Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI) Discusses Biden Agenda Hanging in Balance as Democrats Bicker; North Korea Says It Successfully Tested Hypersonic Missile; Former Press Secretary Details Life Inside Trump White House in New Tell-All Book; Soon, Judge to Rule on Britney Spears' Conservatorship Case. Aired 1:30-2p ET
Aired September 29, 2021 - 13:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:30:00]
ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Right now, progressive Democrats in the House are threatening to vote against Biden's trillion-dollar bipartisan infrastructure bill, not because they don't agree with it, but because they want assurances.
Assurances that Senate moderates, Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema, will support a second even larger bill, the $3.5 trillion package. And that's the one that includes everything from climate change initiatives to health care spending.
Joining us now, a member of the Progressive Caucus, Congressman Dan Kildee, of Michigan.
Congressman, it's good to see you.
Are you a solid yes right now on the infrastructure bill regardless of what happens on this other big economic and climate package, the reconciliation bill?
REP. DAN KILDEE (D-MI): I'm a yes on the infrastructure bill. But I don't believe it will come to the floor until we have a good idea of what we can do in the Build Back Better agenda.
One of the areas of frustration is our two Senators Democrats who have done a good job of articulating what they're against have so far kept it a secret as to what they're for.
As soon as we know that, we can get this negotiation settled.
We have four big questions. We have the debt ceiling, we have keeping government open, we have the infrastructure bill, and we have the Build Back Better Act.
Three out of four of those are bipartisan. And we ought not use those areas of agreement in order to tank the president's agenda. And we certainly, as Democrats, shouldn't be participating in that.
CABRERA: First, are you of the mindset right now that there will not be a vote tomorrow on the infrastructure bill?
KILDEE: Well, I don't think there will be a vote. At least my advice has been to hold the vote when we can pass the bill.
(CROSSTALK)
KILDEE: It makes no sense in the majority to put a bill on the floor in order to see it go down in flames. It has no utility.
CABRERA: And --
KILDEE: So my advice has been let's bring that bill to the floor when we're confident we can pass it.
If it means we have to get more assurances from our friends in the Senate, that ought to be the focus of all this energy, not this infighting over a tactical question.
They really need to come clean with what they're willing to vote for.
CABRERA: You're talking about Manchin and Sinema in the Senate and their part in voting for the reconciliation bill. But that's down the road, right? That piece is down the road?
I know you want assurances and other members of your Progressive Caucus really want assurances. In fact, they are willing to say no or vote no on the current bipartisan bill that could up tomorrow if they don't have assurances.
At this point, as the chief Democrat whip in the House for Democrats, how many in your party are planning to vote no if there's a vote on the infrastructure bill without those assurances?
KILDEE: We don't have a good number. We really haven't been whipping it yet because we don't have a bill on the floor yet.
But I will say this. It seems to be enough to prevent us from moving forward at this point in time. So --
(CROSSTALK)
CABRERA: Do you have a ballpark?
KILDEE: No, I do not. I couldn't offer that. I know there are a good number of members in the Progressive Caucus that feel this way.
My view is this, when the bill goes to the floor, I'll vote for it.
But I'm confident that the speaker will come up with a strategy and has been working on a strategy that will get us the level of assurance that we can get in order to move forward.
What I don't like is the Senators saying pass the bill and then we'll tell you what we're for. That's not responsible.
They understand, if there's a trust gap, one of the ways to bridge that is to be transparent.
What I haven't seen so far is any indication of what those two Senators would vote for. If they can do that, then --
(CROSSTALK)
CABRERA: Right. I hear you say that, but it also falls on the House to do their part to pass legislation.
And the bipartisan infrastructure bill already passed in the Senate. So they could argue they've done their part on that legislation, which is also going to help every American.
Your colleague, Congressman Gonzalez, from Texas, told us that infrastructure bill provides $1 billion -- because it's a $1.2 trillion bill overall -- $1 billion to every member's district.
What do you fear if this all falls apart?
KILDEE: If it falls apart, obviously, we get nothing, and that's not acceptable. It's for that reason that I say, when this bill, the infrastructure bill, goes to the floor, I'll support it.
But I do think that while it is true that our Senate colleagues have said, we've done our part, now you do yours, they also passed a reconciliation framework with the understanding that they weren't sold on the top line of $3.5 trillion.
But that we could negotiate something that was more acceptable to them. So they can't simply say, well, we held up our half of the deal, you have to hold up your half. There's another piece of this that they are responsible for.
So I'm hoping that somehow the pressure that we're all feeling right now will also put them in a position where they have to do some work and tell us what they're actually willing to do.
[13:34:57]
CABRERA: Quickly, if you will, are you having any conversations with the progressive members of your caucus, the Progressive Caucus, in trying to get them from a no to a yes should the vote go through without a deal?
KILDEE: Well, if there's no deal, I don't think there will be a vote, and it won't pass.
CABRERA: Right.
KILDEE: So I let every member think for themselves and decide for themselves. I just want to make sure when they're doing that we all understand the full consequence of that action.
I do believe, if and when the bill goes to the floor, using the leverage they can use now is wise to an extent. But you can only use leverage until you don't have it anymore.
Once that piece of legislation is on the floor, then it's a policy question, do we want to do this or not? We still have to bank on faith that our friends in the Senate are
being sincere and actually will negotiate something that it an indication we can move forward on at least a portion of the Build Back Better Act and, hopefully, a substantial proportion.
CABRERA: Congressman Dan Kildee, appreciate your time. It's all complicated. Thanks for filling us in on what's happening.
KILDEE: Thank you.
CABRERA: It has the potential to make a nuclear-armed dictatorship much more dangerous. What we're learning about North Korea's new hypersonic missile, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:41:08]
CABRERA: A hypersonic missile -- that is what North Korea is claiming it tested yesterday.
And this is a huge deal because, if true, experts say the missile has the potential to be one of the world's fastest, most accurate weapons, and it could be fitted with a nuclear warhead.
With us now is Gordon Chang, author of "Losing South Korea" and also author of "Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World."
Gordon, if true, this could be a gamechanger. What is North Korea up to, do you think?
GORDON CHANG, AUTHOR: North Korea wants these weapons because it wants to intimidate South Korea into surrender.
It also wants to make sure that the United States, Japan and other countries don't come to the South's rescue.
So this is a part of their long-time plan to rule the entire Korean Peninsula.
CABRERA: I've heard that missiles can theoretically fly as fast as the speed of sound. It can be very maneuverable in flight. It could also be really impossible to shoot down.
What would that mean strategically for the U.S., Japan, South Korea, et cetera?
CHANG: It would mean, for instance, that our ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California would not work against North Korea's missiles. That means North Korea would be able to intimidate the United States.
Now the one that was tested on Tuesday flew 2.5 miles, twice, two and a half times the speed of sound. That's not very fast. But that's just the first test. And I'm sure they'll make substantial improvements. CABRERA: Why now? Is this Kim Jong-Un sort of challenging President
Biden right now as he's dealing with the Afghanistan fallout, the fights over his domestic political agenda?
Do you think it's a message intended for the U.S.?
CHANG: Well, usually, North Korean leaders will test a new American president in the early months. And part of this, as you know, we've seen in the last two weeks a number of missile tests, cruise missile tests and the ballistic missile test.
They're coming all at the same time. And I think they probably believe the Biden administration, for various reasons, is not going to challenge them, especially because, right now, the Biden team is involved not only in foreign issues elsewhere, but also domestic ones.
CABRERA: Gordon Chang, it's a pleasure to have you with us. Thank you for your insights and perspective. Good to see you.
CHANG: Thank you, Ana.
[13:43:27]
CABRERA: Damning details and a whole lot of them. The former White House press secretary and chief of staff to Melania Trump telling all in a new book, including how the former first lady tried to get back at her husband after allegations of an affair.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:48:28]
CABRERA: From terrifying temper tantrums to a sexualist and abusive work environment, that's reportedly what life was like inside the Trump White House according to allegations made in a new book "I'll Take Your Questions Now," written by former White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, who never did hold a press conference.
We're also learning Russia and Trump's so-called "tough stance" apparently wasn't so tough.
Joining us now is CNN's Kate Bennett.
Kate, you got an early copy of the book. You've read it. I'm so curious what it really revealed to us because there was so much drama during the Trump years. We all thought we had seen it all at that point.
KATE BENNETT, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, Stephanie Grisham had been with the Trump administration, one of the longest people, five years or so. So she really was in the East Wing and the West Wing of the president behind the scenes.
Of course, you know, she used to make her living sort of taking down the people that she's now asking to have believe her on all this. So it's very complicated. One of the things she does talk about is former President Donald
Trump's relationship with Vladimir Putin and his -- behind the scenes saying to him, when the cameras were off, hey, when the cameras go on, I'll be a little tough on you, but behind the scenes we're just fine.
This sort of back-handed stuff that we all sort of knew was going on, his admiration for Vladimir Putin, the sort of going easy on him while saying publicly no one is tougher on Russia than I'm that turned out not to really be case when they were alone together in 2019 at their bilateral.
[13:50:06]
So that was one of the revelations in Stephanie Grisham's book.
You know, overall, Ana, this is a book that talks about the toxic work environment of the White House, about a former president who was prone to temper tantrums, outbursts, calling people losers, pointing out their weaknesses.
She says he had a special talent for knowing someone's Achille's heel or their vulnerability and he would go after that when angry.
This was also someone that she says developed a taste for a particular young female press wrangler who worked in the White House. And that Trump would often call this girl, young woman back to his cabin in the plane. At one point, told others to point out a particular body part of hers.
So there was certainly an environment there that was toxic.
Of course, she also talks about the Trump marriage, a big curiosity for many Americans. And that allegations of Trump's affairs really sort of emboldened Melania Trump in her anger. She said, I don't really want any of this. It made her more independent, less joined with him.
And that, of course, created a really interesting dynamic in the first couple.
Donald Trump did push back on this book, though. He released a statement to CNN saying he doesn't believe it. He calls it garbage. He calls it left-wing rhetoric from left-wing publishers.
He denies it. And, of course, he's saying that the allegations that Grisham makes in the book simply are not true.
CABRERA: It's interesting.
(CROSSTALK)
CABRERA: Kate Bennett, appreciate it. Thank you for bringing it to us.
BENNETT: Thank you.
CABRERA: Britney Spears, her future and fight to end a 13-year conservatorship could come down to this moment.
Hours from now, a Los Angeles judge is deciding whether to keep the pop star's father, Jamie Spears, on as her conservator. He could be replaced or the conservatorship could be dissolved entirely.
Britney, you know, her fight for freedom sparked that whole Free Britney movement. She has called the arrangement abusive and exploitive.
Her father denies ever acting in anything other than his daughter's best interest.
Joining us now is Sara Azari. She's a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles.
Sara, good to see you.
How do you see this going today? Do you think we'll see the conservatorship lifted?
SARA AZARI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Look, there's two issues before the court today. As you said, one is to remove -- whether her father should be removed as conservator. And second is to, all together, terminate this conservatorship.
The latter is likely. I think her father is more likely to be removed. I think there's been a sufficient showing why he is not acting in her best interest.
She's trying to negotiate a prenup. And to the extent she has a conservator, that conservator will be heavily involved in that process.
We know her father has a conflict of interest with her. He has a toxic relationship with her. And so she wanted him out yesterday.
But with respect to the termination of the conservatorship itself, this is a process. It's not a one-stop type of hearing where you get that order.
It's a process to place this conservatorship in place, in the first place, back in the day, 13 years ago, due to a mental breakdown. The court determined she need ss conservator. By that same virtue, there's a process here.
The best analogy I can give you, Ana, is going from an ICU bed to your own bed. It doesn't happen that way. There's transitional care. There's a lower level of care.
And I think there needs to be a transition plan for Britney in place before this conservatorship ends.
So the court is either going to order a mental health evaluation and/or a mediation where the parties can sit together, they all agree that the conservatorship should end, but they need to come up with a plan. CABRERA: OK, so it might not be over and done, done at the end of
today, even if that conservatorship is lifted. It sounds like there's a bit of a process that takes place.
Over the summer, of course, Britney said she wanted to press charges against her father for her conservatorship, which she calls abuse, calling the arrangement cruelty.
I lot of people were surprised that Jamie Spears actually filed to end this conservatorship earlier this month.
Do you think was some kind of legal maneuver on his end to evade accountability?
AZARI: One-hundred percent. He knows. And Britney's attorneys made it very clear that there are depositions coming. There's discovery under oath.
And he does not want any accountability for what seems to be misappropriated monies over the course of this conservatorship.
So he thinks that the quicker this conservatorship is lifted, the easier he is going to go unscathed.
That's not going to be the case with this particular attorney that's representing Britney.
I think what's going to happen is there will be a deposition. There's going to be forensic accounting. He is going to have to return any monies that were misappropriated or misspent.
And to the extent that there was willfulness and criminal intent involved, he can be prosecuted under California law for conservatorship abuse, for adult abuse. So he remains exposed.
[13:54:57]
And I think, Ana, the most telling thing is, in a deposition, the first words out of Jamie's mouth, if he invokes his Fifth, then we know that he believes he's exposed.
CABRERA: OK. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds in the next couple of hours.
Sara Azari, thank you so much for being here.
AZARI: Thank you.
CABRERA: That does it for us today. We'll see you back tomorrow at 1:00 Eastern. In the meantime, join me on Twitter, @AnaCabrera.
The news continues next with Alisyn Camerota.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
