Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Economic Stimulus Discussions On Brink Of Collapse; Trump Issues Executive Order Banning TikTok And WeChat in 45 days; Court: House Can Subpoena Ex-White House Counsel Don McGahn To Testify; 66 Players Opt-Out Of NFL Season Over COVID-19 Concerns; Markakis Hits Walk-Off Home Run after Opting Into Season. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired August 07, 2020 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: Seeing the work, look, I'm being guided here, we're kind of in the academic weeds, but I'm being guided by Professor Casey Mulligan, who has said something much different. And he believes that if we continued the unemployment benefits as they are, it will literally cost millions of jobs over a period of a few years. So we can argue one academic versus another. I think history shows this is probably not sustainable in the long-term.

Now, let me make it clear. We are not trying to eliminate the federal benefits. What we're trying to do is moderate them and reform them. And put in the package, as I said, benefits and incentives to come back to work. That's really what I want to do.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Larry, I hear you, but I'm citing the University of Chicago, Yale and five other studies. I will just say the same economist ...

KUDLOW: Well, you have your professors and I have my professors. It's a top one to argue.

HARLOW: All right. Well, you brought up the University of Chicago, you brought them up so that's I was responding with this study that you cited. Those same economists are also, Larry, let me just finish the question. Those same economists right now at the University of Chicago, that you cited, are also right now saying that ending the $600 a week extension of cash assistance is going to cause consumer spending to decline 4.3 percent. That is worse than during, 4.3 percent, during the Great Recession.

I just wondering, do you think the White House in Congress might get an economic mistake here?

KUDLOW: We are not proposing to end federal unemployment insurance. We are instead proposing to moderate it ...

HARLOW: I know that. I'm not saying that. They're saying the -- but you did it, you did in for $600. That's all I'm saying is could it be a catastrophic, economic mistake not to do more, just like Ben Bernanke has warned. KUDLOW: I don't think so. I mean, again, we have a reform plan that would bring those levels down step by step slowly, and we are accompanied that with a similar reform plan that would actually reward people who go back to work. It's the incentive model of growth.

If you talk to men and women in business, you talk to men and women in small business, retail stores, restaurants and the like, they will tell you how hard it is to hire back.

HARLOW: I do. I do all the time.

KUDLOW: So I think the real world anecdotes to me are worth more than the academic. So I'll just leave it there.

HARLOW: OK. So --

KUDLOW: We like to make a deal on this and the Democrats have not cooperated. That's the problem, and that's why the President will take executive action if he has to.

HARLOW: Larry, let me just leave you with one other, for you to consider one other real world anecdote. And that is an email from my friend's mother, who wrote this week that it's not just about money, going back to work, that we don't ascribe to the belief that Americans won't go back to work because they're lazy. And if they're making more on unemployment, they won't go back.

KUDLOW: I didn't say that lazy.

HARLOW: "Work is fulfilling" -- I know, but there has been that argument out there and you are saying it's a disincentive. "Work is fulfilling, it gives me purpose. It's what I love. It's what I've known for 40 plus years. I don't want to hand out. I want to go back to work."

KUDLOW: Right.

HARLOW: So to go back to work safely --

KUDLOW: We would like that person with the ones offering payments, benefit as rewards for going back to work. So I agree with that point of view. I think that's fine.

HARLOW: Larry, it's not safe. It's not safe for a number of people to go back to work. That's what I'm saying.

KUDLOW: Well, look, I will -- let me respond to that. I have said for weeks and weeks, I understand the issue of safety and health, safety and security, I get that. So we have emphasized guidelines, time and time again, distancing and masking, testing where applicable, and good hygiene, washing you hands.

HARLOW: So wouldn't have federal mandate make a lot of sense?

KUDLOW: This has to be part of anything. We think that people should act responsible as individuals. We don't know about mandates -- HARLOW: Why not? Goldman Sachs says that if federal mask mandate could prevent the need for a lockdown, they could wipe out 5 percent from GDP. What's the downside?

KUDLOW: Yes. But Goldman Sachs, wherever, I'm not going to get an analyzer critique Goldman Sachs's record on this. All I'm saying is, I would rather people do it responsibly as individuals. Now, bear in mind, the power and authority here is not federal government. We are recommending the power is the states --

HARLOW: There could, there could be a federal mandate.

KUDLOW: I don't think so. I don't know how it would be enforced as the states, and the localities are the ones who make these decisions, but we are strongly emphasizing. And I might add, Poppy, if you look at the numbers now, having had this rough period of spiking hotspots in the south and west and elsewhere, it is now leveling off and beginning to hook down. And I believe it's because more people were made more aware of the necessity of sustaining these health guidelines.

[10:35:00]

And by the way, just closing down some bars and places, and by the way, stopping large crowds meant to mingling. I think this stuff is actually working which makes me even more optimistic that we got through July, and we're going to get an even stronger recovery over months ahead.

HARLOW: Everyone hopes, right. I have two final questions for you. Because when you talk, people listen, everyone in America listens on the economy when you talk, Larry. And I'm wondering why you have consistently downplayed the severity of the pandemic. Back on February 25th, you said it's pretty close to airtight. February 28th, it's not going to sink the American economy. March 6th, let's not overreact, America should stay at work. And then just on June 12th, there is no emergency, there is no second wave. But since June 12th, 45,978 Americans have died from COVID.

KUDLOW: If I can answer those, on June 12th when I said that, well, I also said, it's not a second wave. It's part of the first wave. And that comes from our health sciences, so that's what I thought.

HARLOW: Well, you said it's not an emergency.

KUDLOW: In February, late February, I did make a forecast. I didn't say I would. I said at that time, as a matter of fact, there are only, there are fewer than 20 cases. And a lot of people across the spectrum, doctors and others who made the same case, there are even people who said it wouldn't be worse than an ordinary flu. My point then was there were fewer than 20 cases.

Now, as those numbers deteriorated rapidly and I, of course, changed my mind in accordance with the facts. I was not making a forecast. I kind of resent your little nitpicking here because I don't know what that has to do with today's jobs number.

HARLOW: But I'm not nitpicking, Larry, I think people listen to you and the President --

KUDLOW: But I'm not -- I'm more than happy to defend -- I will defend my statement.

HARLOW: They listen to you and the President when you say things about the pandemic and the economy.

KUDLOW: Look, there were fewer than 20 cases, Poppy. That's the number, fewer than 20 cases.

HARLOW: Well, on June 12th, there were a lot of cases and you said it's not a second emergency. And even your friend Kevin Hassett said to me this week, we're looking at a second wave in certain places, and we should have some shutdowns.

I have a final question on TikTok, I think it's really important --

KUDLOW: I will quote. I will quote, I beg your pardon, on that point.

HARLOW: Sure.

KUDLOW: Our health experts I sit on the virus, were making a distinction. There was not a second wave. It was a continuation of the first wave, which moves south and west. Now, I never said it wasn't a problem. I've said repeatedly, it's a huge problem.

HARLOW: OK. You said there was no emergency as well.

KUDLOW: Well, look, I don't think it was the same as March and April, so I'll stand with that. Again, that comes from our health experts. And I think again, the health guidelines that we put out, are in fact working. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed, maybe prayerfully that we've seen the worst of this extension. So we'll see what happens.

HARLOW: We all are. We all are, Larry. Let me ask you just finally, if we could, and I appreciate all your time this morning very much. On TikTok because obviously a big move by the President over overnight on TikTok. But I want to understand fully what this would mean here.

The President said earlier this week that a potential takeover of TikTok by an American company would have to include, "A substantial amount of money coming to the US Treasury." Why would a US company paid the US government to acquire TikTok? I don't get it.

KUDLOW: I don't think that was the thrust of his remarks. I'm not sure -- I understand.

HARLOW: OK. "A very substantial portion of that price is going to have to come into the Treasury of the United States, because we're making it possible for this to happen." I asked because the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board says the President's bluster about a finder's fee sends the wrong message about America's rule of law and its openness in foreign investment. It's a big deal we hear the President say that. No?

KUDLOW: I have not spoken to him directly about that. I will say, he may have been thinking about the work done by the Treasury. He may have been thinking that the government's actions are increasing the valuation of TikTok if it splits off on its own, or it's purchased by Microsoft to someone else.

That is not -- the key point that he's making is number one. As matters stand now, TikTok will not be permitted unless they get out from under their holding company. Number two, he has given them 45 days to run through very tightly strenuous review by Treasury and Commerce and other agencies to see that they can act on their own or as part of Microsoft or some other private bidder so that the information problem where the Chinese communist government comes in and will essentially steal personal information or government information will be solved.

It may be solved, that's why we're having a 45-day review. That is the intent of his remark on that.

HARLOW: OK. But he is not going to mandate getting a check for the deal, right?

[10:40:04]

KUDLOW: I don't want to pass judgment on any part of this deal. Talk to me sometime in the middle of next month and we'll be able to review it.

HARLOW: OK. So you'll come back then, Larry?

KUDLOW: I guess. Are you making a date? We'll have the middle of next month, 45 days.

HARLOW: OK.

KUDLOW: OK, fine by me. Thank you, appreciate it.

HARLOW: Thanks, Larry. Thanks, Larry Kudlow, take care,. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Just in, a decision of an important case. A federal appeals court ruled today that the House of Representatives can sue to force former White House Counsel Don McGahn

Just in decision an important case a federal appeals court ruled today that the House of Representatives can sue to force former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify. McGahn can continue to challenge the House's subpoena likely will not have to appear anytime soon. But this is a key decision, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said McGahn's refusal to testify is ground for the House to sue. And in this case, notably, they cited the Supreme Court decision by a large majority questioning President Trump's claimed broad immunity. Well, right now, Democrats and Republicans continue to spar on Capitol Hill, this time over something remarkable. Given all of our experience in 2016, this over intelligence briefings on foreign interference, again by Russia, in the upcoming election.

HARLOW: Both sides agree that Russia is behind an ongoing disinformation campaign targeting former Vice President Joe Biden. What they can't agree on are Moscow's intentions here. Manu Raju has new reporting on Capitol Hill this morning. Good morning, Manu.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, good morning. Yes, behind the scenes there have been multiple briefings that have taken place in recent days with lawmakers, as well as the presidential campaigns. And the picture that US intelligence officials have been painting is this broad effort, this disinformation effort pushed by Moscow aimed at targeting Joe Biden.

Now, Democrats have emerged from these briefings. They're not talking about explicitly what they heard, but they're saying it's pretty explicit and that the Moscow appears to be trying to favor one candidate over the other. Now, what Chris Murphy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told me yesterday, he said the intelligence services have come to very firm conclusions about what the Russians are up to and who is acting on behalf of the Russians.

In the briefings that I've received, there's no ambiguity about what the Russian's intentions is, and there's no ambiguity about what narrative they're pushing. And there's no ambiguity about the people they are pushing, using to push them in reference to apparently to an effort to try to get Republican-led committees that are investigating to go after the Biden's by -- from Ukrainian sources.

Now, Republicans are rejecting that or saying this part of a broader effort by Russia simply to sow discord in the elections. And they're also pointed China and Iran's efforts to interfere in the elections. This is what Lindsey Graham, the Senate Judiciary Committee told me yesterday. He also had a briefing. He says, it's pretty clear that foreign governments want to disrupt our elections, that the Iranians and Chinese don't have much love for Trump. The main thing is that they are playing in our backyard. And that's the big takeaway.

Now, all of these mirrors, the fight that happened in 2016, between the two sides in the run up to the elections, and you call, that the Democratic leaders were pushing for more information to be revealed. Republicans were pushing back. They ultimately agreed on a statement that has become a cause of controversy. And right now, similar issue, Democrats are demanding more information release, Jim, but --

SCIUTTO: Let's dig down, Manu. Let me dig down for a moment here because this is a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician that's feeding information to a Republican Senator Ron Johnson damaging to Joe Biden. Are you saying that Republicans are not acknowledging that that is foreign interference, Russian interference in the election claiming that it's somehow beneficial? Are they are they questioning that essential fact? RAJU: They're not saying that explicitly that they're questioning whether it's beneficial to Biden by pushing this foreign disinformation. They're questioning the overall motives of Russia saying it's more of an effort to sow discord more generally, among the American electorate. And they're also pointing to other foreign actors and saying that they're going after Trump. So you're seeing them sort of muddying the waters if that's what the Democrats would say. We'll see what the Intelligence Committee ultimately says in the coming weeks here.

SCIUTTO: Yes, tough to buy that one. Anyway, we'll go watch it closely.

HARLOW: Jim is so right. Manu, thanks very much. And we'll be right back.

[10:48:49]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Welcome back. Dozens of NFL players, dozens of them now say they will not play this season. They're going to opt-out because of coronavirus.

SCIUTTO: And what does that mean for the season? Coy Wire joins us with more. It is tackle football, how do you avoid spreading this disease?

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, trust me, Jim. And I know from playing nine years, it's going to be tough to prevent the spread of anything out there on that field. But the league is going to go on. But listen, the spokesperson for the NFL tell CNN that out of more than 2,800 players, a total of 66 chose to opt-out of playing at all this season by yesterday's deadline. Nearly half of them, Jim and Poppy, linemen, the biggest guys on the field, eight of them, New England Patriots who had the most of any team, and only three teams of the 32 did not have any players opt-out, the Falcons, Steelers and the Chargers.

Players considered high risk, they're going to be paid a $350,000 stipend, but players not considered high risk receive $150,000 as an advanced against money earned in future seasons. Kick off for the NFL set for Thursday, September 10th.

Let's go to the diamond, Major League Baseball announcing more than a dozen doubleheaders involving 10 teams will be played to make up for games postponed due to COVID, the Cardinals, Marlins and Phillies all have to make up a week's worth of games. And to bring it home, we've heard dozens of athletes opting out of playing due to COVID, but Atlanta Braves' Nick Markakis did initially but opted back in to do this, in his first game bat.

From opt-out to get out, a walkout homerun in the ninth to beat the Blue Jays. And look at the social distance friendly celebration. No hugging, no high fives, just dancing. If you want to know what Jim and Poppy look like on a Friday after work, it's a little bit like that. Just Dancing. They are normally doing high five enough, but just dancing for now.

[10:55:06]

HARLOW: We don't do that. We just want to stay here, all day long, all weekend, Coy Wire.

SCIUTTO: Fact-check.

HARLOW: Thank you, fact-check time. Thanks, Coy. And thanks to all of you for being with us today and all week, we hope you have a nice weekend. We'll see you here on Monday. I'm Poppy Harlow

SCIUTTO: And I'm Jim Sciutto, "Newsroom with Kate Baldwin" starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)