nowhere near a recession. Think of anything, though, the question is, is this economy and is the jobs market too strong from the perspective of the Federal Reserve and their quest to get inflation under control?

Remember, Wall Street and Washington really wanted goldilocks, not too hot, not too cold. This report, Boris, was on the hot side.

SANCHEZ: Yes, no question about that. We'll have to see how the Fed reacts. You alluded to markets wanting a sort of goldilocks jobs report. What did we see in the markets? Because the Dow had a bit of a shift today.

EGAN: Yes, you can say that again. As soon as this number came out, stocks went down, because immediately investors were fearing the Fed was going to have to do more to put out the inflation fire. It looked like we were going to be in one of those situations where good news for Main Street is bad news for Wall Street. But look at this. Everything turned around in the stock market.

The Dow was down about 200 points at one point, now it's up around 400 points, 1.2 percent. Two reasons, some investors and leading economists are saying, you know what, the Fed is still going to keep interest rates unchanged at the next meeting, November 1st. And that's because not every part of this jobs report was hot. When you look at wages, wages actually cooled off.

Paychecks are still growing. They're still growing faster than inflation, but they're growing at a slower pace, which is exactly what the Fed wants to see. And here's why this is all important, right? The higher that interest rates have to go from the Fed, the higher borrowing costs are and the greater the risk that they do too much and they tip the economy into recession.

For now, though, Boris, looks like everyone is sort of in agreement. This is unequivocally good news right now.

[15:05:01]

SANCHEZ: Glad to hear it.

Matt Egan, thanks so much for walking us through that. Pam?

BROWN: All right. Two prominent Republicans are now competing to fill the power vacuum their party created on Capitol Hill. Congressman Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise are courting fellow caucus members behind closed doors, hoping to lock down enough support to win the speaker's gavel.

Emotions and opinions over Kevin McCarthy's ouster are still very raw. But what happens next will be critical for Congress and the House GOP and America at large. So it may be no surprise that Donald Trump is getting involved. He likes to be center stage.

The 2024 Republican presidential frontrunner and criminal defendant just endorsed Jim Jordan's candidacy, and he has offered to step in as interim speaker until this is all settled.

Let's get more on today's backdoor maneuvering from CNN Capitol Hill reporter, Melanie Zanona.

A lot going on in your neck of the woods, Melanie. How far is the House GOP from uniting around a single candidate?

MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Well, Pam, I can tell you in talking to my sources, no one is very confident that House Republicans are going to be able to elect a new speaker by next week. Right now, it's a competitive two-way race between Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise.

Steve Scalise is really leaning on his leadership experience and his fundraising skills and his pitch to members, I'm told. And then there's Jim Jordan. He's the chair of the Judiciary Committee. He has ties to the far right. And he also just picked up an endorsement from former president, Donald Trump.

But both Jordan and Scalise are making a play for the more moderate members in the party, whose votes are really up for grabs. And they are also among the most burned and feel the most upset by the Kevin McCarthy removal earlier this week. And so it makes sense that both Scalise and Jordan are trying to pitch themselves as best positioned to unite this bitterly divided conference.

Our Manu Raju caught up with Jim Jordan earlier today. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You're saying you're united, what is different between you and Steve Scalise?

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): I think it's just - that this race comes down to two questions, I said this yesterday, who can unite the conference, who can also unite - I guess, maybe three questions - who can unite the conference, who can unite conservative Republicans in our party around the country and then who can go tell the country what we're doing and why it's important to them, to their family, to their business, to their community.

And look, I like the job I got now. I never wanted to do this job, but someone has to, who can bring the team together and can go communicate to the country and that's why I'm running.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZANONA: And a sign of just how chaotic it still is inside the GOP and just how emotions are still so raw, we're told that both Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise backed out of a planned Fox News joint televised interview that was supposed to occur on Monday from the Capitol. This after they were receiving fierce and swift blowback from within the party over that idea.

Now, House Republicans will still hold their own candidate forum on Tuesday. Candidates will get to come make their pitch behind closed doors. And then on Wednesday, House Republicans will once again meet behind closed doors where they will elect their speaker. But only a simple majority is needed to become the Republican nominee.

The bigger question, of course, is whether they can get 218 votes on the floor. And at this point, it's not clear that either candidate can, Pam.

BROWN: And Melanie, you have some reporting about everything with this Fox forum that the candidates said they would do. Now they're pulling out. What's going on with that?

ZANONA: Yes, so as I was mentioning, they were supposed to do this Fox News joint interview, some sort of forum where they were going to get together and be broadcasting from the Capitol. But the second that plan was announced, my phone started blowing up with messages, particularly from moderate Republicans who said this is a horrible idea.

They were worried that it was going to turn into a circus. They didn't like the idea of these candidates talking in front of Fox News instead of coming behind closed doors. So quickly fell apart almost as quickly as it came together, Pam.

BROWN: All right. Melanie, thank you so much. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Thanks, Pam. So as migrant crossings at the southern border surge this week, the White House rolled out a plan to add 20 additional miles of border barriers in South Texas. The thing is, President Biden campaigned against adding even a single foot to the wall. And he says that border walls don't work.

Earlier today, a mayor in the Rio Grande Valley getting those new barriers also told us they don't work, at least in the planned location that they're coming up in. And President Biden's Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, recently clarified the administration stances that a border wall is not the answer to the immigration crisis. So then why are they adding it at all?

CNN's Priscilla Alvarez is here to explain.

Priscilla, President Biden was asked about this again a short time ago. What did he say? PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: He maintained what his officials have been saying, which is that they had to do this. It's not so much that he wanted to do that. So take a listen to what he had to say.

[15:10:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President ...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President ...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... can you be specific about what you did to try to re-appropriate those border funds, especially when Democrats controlled both chambers?

BIDEN: Well, I was told that I had no choice. That I - if Congress passes legislation to build something - whether it's an aircraft carrier, a wall, or provide for a tax cut - I can't say, "I don't like it. I'm not going to do it," if this hadn't been vetoed, if it's the law.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But you said yesterday that you tried to reappropriate the funds, so I ...

BIDEN: Yes, we tried to ask the Congress to consider changing the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALVAREZ: So what he's referring to there is the congressionally appropriated funds from 2019, which was for physical border barriers and sources that I've spoken with, said that the administration was running up against a deadline. They had to use these funds by the end of fiscal year 2023, which is why they're doing just that. But, Boris, this comes down to what a president campaigns on doesn't always look the same when you're governing. In this case, it was because of something that had happened before he took the office.

SANCHEZ: Absolutely. And we should note, while the administration asked Congress to reappropriate those funds in 2021, Democrats did control Congress for two years before that. So his hands were tied, he says, but Democrats ultimately held the key. Biden is also unveiling some new policy when it comes to Venezuelans who enter the country illegally. Tell us about that.

ALVAREZ: This is a major breakthrough. That's because for years, the U.S. has not carried out regular deportation flights to Venezuela because of frosty relations with the country. That changes now where they will be able to do those direct deportation flights.

The reason why it's so important now is because there are more than 7 million Venezuelans who are moving across the Western Hemisphere and have fled that country. Many of them are coming to the U.S. southern border. And that has been a very unique challenge for the Biden administration, when really all they could do was process them and release, detain or send some of them back to Mexico, but not necessarily deport.

So now they're trying to signal that they could levy consequences for these migrants crossing unlawfully while also trying to maintain the stance of providing some sort of lawful pathway for them to come to the U.S. But this is really a reflection of just how difficult it's been to deal with this particular subset of population that continues to come to the border.

SANCHEZ: Yes, we'll see how this might impact numbers and potentially politically for President Biden as well.

Priscilla Alvarez, thank you so much.

So Mexico's president just responded to the Biden administration's move to build more border barriers, calling it a "publicity stunt" because there are elections in the United States. And he describes it as an effort to fall in the good graces of those against migrants.

Let's dig deeper now with Republican congressman, Carlos Gimenez of Florida.

Congressman, great to see you. As always, the Biden administration moving forward with new border wall construction. Is that the right move or is this, as AMLO describes it, a publicity stunt?

REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL): There's not too many times I agree with the president of Mexico, but I'm going to have to agree with him now. This is a smokescreen, a publicity stunt. The situation at the border is completely out of control, where even mayors and governors and blue states and cities are crying for relief. And this is just one way to say, to let them say, hey, we're doing something about it. We're building 20 miles of wall. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my life because he has to build it.

Wait a minute, he had to build it in 2021 when he took over and he decided to just stop the construction of the border wall. Twenty miles isn't going to do anything. This is just political theater.

SANCHEZ: So how about the move to immediately deport Venezuelan migrants who enter illegally? Many of them are fleeing a regime that you have been very critical of. Are you okay with sending them back?

GIMENEZ: Well, look, why is it just Venezuelans? We've got hundreds of different countries coming through, millions of different migrants that are coming through, not just from Venezuela. But I find it ironic that most of the folks that are up in New York City happen to be Venezuelan.

Again, I think this is politics. He's trying to placate the New York mayor who's crying for relief. And also, the proof is going to be in the pudding. This administration has said that we're going to do this. We're going to do that. We're going to control the border by doing this and that. I never, ever listen to what they say. I watch what they do.

They said - they've rolled out different policies and said this is going to stop it. Oh, and by the way, the border is under control. How many times have you heard that one?

So now, again, this is more politics. But again, why is it just Venezuelans? Maybe they're ideologically not aligned with your party. Maybe, that once they become - if they become citizens, they're actually going to be voting more Republican like they do here in South Florida. I don't know, but it sounds like politics to me.

SANCHEZ: To that question, Congressman, if it should not only be Venezuelans that are deported immediately, if they enter illegally, should it also be Cuban-Americans like you and myself?

GIMENEZ: What I have said all along is that we need to follow the law. The law says that if you have an asylum claim, you need to stay in a third country or you're detained in our country, all right?

[15:15:02]

And so we just need to follow the law for everybody, whether it's Cuban, whether it's Venezuelan, we need to follow the law. And if you have a valid asylum claim, we are welcoming country with open arms and we'll welcome you with open arms like they did me and my parents when I came here in 1960. We had a valid asylum claim. We were fleeing from communism.

So if you have one, then, yes, I think that there - that's - there's a difference in view, but a lot of the people coming through now, like when - back in 2019, '18 ...

SANCHEZ: Sure.

GIMENEZ: ... 90 percent of the people that were asking for asylum were being denied by the courts because they didn't have a valid asylum claim. We just need to follow the law.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, I do want to get to the question of who should be the next House speaker. And as I do that, I want to mention the former president because he endorsed Jim Jordan. Before we get into that conversation, President Trump weighed in on the border, saying that undocumented immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country and bringing in disease." Is it your thought that someone's blood is different because they have a legitimate asylum claim or not? Was this appropriate for the former president to say?

GIMENEZ: No, look, I'm an immigrant myself. And so this is a country of immigrants. I think what he's trying to say is that we have this flood, people are violating the law. This administration is violating the law itself. It opened the border. It caused this mass migration to come into the United States. I don't know how many migrants are dying because they're trying to trek - make the trek to the United States, how many migrants are being trafficked, how many minors are being trafficked.

For God's sakes, we don't know that there were 85,000 minors. We don't even know where they are. This is completely out of control and this ...

SANCHEZ: I do ...

GIMENEZ: .. this is the cause of this administration's policies. And no, I'm a migrant. I'm an immigrant myself. And so, immigration actually strengthens America. But legal immigration strengthens America.

SANCHEZ: I appreciate you reading that into the former president's comments. But the fact is, he said that they are poisoning the blood of our country, evoking language that's frequently used by people who don't have the same position on immigration that you do, who say very negative things about immigrants and generally speak in the language of white supremacists. But you are reading into that something else.

GIMENEZ: Look, I don't know what that means to be honest with you. So maybe you need to talk to the president and ask him exactly what that means. If it means that it's poisoning the - this concept that America is a place of laws, yes, because the Biden administration is allowing that to happen.

SANCHEZ: Fair point. We will ask that of the president if and when we get the opportunity. I'm asking you because you did endorse him to be the next president. We'll get back to who he endorse ...

GIMENEZ: Yes. But I - like I said, I don't know what that means, so you need to find out exactly what he means when he says that.

SANCHEZ: Sure.

GIMENEZ: Okay.

SANCHEZ: I'm just letting you know why I'm asking you, obviously, and partly it's ...

GIMENEZ: Sure.

SANCHEZ: ... because you're an immigrant yourself.

Congressman ...

GIMENEZ: Right.

SANCHEZ: ... President Trump did endorse Jim Jordan to be the next speaker of the House. I know you were frustrated when you learned that Jim Jordan and fellow congressman, Steve Scalise, were planning to hold this debate on Monday night on Fox News, something that has been scrapped altogether. I'm wondering what conversations you've had with them if you're leaning in either direction.

GIMENEZ: Right now, I'm uncommitted and I'll remain uncommitted until I guess I make up my mind and I have - I'm not close to making up my mind. I want to listen to them in conference. The one thing I've stated very clearly is that I want a commitment that we're going to change the rules to - on the motion to vacate. The motion to vacate rule with one member allowed to do that is insanity. We just tasted insanity. We just tasted chaos. And I don't want to taste it again. And I think the majority of the conference wants to see that rule change. And so I want to see which of these candidates can change that rule, because if not, we're going to continue to see this insanity, this chaos when one member decides that they're going to - they're going to unify with all and get the help of all the Democrats to remove a Republican speaker. It happened once. It should never happen again.

SANCHEZ: And lastly, Congressman, to tie it all together, how significant is the issue of immigration in your selection of who you'll endorse for the next House speaker?

GIMENEZ: Look, the - we all have the same - we all agree on immigration. I mean, we need to control the border. We need to - I don't see any difference between Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise on the ability or what we need to do at the border, which is we need to abide by and enforce the laws of the United States of America. That's what we're asking for. That's what we're asking the Biden administration to do.

So I don't think there's going to be any difference on that. I don't think there's going to be any difference on the disaster, that is the Biden energy policy.

[15:20:00]

I don't think there's going to be any difference on the disaster that is the Biden economic policy, what we're doing overseas. I don't - I think both of them agree - have basic - we all agree on those basic principles. The disagreement may be, how do you get the two - to 218.

And by the way, we don't have all this great division inside the Republican Party. If you recall, it's 210 of us decided and voted to retain Kevin McCarthy. It's a small little fraction, eight. That's four percent of us decided to go a different direction. I don't see that as a great division.

Yes, we have we have a difference of opinion with these eight. That's only four percent of our party. And by the way, they lit the fuse and the Democrats provided most of the gunpowder to remove Kevin McCarthy. And so, yes, there's not that great division inside. We just need to get these eight to come along. We also need these eight to change that motion to vacate, because I think they can see too the kind of chaos that they created.

SANCHEZ: It is a significant influence that those eight members have.

Congressman Carlos Jimenez, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate your time, sir.

GIMENEZ: It's my pleasure. Have a great one.

SANCHEZ: Of course. You too.

Still ahead, former president, Donald Trump, trying to delay the civil fraud trial targeting his business. A hearing is underway this hour. We'll explain why New York's attorney general argues it would cause chaos.

Plus, a deadly 24 hours in Ukraine. First, a village targeted and then a residential building by Russian missiles. The latest images coming in of the aftermath. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:25:48]

BROWN: New developments in the fraud case against Donald Trump. An appeals court just wrapped up hearing arguments on the former president's motion for a stay of the trial, as well as a stay of the judge's order to dissolve Trump corporate entities. This coming at the end of the week of - week one of testimony in that civil trial.

The former president has been trying to get all of the court cases against him delayed or dismissed.

CNN's Kara Scannell is live for us in New York.

So what's been happening inside the court today?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN REPORTER: Well, Pam, the court - the judge overhearing this emergency action has heard about 15 minutes of arguments. He has told the parties that he's going to take a break, that they should stand by and then he will have a decision on this shortly.

So they asked the Trump organization and Donald Trump is asking this appeals court to stop the trial that has been underway this week and also to pause the judge's order. And that judge's order had argued had found that Trump was liable for fraud and ordered the dissolution and the cancellation of business certificates for the Trump organization and certain of its entities.

And Trump's saying that this should be put on pause until they can appeal the merits of that lower court decision, saying that the judge does not comprehend the scope of chaos his decision has wrought.

Now, the attorney general's office is opposing this, saying that this trial is underway. We're in day five, that this is too late to make this ask. They're also saying that a delay would create a cascade of delays in not only this case, but also other litigation involving Mr. Trump. If the trial is delayed at all, there is significant risk that defendants will request further delays of the trial based on the deadlines in these other cases. And then that would have an impact on some of the other cases and they say that they're trying to use one court against another in their bigger litigation strategy. But the issue here is, will this be delayed.

Now, out of the top of this hearing is one judge that is hearing the arguments. He said he was not inclined to issue an interim state, but he has not yet ruled. So we're standing by and waiting for this ruling, which should come shortly.

Now, the Attorney General's office said that they were willing to work with Trump to postpone the implementation of the judge's order. This part being what assets might have to be sold, saying that they would be willing to put that off until this trial is done and until the judge rules on this trial.

So they said that Trump's team is not willing to engage in that. Trump's team obviously is going to the court to try to get a judge to put the brakes on that as well, saying that it would have severe and irreparable harm not only to the Trump Organization, but all of the employees that work at some of these properties in New York, such as Trump Tower, among others.

So that is their ask now. It comes as this trial is in its fifth day. They just finished the examination of the third witness in this case. As the attorney general's team is trying to get at the heart of this issue here, that the valuations that the Trumps used for many of their assets, including Mar-A-Lago, golf courses, a number of their commercial properties was inflated. So they've been bringing through some of that testimony in this trial so far.

And next week will kick off a busy week with some additional kind of big name witnesses, including the former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, who's at the heart of this, had been working for the Trump organization for 40 plus years. He is expected to take the stand on Tuesday. Pam?

BROWN: Yes, that's a big day. All right. Thank you so much, Kara Scannell and we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)