Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Democrats Circulate $2.1 Trillion Compromise; Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA) Is interviewed about the Reconciliation Bill; Kavanaugh Tests Positive for COVID; New Bodycam Video of Petito-Laundrie Dispute; Casey Jordan is Interviewed about the Petito Video. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired October 01, 2021 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Vaccinated. CNN's coverage continues right now.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A very good Friday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

Erica, I'd like to say, the weekend's already starting but there's still a little news to come, maybe, or to follow, at least.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Erica Hill.

I have to watch your lips, Jim, because I couldn't hear you, but good morning. Happy Friday, my friend.

Boy, it was a long night in Washington, but here's the number to focus on this morning, maybe, 2.1 trillion. Could that actually be the magic number? Well, this hour, House lawmakers reconvening after late night negotiations ended in no deal, right? No deal in sight right now on President Biden's sweeping economic proposal because that 2 trillion number isn't sitting well with Senator Joe Manchin. Of course, he's a little closer to 1.5.

SCIUTTO: Will they negotiate?

Also, there was no vote overnight on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. That vote was delayed again, which puts real pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She failed to unite her caucus. Some 11th hour tactics may allow her to bring it to the floor today. Officially, it's still Thursday on the House floor, by the way, because they didn't adjourn. But progressives are refusing to budge unless that larger social policy proposal, the budget, is in place.

That has President Biden working closely this morning with negotiators on Capitol Hill to try to secure an outline on his massive domestic agenda, also to count votes. That's crucial.

Let's begin in Washington. CNN's Sunlen Serfaty is on Capitol Hill this morning. Arlette Saenz standing by at the White House.

Sunlen, somehow it's still Thursday based on House rules there. I mean are they close enough to make a deal to come some sort of vote in the next 24 hours or are the sides too far apart?

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're -- this is certainly, Jim, a very, very critical moment, and definitely a fragile moment as well. So while there is some hope on this new proposal that the White House and Democratic leaders are throwing out, there's some hope but there also is a reality check that the sides are still very far apart.

Now, the proposal that they have floated is $2.1 trillion for the social spending bill. That's notably down from where they were before, $3.5 trillion. And, notably, this is not a final proposal, there's nothing formal to it. But the negotiators this morning are hoping that that can serve as a baseline for all the other elements of what actually will be included in the final bill to come together.

Now, here's what Congresswoman Debbie Dingell said this morning about the landscape up here on The Hill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): Look, it's not been -- I've called it at the beginning of the week, it was going to be a week from hell, and it is. But I'm going to tell you something different. I'm actually seeing people talk to each other, to listen to each other, to hear different perspectives, to legislating. And I think that that's actually a good thing. I don't believe we'll leave here until we do get this figured out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: Now, there will be a key moment in just about an hour, at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time. House Democrats are going to be huddling in a caucus meeting. This is a chance for the House Democratic leaders to brief their members on the latest progress of the negotiations, also to take the temperature of their members and key, of course, what progressives think about that new proposal being floated, can they -- are they OK with that potential $2.1 trillion new proposal. So a lot still up in the air, Jim and Erica, and so much still left to be determined if they can get over a finish line.

HILL: Yes, everybody waiting and watching.

Meantime, Arlette, President Biden here -- we know his agenda, at this point, is life support -- is on life support. Are we going to see a little bit more action from the president and inside the White House this morning based on where things are on Capitol Hill?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erica, the White House says that they are ready to get back to the negotiating table right this morning as they are hoping to ease this Democratic standoff over the president's domestic agenda. Overnight, late into the night, President Biden and his top officials were working both here at the White House and over on Capitol Hill, trying to reach some type of an agreement with those lawmakers. But so far that deal does not appear to be in sight just yet. Now, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has said that there has

been real progress made over the course of the past week in negotiations and argues that they are closer than ever to an agreement. But right now one of the questions is, what can president -- what more can President Biden do to try to get this across the finish line?

Now, President Biden's schedule for the day, right now, the public schedule is clear, that will allow him to make more phone calls over the course of the day, similar to what we've seen play out over the course of the past week.

There is also the possibility that the president could host lawmakers here at the White House or decide to go up to Capitol Hill, to try to push those Democrats to come together on these measures.

[09:05:00]

The White House has indicated that those possibilities do remain.

But so much of what the president is hoping to accomplish in the course of the next two days -- or few days will boil down to some of his negotiating skills. The president really prides himself as being a master negotiator. Someone who is able to strike deals. You just saw him do that with that bipartisan infrastructure proposal. But now it is the warring factions of the Democratic Party that the president will have to stay attuned to.

The president hoping that he can bring both those moderates and progressives together in order to get his agenda across the finish line, even as, at this moment, it could be in jeopardy if there isn't some type of an agreement that is reached in the coming days or weeks or months if it even extends that long.

HILL: And so we watch and we wait, right?

Arlette Saenz, Sunlen Serfaty, appreciate the reporting. Thank you both.

And joining me now to discuss, Democratic Congressman Scott Peters of California. He's a member of the House Budget Committee and the Problem Solvers Caucus.

Good morning. Good to have you with us.

Late night, early morning here in some ways. And as we look at where things stand this morning, learning more about this letter from Senator Manchin that Leader Schumer had for some time. Do you feel, across the board, that leadership has been transparent in this process?

REP. SCOTT PETERS (D-CA): Well, first of all, thanks -- thanks for having me. Good morning. I'm excited that we might get to vote on the infrastructure bill today. And what I'm excited about too is that it looks like what we've been looking for all along is really happening this week. And I think the speaker called it a period of intensity but people are talking to each other.

And this is hard. It's going to be hard. It takes a lot of work to get to an agreement. But we're not -- we don't have an agreement at 3.5, or 2.1 or 1.5. Let's just remember, we're at zero until we pass something. So I hope we get this bipartisan infrastructure bill passed today. That's a big part of the president's agenda. It's very important for roads and bridges, public transit, energy, water -- clean water. Let's get that passed today and then let's take the time we need to get an agreement, particularly in the Senate, where I think we have to have 50 on the next big package, which will also be historic.

HILL: So -- so in terms of that time, taking the time we need, as you said, you know, initially as the only Democrat to vote against advancing the $3.5 trillion reconciliation plan, part of the concerns I know that you cited were not just the spending, but also the speed at which this was moving. So is there -- do you have in your mind that idea of just how much time you really need, that lawmakers need to hammer this out that there are some hard details there for lawmakers to look at?

PETERS: Yes, well, Erica -- yes. Erica, what I said in the Budget Committee is played out this week, which is, we did not have a bill. We didn't really have a bill that could pass the Senate, where there's agreement in the Senate. And there's a lot of detail.

Look, the bipartisan infrastructure framework took, I think, five and a half months to do. And we've been trying to do a $3.5 trillion bill or something certainly going to be larger than the infrastructure bill in five weeks. It needs more time. And, obviously, we haven't reached a point where we're agreeing on -- and not necessarily the top number -- the top line number, we need to agree what the programs are and what that we're going to pay for and how we're going to pay for them. And we should be -- not be surprised that that's going to take some time and it's going to take some hard work. People are putting in that time. I'm willing to do the hard work to get to an agreement. And I think it's really important for the president that we do both bills.

HILL: To that point, has it been frustrating to you then that there have been deadlines put on these measures moving forward without the details which, as you point out, you have been calling for?

PETERS: Well, I think, you know, I was referring to back when I was in school, a deadline always helped you get the work in. And I think the one thing we've had with this vote on infrastructure is the sense that we have to get something done before then. I don't know what kind of framework they're going to come up with, you know, whether that's going to be sufficient to convince people to come along or whether, you know, actually they're going to have an agreement at all. I think it would be hard to get to an agreement today.

But I would say, look, this is what we need to have happen. It should -- we can say it should have been happening a long time ago. I think it probably would have been better if we started earlier. But the point is now, we're at -- we're at the table, we're working and we have time to get this done. And it will be historic. HILL: You know, as you look at being at the table, now you're working,

again, I'm going to go back to this letter that we learned about from Senator Manchin, that Leader Schumer knew about. There's been so much talk about we need a framework, we need numbers, we need specifics, right, from Senators Manchin and Sinema, whether that's a number or specifics of what need to be in this reconciliation plan so that you will know when it makes it to the Senate that can pass.

I just go back to, do you feel there's been enough transparency in terms of what was known and perhaps had not been discussed? I think that's, you know -- it has a lot of people scratching their heads this morning.

PETERS: You know, I -- like I said, I wish -- I wish that this had happened earlier. But, remember, we're not at 3.5, we're not at 6 trillion, we're at zero until we pass something.

[09:10:02]

So I think it's in everyone's interest to talk to everybody. And I -- if -- if someone wasn't talking to any senator, because you need all 50, about where they were, I think that was a mistake.

Fortunately now, though, going forward, that's happening and those are hard conversations. It takes a lot of work to get to an agreement. But it seems to me that democrats are united in wanting to tackle these challenges, both in this infrastructure bill, which I hope we pass today, and in the Build Back Better Act.

HILL: Really quickly, before I let you go, you talk about, you know, sort of who's talking to whom. Do you think the president has been talking to the right people thus far?

PETERS: I sense that that's happening now too. I mean, you know, remember, you don't just talk to the people who agree with you, particularly when the margins are so slim. You have to talk to the people who have a different point of view. You have to listen more than proclaim. I think that's happening now and I'm very encouraged by it. I'm not sure what kind of an agreement we'll have today but we will have an agreement as Democrats to pass something historic and I'm looking forward to passing both this bill today and the Build Back Better Act.

HILL: Congressman Scott Peters, thanks for being with us this morning.

PETERS: Thank you.

HILL: Jim.

SCIUTTO: This important update, just in to CNN, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has tested positive for COVID-19. We should mention he is fully vaccinated. This is important, though, because the Supreme Court's term is set to begin on Monday.

Ariane de Vogue, of course, covers the Supreme Court.

Ariane, could this delay the start of the upcoming term?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: No, it's not likely to delay it, but it is interesting. He has tested positive for COVID. The court was set to meet later on today for the ceremonial swearing in of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. But they just released this statement, let me read to you just the top of it here. It says on Thursday, per the court's regular testing protocols, Justice Kavanaugh had a routine COVID test ahead of Justice Barrett's investiture on Friday. On Thursday evening, Justice Kavanaugh was formed that he had tested positive for COVID-19. He has no symptoms and has been fully vaccinated since January.

And as you said, this comes as the court is set to take the bench on Monday. They haven't actually been together in that courtroom for over a year because of COVID. They had come up with extensive protocols, limited the people in the audience, some of the media has to take COVID testing ahead of time to ward off that.

What I imagine will happen is maybe Kavanaugh would still be able to participate, maybe telephonically, although the court hasn't said anything.

But it comes at an interesting time when the court has done everything it could given this COVID outbreak. It seems like he now has become one of the victims of the COVID that you can get even though you're vaccinated. A breakthrough symptom.

SCIUTTO: We should note, extremely rare for those breakthrough cases to lead to hospitalization.

DE VOGUE: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Ariane de Vogue, thanks so much.

DE VOGUE: Thanks.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead this hour, a new pill to treat COVID could be on the way, and the company that makes it says it can cut the risk of death in half.

HILL: Plus, some New York City public school teachers now asking the Supreme Court to step in just hours before a vaccine mandate takes effect. We'll speak with the head of the Teachers Union.

But, first, new body cam video released from that encounter between Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie with police in Utah. Hear what she says in this newly released video about how their fight played out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:46]

HILL: New body cam video obtained by CNN shows Gabby Petito confirming fiance Brian Laundrie hit her. She then, though, tries to seemingly downplay his actions and place more of the blame on herself.

SCIUTTO: Yes, a classic pattern, right, when you have domestic abuse like this.

The couple was stopped by police in Moab, Utah, after a witness actually called 911, reporting that witnesses had seen a man hit a woman.

Here's part of what Petito told officers. And we should note, this is just days before she disappeared.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GABBY PETITO: Well, to be honest, I literally hit him first.

OFFICER: Where did you hit him?

PETITO: I slapped him in the face (ph).

OFFICER: You slapped him first? And then -- just on his face?

PETITO: And he (INAUDIBLE) told me to shut up.

OFFICER: How many times did you slap him?

PETITO: A couple.

OFFICER: And then what -- and then his reaction was to do what?

PETITO: He grabbed my arm and so I wouldn't slap him.

OFFICER: He just grabbed it?

PETITO: Yes.

OFFICER: Did he -- did he hit you, though? I mean -- I mean it's OK if you're saying you hit him and then I understand if he hit you, but we want to know the truth if he actually hit you, because, you know --

PETITO: Well, I guess -- I guess. Yes, but I hit him first.

OFFICER: Where did he hit you? Don't -- don't worry. Just be honest.

PETITO: Well, he like grabbed my face and was like -- like this. He didn't like hit me in the face, like he didn't like punch me in the face or anything.

OFFICER: Did he slap your face or what?

PETITO: Well, like he grabbed me like with his nail and I guess this is why it looks -- I definitely have a cut right here because I can feel it.

Can I have a ticket for hitting the curb? Or something, please? Because we're OK, like we're just (INAUDIBLE).

OFFICER: I understand, but we don't have -- we don't have -- like, listen, if I had any discretion in this, I would separate you guys for the day and just give you warning to stop hitting each other. But I lawfully don't have discretion here. I -- I don't have any --

PETITO: Is it only because somebody said something -- like a witness said something?

OFFICER: There's two witnesses and then there's what you said and what he said. But, guess what, it all matches nicely that -- that you are the primary aggressor --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: I can only imagine what watching that is like for her family.

We're also hearing more from the 911 caller about what that caller saw of the altercation.

CNN national correspondent Nadia Romero has more on this.

Nadia, I mean, you know, what we're seeing in a lot of these interactions before her disappearance, it appears to be a pattern, right?

[09:20:02]

Perhaps a violent relationship.

But what did we learn specifically from the 911 caller in addition to this video?

NADIA ROMERO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and, Jim, you talk about that pattern. And remember just last week was the memorial that her family and friends held for her in Long Island. And both her father and stepfather alluded to the fact that she may have been in a toxic relationship, pleading with people in Gabby's memory to get out of relationships that aren't good for them. So we did hear her family speak about that issue. And we know that there was an altercation at a restaurant and now having new body cam video from Moab, Utah, seeing the clearer picture of what happened on that day, on August 12th.

And you heard the officers say that he doesn't have much discretion. That something had to be done because they were called. Now, Utah is one of about 20 states where someone is supposed to be arrested. If there is a domestic dispute, police come out and there are a few circumstances, like if they believe that the abuse may continue, if there's a high likelihood of repeated abuse.

In this case we know that neither Gabby Petito or Brian Laundrie were arrested. But this is what the 911 caller told police, why they called police and what they saw.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WITNESS: And what I noticed was, it seemed like they were sort of squabbling over a phone. I want to say that he was trying to grab her phone. And I'm not sure exactly why. And then it seems like he had sort of walked to one side of the van and sort of wasn't letting her in it. And then the make was stepping into the driver's seat. And she was trying to get into the van and he just said something about, why are you being so mean, something like that. And I -- I remember she sort of hit him a few times. And it wasn't like slugs in the face, but just kind of like -- like -- kind of like two kids kind of fighting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMERO: So you heard there the caller describing why he felt it necessary to call police and police arrived. So Gabby Petito, Brian Laundrie were separated and Laundrie went to a hotel overnight. And that whole incident is now under an independent investigation.

Jim. Erica.

SCIUTTO: Goodness. Just, just gutting to see these interactions prior to this.

Nadia Romero, thanks very much.

OK, so what does this all mean? Were warning signals missed?

Here with us now, criminologist Casey Jordan.

It's good to have you on, Casey.

And, listen, I know police are confronted with domestic violence every day. I mean they have to insert themselves into these situations. They have to make judgement calls. And, by the way, there's the law, right? I mean the law allows them to do some things in certain circumstances and not in others.

In your view, when you look at this particular interaction, but also others, did they have enough evidence to intervene more than they did?

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST AND ATTORNEY: They definitely had enough evidence to arrest them both.

SCIUTTO: Wow.

JORDAN: Which in retrospect -- and, of course, you -- you hate to Monday morning quarterback -- may have actually been the best thing because it would have given them the break away from each other that they may have needed so that Gabby could have gotten it together a bit.

You know, from that angle, we've seen this before from different angles, I take away a few things. I see that Brian is using what we call duper's delight. When he talks to the cops, he's got this smirky smile on his face.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JORDAN: He's laughing. He's going, I don't have a phone. If -- if -- if she gets in the van and drives away, oh, my gosh, I'm the victim. Where will I go? And they're buying it. They're taking everything he says at face value, when, of course, we know he has a phone.

And interestingly enough, they say, he was trying to take the phone away from her. I think it was her phone. And I -- when -- the more you hear her talk and you hear the witness say, he was -- he had the keys away from her, he had taken her phone, he was trying to close the door and drive away from her, she's freaked out because she's about to be abandoned. And yet all you see is her crying and taking all the blame, saying she slapped him first because she doesn't want him to go to prison.

SCIUTTO: Wow.

HILL: It's -- it's -- I say in that video, too, what really struck me is, I was just focused, you know, watching her, and hearing her say he told me to shut up, and I think, you know, you also have to factor in that for anybody who's sitting in the back of a police cruiser, right, this is a -- this is an emotional, difficult moment. And it's -- and it's likely to -- to stress you out in other ways.

But I'm wondering, do you see more than just that? And -- and based on what you're saying prior, Casey, I think that you do, just in terms of her demeanor, the words that she's using, the way that she's describing the other encounters is not just about on taking responsibility, but it almost seems like, well, he was just grabbing my face and he didn't -- he didn't hit me. He wasn't hitting me. And there was this but I think it was an accident. That comes into play too with this picture that you're painting.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JORDAN: Absolutely. And everything you say, Erica, is her minimizing the situation. And really she's -- she wants them to get tickets, but mostly I think she's concerned about if he gets arrested, what will happen to her later.

They ask her the question, did he hit you? She says, I guess, yes. And they don't pursue that. He says -- well, he grabbed my face and he squeezed but, didn't he didn't punch me. Minimizing. Minimizing. Did he slap you? She doesn't answer that question, even though the 911 caller said he saw the male slapping the female.

[09:25:02]

So they have labeled her the primary aggressor. And she is just distraught. She can't stop crying. He's 20 feet away smirking. And, obviously, you know, the 911 phone call said that he was the primary aggressor. So there was more that needed to be sussed out. And it wasn't going to happen as long as they were in each other's presence.

I actually think, in retrospect, arrests may have been the best thing. And it was the policy. It could have happened.

SCIUTTO: I've got to ask you, Casey, though. She's a small, young woman. OK, he's bigger than her. He's grabbed her face and drawn blood. How can an officer in those circumstances deem her the primary aggressor? I don't care what the sequence of events is. I mean you watch that. I mean it turns my stomach to watch it.

JORDAN: Well, these officers are trained to ask very specific questions to determine who is the primary aggressor. They are not necessarily trained or told that they should be determining whether the person is lying or under duress or has been coerced. They just listen to the words, calculate and go, based on all the words I'm hearing, you're the primary aggressor. So, unless you -- you know, unless you want us to arrest you, would you prefer that we just write you a ticket or just send you on your way and do the eight hour cooling off period, which I always need to point out is the worst possible thing you can do in these situations. We've know this for 50 years from the Minneapolis experiment, you don't separate them for eight hours, they just go back even worse.

SCIUTTO: Wow.

HILL: Casey Jordan, appreciate it, as always. Thank you.

Just ahead here -- just ahead, a potential game changer in the fight against COVID-19. Pharmaceutical giant Merck just announcing promising results from the first antiviral pill to treat COVID. We've got those details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)