Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Race Tightens In Iowa Ahead Of Significant Dinner Tonight; Elizabeth Warren Responds To Critics by Releasing Medicare-for-All Plan; No Republicans Voted For President Trump's Inquiry. Aired 2- 2:30p ET

Aired November 01, 2019 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:13]

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: I'm Erica Hill in today for Brooke Baldwin. You're watching CNN. Thanks for joining us this hour. We're just three months ago now and to the Iowa caucuses. There's an important shift today. Forget about impeachment for just a moment and let's take a look at the 2020 Democrats who are hoping to oust President Trump from office. Today, 14 of the candidates vying for the party's nomination will descend on Iowa for an annual dinner that has in the past shifted the course of the race.

One example, Barack Obama, whose 2007 speech at the event helped propel him to victory, not just in Iowa but also in the general election against John McCain, and that dinner comes as a new poll shows the fight for the hearts, minds and most importantly, for votes of Iowa Democrats is now a four-way battle. Well, at least for today.

CNN's Arlette Saenz is on the trail in Des Moines, and joins us now. So Arlette, walk us through these new polling numbers that we're seeing. Who is on top? Who is gaining ground and who might be losing steam here?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, Erica, this is certainly a high stakes weekend for these Democratic candidates, and we're getting a snapshot, a view into what Iowa Democrats are thinking about this 2020 field, and I want you to take a look at these numbers.

Right now, there is no clear leader in the Democratic field, but you're seeing this top tier of four candidates. You have Elizabeth Warren at 22 percent followed by Bernie Sanders at 19 percent, Pete Buttigieg at 18 percent and Joe Biden at 17 percent.

And one particularly notable thing about this new poll that is out today, we had a poll back in September that had Pete Buttigieg at 9 percent. So you've seen this real jump from the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana and you also have other candidates as well in that poll, Amy Klobuchar at four percent, Kamala Harris at three percent and Andrew Yang also at 3 percent.

So we're getting a view about a little over 90 days out from the caucuses of how Iowa Democrats are viewing this current field, and this is all coming as we are going to see the majority of the Democratic field here in Des Moines, Iowa for the Liberty and Justice Celebration, which is really going to be this opportunity for these candidates to make their case to Iowa voters and also show off their organizing strengths, show how many supporters, the excitement that they can have.

You can see behind me there's signs, a little bit further up the hill, there's people already chanting for their candidates. And as you mentioned, this event could be particularly consequential for many of the candidates. Back in 2007, Barack Obama had a standout moment here that really helped propel him in the Iowa caucuses and eventually to earn the nomination and then become President.

So we're going to be hearing from 14 of those Democrats today, hoping that they're going to get their shot to become Democratic nominee making their case to thousands of people here in Iowa tonight -- Erica.

HILL: We will be looking for those highlights. Arlette Saenz, appreciate it. Thank you.

As Elizabeth Warren makes her case to Iowans, she is armed with new details on her plan to deliver Medicare-for-All. Warren unveiling a 20-page, $20 trillion proposal that she says will be paid for in several ways, including immigration reform, cuts in military spending, cracking down on tax evasion, and ramping up taxes on billionaires and Wall Street.

There is one group that Warren says will not see their taxes increase under her plan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE I have a plan that shows how we can have Medicare-for-All without raising taxes, one cent on middle class families. It's all fully paid for by asking the top 1 percent and giant corporations to pay a fair share.

I believe in America where we can a government that is working better and better for those at the top, but a government that's working for all of us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Warren's pledge sparking a swift response from Team Biden which said the Massachusetts Senator was using doublespeak and mathematical gymnastics.

Rana Foroohar is a CNN global economic analyst as well as associate editor and global business columnist for "The Financial Times." Simon Johnson is former Chief Economist for the International Monetary Fund, and is one of several economists who analyzed and vetted Warren's Medicare-for-All plan.

Good to have both of you with us. So first, there are a number of things we want to understand in the plan here. So if we're doing our math right, companies would be paying more as we learned under the plan.

Pew Research shows that employers currently pay about $3 trillion for healthcare for more than half of Americans, but this plan, under this plan, companies would pay nearly $9 trillion and Simon, that's a pretty significant jump.

SIMON JOHNSON, FORMER CHIEF ECONOMIST, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: Well, I'm not quite sure that I followed you on the numbers there. The employers do pay already a substantial amount in terms of the contributions to healthcare plans, so-called employer sponsored insurance. And under this plan, that amount would actually be reduced slightly.

[14:05:10]

JOHNSON: Now, that's the contribution to health insurance directly paid by companies. It is true there are other taxes on wealthy individuals and on corporations, specifically, multinational corporations that don't pay a lot of tax right now that manage their businesses internationally to reduce their tax burden. So yes, there is a tax asked from the billionaires and from these multinational corporations, but on regular employers and in terms of direct contribution towards healthcare, now that's actually going to go down.

HILL: So the employers will go down, the employers will not go up.

JOHNSON: Employers go down.

HILL: Employer contributions.

JOHNSON: That's right. Yes. It absolutely goes down. It is very important. Yes.

HILL: Rana, as you're looking at all of this, what stands out to you in that?

RANA FOROOHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST: A couple of things. We're going to see a change in the pie. Right? So spending right now that is divided between the public sector, the Federal government, state governments, companies and individuals, almost all of that under this plan would go on to the Federal balance sheets.

So you could actually see spending -- Federal spending go up -- while costs go down for the middle class and that's because the ways in which individuals would be paying, which right now is through taxes, Federal and state, but also through premiums, which have been rising, individual costs, which as we all know, we're all doing more and more out of pocket because of rising healthcare costs, prescription drug costs, that would go down.

So it's possible that taxes could go up, but also costs for the middle class could go down. So it's a fine balance. But basically, you're going to see the government and the Federal government particularly taking over a lot more spending, really almost all the spending in this area. HILL: That last point, you know, that's something that we were

discussing in the NEWSROOM earlier, because when we look at an additional tax on take home pay, right, so if you as an employee, if you are now not paying that part of the premium, right, that sounds great.

But if you are then paying an additional tax on your take home pay, it feels different for most Americans.

JOHNSON: Well, I think -- well, most Americans who -- these Americans who are lucky enough in a sense to have employer sponsored insurance, what happens is, the employer deducts from your paycheck, right?

HILL: Right.

JOHNSON: They say we're paying -- we're taking $100.00, but by the way, we're going to keep $10.00 or $15.00 of that to cover your contribution to the healthcare plan. So under what Senator Warren is proposing, that is not going to happen. They're not going to hold that back. So you're going to get that extra $10.00 or $15.00 in your take home pay.

It is true that now your take home pay and your taxable income has gone up, you will pay your regular income taxes on that, but you're still ahead, you're ahead by a lot.

HILL: So you're saying, you'll still be ahead no matter what?

JOHNSON: Oh, yes, absolutely.

HILL: Across the board, people are not going to, by taking that away and then adding that additional tax, there's no one who's going to end up paying more?

JOHNSON: There's no additional tax. There's no additional tax. It's just your take home pay --

HILL: Well, your tax -- your take home pay is taxed additionally, so if you are a person who is looking at your paycheck, it feels like you're paying more in taxes because you are, because you're paying on more money, so I see what you're saying.

But if you're looking at -- what I'm saying is this feels different for Americans, right? If you look at your paycheck, you know what's coming out in terms of your benefits to your point.

JOHNSON: Yes.

HILL: When all of a sudden that number changes in your --

FOROOHAR: Erica, if I could --

HILL: -- income taxes, it's harder for sometimes for people to wrap their head around. Rana, what were you saying?

FOROOHAR: If I could jump in. Yes, I was going to jump in. I mean, I think the conversation we've just had in the last two minutes actually encapsulate some of the problems with American healthcare.

It's really complicated. It's not this complicated in other parts of the world. I mean, I had two children in England, I can tell you, it's not that complicated elsewhere, and other countries spend less and their outcomes are better.

Now, Americans are going to have to make a big choice here. Because essentially, our healthcare system has looked like the rest of our economy, it's platinum at the top. You can get the best health care in America if you can pay for it.

You also, if you are a very poor person can get good healthcare. A lot of times in the middle, it's hollowed out, that's the way our whole economy looks.

Senator Warren is actually making a big and somewhat risky political bet here. She's saying, you know what, we can't fix this. We're going to chuck it. And we're going to do it more like the Europeans do it.

HILL: In terms of doing it that way, that has a plus and a minus to it, too, right? If you're trying to sell it, because people like Rana, families that I have in Europe will tell you listen, this works for me, but I do pay a lot in taxes for what I get. How do you start to make that argument in selling this that it's going to be worth it?

JOHNSON: Well, first of all, the middle class is absolutely not going to pay more in taxes. They are going to have a reduction in their costs, $11 trillion that people -- regular people -- currently pay on healthcare is coming out. They're not going to pay that. It's $11 trillion cut in the cost for ordinary families, the top 1 percent are paying more, I agree with that. But those people are extremely wealthy, and they've had a really, really good ride.

So costs are going down and in return for that, you're getting access to a healthcare system that's very good, actually better probably than what you have through your health plan right now, which almost certainly has deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket expenses.

HILL: They're also a lot variables -- we're about out of time.

FOROOHAR: But you know, I would --

HILL: Immigration reform being one of them, those are all things obviously they're going to have to -- that will come into play. Rana, really quickly, last word.

FOROOHAR: You know, it's a risky political bet, Erica. You're making a good point, which is that a lot of Americans are going to look at this and just say, oh, my gosh, state healthcare, am I going to pay more in taxes? That's why some people were arguing for a public option with the choice to have private insurance like say what you would in the U.K.

It's going to be very interesting to see politically how this plays out for her. HILL: We will be watching. Rana Foroohar, Simon Johnson, appreciate

you both coming in today. Thank you.

FOROOHAR: Thanks.

[14:10:10]

HILL: Just ahead, while impeachment hearings may have centered around an apparent quid pro quo between President Trump and the President of Ukraine, Nancy Pelosi just signaling she may be looking at other violations if and when House Democrats draft Articles of Impeachment.

Plus, a New Yorker no more. President Trump filing paperwork to move his primary residence from Manhattan to Mar-a-Lago. We will speak with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo who had these three words for the State of Florida, he's all yours.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:26]

HILL: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defending the first full House vote on the Impeachment Inquiry - that historic action taken Thursday was the most partisan vote on an inquiry in modern U.S. history.

No Republicans voted for President Trump's inquiry. Keep in mind, 31 Democrats crossed their party line to vote for Bill Clinton's, while 177 Republicans went against their party to approve an impeachment investigation of Nixon. Here is House Speaker Pelosi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): It was in that call, he undermined our National Security.

We have no choice. We took an oath to protect and defend our democracy, and that is what he has made an assault on.

And if the Republicans have a higher loyalty to the President than they do to their oath of office, that's their problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: CNN political commentator, Michael Smerconish is host of "Smerconish" on CNN, Saturday mornings. Always good to talk to you, so, you know, Mike, we have Nancy Pelosi there. We also have this new polling that shows Americans and independents -- really important to focus on the independents here -- are split when it comes to impeachment.

A number of independent don't approve of that path. So when Pelosi says we have no choice, do you get the sense that she is directly reaching out to those independents?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST: I get the impression that she is mostly speaking to Democrats who view the language in the Constitution and some of the supporting information that comes from the Federalist Papers as saying, we have an infraction here that rises to the level of impeachment, but whether they are speaking for the rest of the country is kind of belied by the polls that you're referring to.

Those surveys seem to reflect the President's approval rating. When you when you look at whether generally speaking in a national survey, people who are for or against impeachment, it looks very much like whether you approve or disapprove of the President.

What I find particularly interesting is the way this is playing in battleground states, and when you look at Pennsylvania, when you look at Michigan, when you look at Wisconsin, there's not a majority in support of impeachment. Will we get there? I don't know it remains to be seen.

HILL: What's interesting, though, is the polls show there is a majority of Americans who look at this and they say, the President did something wrong when it comes to his dealings with Ukraine. And they also believe that he should not have involved his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

So it's interesting to see we don't approve of the behavior but going to impeachment - that we're not quite ready to do.

SMERCONISH: That's right. So I think the way to interpret that information is that people are saying he did something wrong here. And by the way, it's rather easy to say he did something wrong here, where there hasn't been a substantive defense to the underlying facts put up by the White House.

In other words, if there's a contrary narrative, what is it? We really haven't heard. The defense has been a defense that attacks the process and attacks the witnesses. So the issue then becomes one of okay, what he did was wrong, does it warrant impeachment?

And I think that the longer this goes, and if it should go into 2020, the stronger will be the argument that says, let's resolve it at the ballot box. We don't need impeachment, because after all, there's an election on the horizon.

HILL: Do you get the sense -- I mean, you talk about the lack of, you know, real clear strategy in terms of a defense, we know, we've seen it right? We talk about it nearly daily that it's focused on the process. It's focused on character assassination and attacking the witness, but not on the substance of that testimony.

Now that there has been this vote, any sense that that could change for the President and for the White House that they need to have this ready to go?

SMERCONISH: Yes. Secretary Pompeo gave an interview within the last 48 hours, I think it was an exclusive to "The New York Post" in which he started, in my opinion started to sound a bit like Mick Mulvaney of two weeks ago, when he essentially said, you know, get over it. This is what transpired here. I've been wondering why the President hasn't stopped saying no quid

pro quo and more tried to own it and to defend holding up access to the Ukraine President, holding up access to the funds appropriated by the Congress on the grounds that he was trying to protect American taxpayers and American tax dollars. That's what I've anticipated.

And I'm paying close attention to what's coming out of the White House and Secretary Pompeo's remarks seem to be headed in that direction. Will the President fully embrace that? I don't know, it remains to be seen.

HILL: When you look at everything that happened yesterday, so we've got the vote. We have the testimony from Tim Morrison as well. The fact that not a single Republican broke rank here, and there was apparently a lot of work behind the scenes to make sure that happened. What kind of a message is that for the White House to have that show of strength?

[140:20:18]

SMERCONISH: Well, you're right, no Republican broke ranks. And I think we need to point out, only two Democrats broke ranks. So, you know, it seems in what should theoretically be a search for the truth, everybody is already dug in. And my God, if this is the way that it is in the House, I can only imagine when we get to the Senate, where two thirds is required at the conclusion of a trial, it will strictly be along partisan lines.

And I don't think that's going to inspire much confidence. That'll do the same thing in the minds of Americans as yet another five-four decision by the Supreme Court where people like me will be saying, where's the independent thinking? Where's the evidentiary analysis? Where's the Democrat who will disagree with his or her party? And where's the Republican who will do likewise?

I mean, how in the world can they see it exactly in opposite terms dependent upon whether they're a red state or blue state person? That's awfully frustrating.

HILL: It does. It definitely leaves you scratching your head, doesn't it? But it gives us a whole lot to talk about my friend. Michael Smerconish, always good to see you. Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

HILL: And of course, you can catch "Smerconish" right here every Saturday, 9:00 Eastern on CNN.

After this big week in the impeachment push, there were a few arguments that Republicans were using -- it really seemed to well, kind of blow up a little bit we'll explain those.

Plus, I'll speak with New York's Governor who says good riddance to the President as President Trump moves his primary residence to Florida. Why Andrew Cuomo believes the President is making the decision to move south. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:27:14]

HILL: The House approving a resolution to take their Impeachment Inquiry public of course that had been an argument from Republicans as they question the legitimacy of the inquiry and the testimony being given behind closed doors, so part of their argument here -- is part of their argument crumbling now?

CNN politics reporter and editor-at-large, Chris Cillizza, here to walk us through what happened. So my guess is, it's a little yes, and it's a little no.

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER AND EDITOR-AT-LARGE: It is, although I would say it's more crumbling than holding together. Let me run through America. Okay, let's jump to -- okay. These are the four big reasons we've seen that Republicans have said why this is illegitimate and Donald Trump has said this is a witch hunt, et cetera et cetera.

It's all second hand. No one actually was on this call and heard it. We've already released the full transcript. Nancy Pelosi refused to have a vote to make it formal. And Republicans are not being included in the process. So that's broadly speaking.

Now let's jump one more screen. Okay. So, two, we knock off right away. Thanks to Alexander Vindman. This is National Security Council guy, Ukraine expert who testified this week who by the way Donald Trump suggested was never Trumper -- not at all true, but I'll leave the fact checking the Daniel Dale.

Secondhand hearsay, he was on that July 25th phone call, so that goes out the door. The secondhand thing, by the way, was a reference to the whistleblower complaint. Well, now we have a guy who is on the record and who spent hours and hours and hours yesterday on Capitol Hill talking -- this week talking about it.

Complete transcript. Well, it's not a complete transcript. We know thanks to Vindman that there were things including the Burisma Holdings, that natural gas company in the Ukraine that were supposed to be included that weren't. Okay.

Pelosi refuses to have a vote. If you watched cable TV yesterday, you know, we had a vote. Party lines 232, yes; 196 no. Two Democrats crossing over and opposing it, but there is a vote. There are formal impeachment rules and ways forward.

And finally, Republicans being excluded. This one makes me insane. Ted Yoho from Florida was on with Poppy Harlow this morning, and she pointed out to him that he could attend these things as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He just hasn't done so.

The other thing I want to point out here, Erica, this idea that they're being held in a secret basement location, that's where the secure conference hearing room is. So would you rather have them hold it in a basement that is secure or

on the second floor and it not be secure? So there's a lot of misinformation going on here.

All four of these things, whammo crumbled. So I would say Republicans need to go back to the drawing board and find something that is not easily disputed when it comes to why this inquiry doesn't make sense.

HILL: Stand by for that. I have one guest, Adam Schiff has to approve my subpoena. That's coming next.

CILLIZZA: Yes, I am out of time. I pull this way and just write that on the screen.

HILL: That is coming next. Always good to see you. Thank you.

CILLIZZA: Thanks, Erica.