Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) is Interviewed about the Economy; Twitter and FaceBook Crackdown on China; Epstein Signed New Will before Suicide; Students Give Nazi Salute. Aired 9:30-10a ET
Aired August 20, 2019 - 09:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:30:00] REP. TOM REED (R-NY): But he should not be considered at the present time.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: OK. You know it's expensive if the White House were to move forward. The deficit rose 27 percent just last month to $867 billion, nearly a trillion dollars.
I want to play what you said to my colleague, Kate Bolduan, a few weeks ago about the deficit and see if your opinion still holds. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REED: I agree that the deficits are becoming a problem that is unsustainable. Our national data at $23 trillion, at some point in time you run out of runway and that crisis hits. And so we should be taking proactive steps now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Would you support expanding the deficit to finance a payroll tax cut if the economic numbers would change?
REED: Yes, I really think the wiser course is to address the spending. If we're going to have tax reductions going forward, we really could -- should consider paying for those in regards in spending reductions and reforms. But, you know, this is the root cause of the problem in my opinion when it comes to the debt crisis is the spending side of the ledger. The revenues coming into the coffers continue with an economy that's growing at the levels that we see. That produces a tremendous amount of revenue. And so what we need to do is make sure that the spending is the focus of the efforts to get to this debt crisis under control.
SCIUTTO: Although the numbers don't support that. As you know, the tax cut passed by the Republican controlled House and Senate, it has -- I mean the deficits grown since then. It's -- I mean it's in the numbers.
REED: Well, but more revenue has been coming in. And the deficits growing because the spending is going up more than the revenue is increasing coming into the coffers. And so when you have that upside or that imbalance, if you would, between the expenditures plus -- in regards to the revenue, that's what's causing the deficit to balloon out of control. The spending is driving the problem.
SCIUTTO: Let's talk to -- let's talk about gun control here. The president, in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton shootings, and I was in both places, just horrific crimes, said publicly that he could support universal background checks. But over the weekend he seems to have reversed himself, now saying, well, there are a lot of background checks out there. You voted against background check bills presented to the House before and I just wonder, can you explain to your constituents, to the American people, why everyone who purchases a gun should not go through a background check. Why is that -- why should that be such a big deal? Why isn't that a necessity?
REED: Well, well because the heart of it is you're attacking -- with universal background you're attacking law-abiding citizens. This is a fundamental way -- this is a freedom that is guaranteed by --
SCIUTTO: Why? You're not attacking them, you're just asking them to take -- you're asking them to take a step --
REED: No.
SCIUTTO: You're asking them to take a step that we -- we take when we renew our driver's license. I mean what is -- why is that such a grand infringement on the Second Amendment?
REED: Because driver's license are much different than your fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. And to impose upon law abiding citizen this requirement to me is too far. That is, if you're going to do it on a universal background type of level, I just don't see that working, nor do I see it as something that respects the Second Amendment fundamental right protection for law-abiding citizens.
SCIUTTO: Those law abiding citizens, a Quinnipiac poll found that 94 percent of registered voters, 94 percent, they support universal background checks. I just wonder, you're listening -- are you listening to the voters or are you listening to the NRA?
REED: No, I'm listening to voters. I will tell you, as we just held a bunch of round -- town halls here recently, proud support for the Second Amendment came through. You know, people come up, stop me on the street, stop me in the stores --
SCIUTTO: But they support universal background checks. Most NRA members support universal background checks. Why don't you?
REED: Because when we're talking about universal background checks, when you ask that question, folks, you're not really asking the heart of the issue. If you're saying universal background checks, that somehow the government's going to have a database, going to have information, you share that with the people that you're polling, they're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, what are you talking about? You're going to, you know, take my data, you're going to put me in a government system that's control by government officials. Now that those numbers fall down. So if you want to talk about the simple political headline of
universal background check as a utopic position, then maybe you can get that type of poll result. But when you actually delve down into the details of what universal background checks means with big data being controlled by government, people go, whoa, I'm a law-abiding citizen. Why do I have to share so much information with you.
SCIUTTO: I don't know, people do it when they apply for a driver's license. I don't see the dramatic difference.
I want to show you a picture of the magazine that was used in the Dayton shooting. A hundred round magazine. You look at it that. What's called a barrel magazine.
Should that be legal?
REED: And I don't believe banning objects is going to be the solution to this issue. I think you go after the --
SCIUTTO: Why should -- who needs a hundred round magazine?
REED: Who --
SCIUTTO: Who? Who in the country needs a hundred round magazine?
REED: Where are you going to draw the line?
SCIUTTO: How about we start there.
REED: Does that make you feel better that if we pass a law saying we're going to ban objects --
SCIUTTO: Start -- start on that.
REED: We're going to ban -- you know, why don't we ban all (INAUDIBLE) driver's --
SCIUTTO: I spent a lot of time in Iraq and Afghanistan.
REED: To your driver's license.
SCIUTTO: I've never seen a U.S. soldier --
REED: Like, why don't we ban cars. Let's get them off the streets because they're killing people.
SCIUTTO: I'm asking you --
REED: And so the question you're asking me --
SCIUTTO: I've never seen a barrel magazine like that with a --
REED: The question --
SCIUTTO: In the hands of a U.S. soldier. Should it be legal? Simple question, yes or no? [09:35:03] REED: So I don't support that ban. And that's an attack against law-abiding citizens.
SCIUTTO: So it should be legal?
REED: And when you go into those situations and you're going to talk about banning objects, we can have this political fight. We can have a political headline right here. I'm not going to support that ban.
But what I will do is I will go after the who solutions. Who behind the gun is committing these crimes? Criminal defendants at a propensity to commit crimes. You also have psychopathic mentally ill people out there on the streets that need to be addressed and need to have restrictions in regards to their ability to access a firearm.
SCIUTTO: Yes, but, Congressman Reed, I've covered a lot of shootings. I was in El Paso and Dayton. They didn't have criminal records. They didn't have a mental health record. They were able to buy these guns.
How does -- how does that measure? You'll often hear from NRA supporters like yourself that no one law will stop all mass shootings, but the measures you just suggested would not have prevented these.
REED: Look at -- look at -- yes, look at the shooter that --
SCIUTTO: I'm just trying to figure out how you're making a difference here.
REED: Yes, so look at the shooter that shot the six police officers in Philadelphia. A lengthy criminal background with violent propensity.
SCIUTTO: But you just --
REED: Look at the shooter in Florida that had a -- Nikolas Cruz had multiple contacts with mental health officials. You look at the shooters --
SCIUTTO: But you wouldn't have prevented El Paso and -- and Dayton.
REED: Well, you could have. I don't know all the details in regards --
SCIUTTO: No one law would have prevented all these (INAUDIBLE).
REED: Well, of course, and that's where the root cause of the problem is. Why are people doing this? Who -- what is driving people to commit these crimes and these horrific acts? That is the harder question, and political panderers want to have a quick headline, and banning the object is easy. Taking on the who solutions is difficult. And I'm willing to do that.
SCIUTTO: It's also -- but it's also the how, Congressman. The shooter in Dayton killed nine people in 40 seconds with a hundred-round drug magazine. Strikes the police involved as relevant.
We do appreciate you taking the time. I know this is part of conversation -- a long conversation -- REED: I understand (INAUDIBLE).
SCIUTTO: And we look forward to having you back.
REED: Always will. Thanks.
SCIUTTO: Thanks very much.
REED: Is China taking a page out of Russia's playbook? Coming up, why FaceBook and Twitter are cracking down on China's state run media.
Plus, CNN Films premieres a film about the first big name American fashion designer, Halston. He was a fashion genius of and ahead of his time. His story of ascent and downfall. An absolutely fascinating film you won't miss. "Halston" premieres Sunday on CNN, 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time and Pacific.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:41:40] SCIUTTO: China is pushing back after Twitter and FaceBook say they uncovered a covert social media campaign orchestrated by China to undermine protests and protesters in Hong Kong. The social media giants tracked hundreds of fake accounts, some of which called the protesters cockroaches or compared them to ISIS fighters. In response, Twitter announced that it had shut down some 900 accounts linked to the Chinese government.
CNN's Donie O'Sullivan, he covers this.
Of course there's some irony here, right, because Twitter and FaceBook blocked in China, but they were using it as a weapon in Hong Kong here.
Just how extensive was this?
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN BUSINESS REPORTER: So Twitter released the almost 1,000 accounts that were blocked and we've been digging into those.
The tactics that China have -- were using here were quite similar to what we've seen in Russia's use of social media against the U.S. in 2016, posing as independent individuals, sometimes as news organizations and making it look like they have no connection to any nation state and then pushing, as you saw those messages there, to undermine the protesters in Hong Kong.
SCIUTTO: So are Twitter -- I mean because with Russia's interference in the 2016 election, of course the story was that FaceBook, in particular, Twitter as well, did not police it well enough and let it happen, let themselves be used in this way. Have they gotten better? I mean they acted at least a bit more quickly here, did they not?
O'SULLIVAN: Absolutely. I mean they started from a very poor background, I guess, in 2016 where this -- all this stuff happened in the U.S. by Russia under their noses and they didn't know what was going on. And we've seen FaceBook particularly have invested a lot in teams like this and Twitter, obviously, who found these activities yesterday. FaceBook has hired former Pentagon officials.
But I think it's quite interesting, you know, these companies, FaceBook and Twitter, public companies, which were set up for people to share pictures and to share their statuses, are now in the game of this geopolitical arena, attributing, you know, pretty significant actions to nation states, something which was normally only done by governments or some of the top cyber security companies in the past. So I don't think when Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey set these companies up all those years ago they ever thought they would be in this arena. But this is the reality of the information's space we're in right now.
SCIUTTO: Absolutely. And it's been weaponized, social media, no question.
O'SULLIVAN: Absolutely.
SCIUTTO: Donie O'Sullivan, thanks very much.
Coming up, about 48 hours before he committed suicide, Jeffrey Epstein reportedly signed a will. Why wasn't that a warning sign that authorities could have noticed about his intentions?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:48:26] SCIUTTO: Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein signed a new will just two days before he committed suicide in his Manhattan jail cell. That according to "The New York Post." Epstein's brother was the only potential heir to his $600 million fortune. But Epstein created a blind trust for all his holdings, which includes airplanes, boats, artwork, several properties, all of this right before he killed himself.
CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson joins me now.
Joey, just an obvious question here, wouldn't signing a will for an inmate already on suicide watch, already attempted suicide, wouldn't that have been a warning sign to authorities?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you would think. But, you know, if you want to get into that, Jim, I think they bungled that completely. The fact is going back, right, the guy apparently tried to commit suicide on the 23rd of July, six days later he's let off of suicide watch. How, why did that happen? Then, of course, he goes to the shoe, special housing unit, and no one has eyes on him and as a result he's no longer here. So that whole thing certainly needs to be looked at, investigated. Heads are rolling over it, but too little too late and it just boggles the mind how they could let that happen.
SCIUTTO: It's incredible.
OK, so he creates a trust here. Does that mean that his victims can't call -- claim his fortune in the civil suits?
JACKSON: Oh, no. Oh, no, not so fast. So what happens is, is that, look, courts ultimately are about equity,
right, and about reaching equitable results. And I think that's why there was such a reaction. I mean you have a guy who people wanted to see held accountable, right, and not take the easy way out. And so now you have claims of victims and those victims need to be compensated. And the fact that you have a will or a trust means little because what happens is, is that when you sue, it goes against the estate. And the estate is going to have to, to the extent that those claims are born out and they're proven in a court of law, they're going to have to be paid out. And so I think that there are going to be many stays. The trust will be invaded. And the will certainly, I don't think anything's going out to compensate any heir, any beneficiary, of course his brother they're saying is the only heir, but any beneficiary they'll get nothing until the victims are paid.
[09:50:26] SCIUTTO: Until these are settled.
JACKSON: Yes.
SCIUTTO: And how long would that take? I mean the legal process, court proceedings, et cetera? Is that years? Is it --
JACKSON: It is. But here's my concern, Jim. Whenever you have a whole lot of money like this, there's an incentive on the part of people who are going to be protecting him to protect him very well because they're billing -- you know, look, I don't mean to suggest anything nefarious, but when there's pots of money, lawyers get involved, I think the equitable just and proper and appropriate thing to do would be to put aside a pot of money and to compensate victims and to offer them settlements and deals so that they don't have to bear the dignity --
SCIUTTO: Right.
JACKSON: Of being re-victimized again. As to whether that would happen, I don't know. I would hope that at least if -- you know, again, these allegations, he died before they could be determined, but I would hope that he'd be decent in death, or the people representing him to be decent in death to allow that to occur.
But back to your origin point, it could take years before all this -- all this is meted (ph) out. Let's hope that's not the case.
SCIUTTO: And is there a way, is there a precedent for determining what just compensation is?
JACKSON: Yes.
SCIUTTO: I mean there's no real compensation, right, emotionally, but is there a formula to --
JACKSON: It's a great question, Jim. And the issue is, is that you do look to precedents, you do look to other issues that have settled. It's complicated a bit because a lot of various settlements that relate to people who have engaged in these alleged improprieties are under confidentiality agreements and deals. But I think ultimately that, you know, look, they'll look back to where the abuse started, when it started, how old were they then, what they endured throughout the course of time, how long they had to wait to get relief, and I think they'll come up with something that's just and appropriate and I think they'll sit around the table, carve out a number and the people who he allegedly did this too, they need to be paid.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
JACKSON: You know, look, at the end of the day, Jim, that's all we've got in our system is money, but that money needs to go to these people who didn't see him in a criminal court but certainly need their day in a civil court so that they can get over this injustice.
SCIUTTO: OK. Well, let's hope it's not a long and painful process, even more than it already has been.
JACKSON: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Joey Jackson, thanks so much.
JACKSON: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Student at a California high school caught on camera giving a Nazi salute, singing a Nazi marching song. What is the school doing about it?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:57:16] SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
A bus hijacking in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, this morning ends with police shooting and killing the suspect. Police say an armed man held 37 commuters hostage on a public bus, threatened to set it on fire. Police shot the hijacker when he stepped off the bus and threw something at them. The standoff lasted for three hours. The hijacker said he was a military policeman. All the hostages, thankfully, freed unharmed. As you can see, one woman fainted as she got off the bus. We don't know what the hijacker was asking for exactly. Harrowing moments there.
There are now demands for answers after a group of high school students in California were captured on video, and there it is, giving a Nazi salute, singing a Nazi marching song.
CNN's Sara Sidner joins me now from Los Angeles.
Sara, this is becoming a recurring problem at schools. We've seen a number of moments like this. Is it more common? I mean is there evidence of that?
SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Look, we're certainly seeing it more exposed online, if you will. This was apparently on Snapchat, according to the Garden Grove Unified School District. It was uploaded actually last year, 2018, and the school, the Pacifica High School there, said they didn't see it until several months afterwards. But this -- these are members of the water polo team, which is a power house, by the way, in the area. And apparently they were there for some off-campus ceremony, a sports ceremony. And you see the kids standing there. You see -- what you're not hearing is one of the students starts singing this obscure Nazi marching song in German. The other kids stand up, several of them, most of them do the (INAUDIBLE) hail.
There's something wrong in our society when young people are honoring Nazis. It has to be said. We have seen this before. This is not the first time this has happened in Orange County. In fact, this year there was another incident with other students using those sort of red solo cups and creating a swastika with those and also doing (INAUDIBLE) hail.
This is an issue that has become really prevalent and those who track hate and hate groups look at this and say there is definitely the influence of the Internet. These kids think this is funny. They think the death of 6 million Jews somehow is funny. And so there is definitely something that is going on here that needs to be addressed.
[09:59:49] Now, the school did address this, apparently, but there is concern from parents that not the entire school didn't know that this had happened and they wanted more information about this, which they said that they did not get. The question is, what happened to the students? We don't know. And why is this -- why does this keep occurring? That is something to.
END
