Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Vaccine Mandate Deadline; Insurrection Investigation; Infrastructure Negotiations. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired November 04, 2021 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:15]

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. Welcome to NEWSROOM. I'm Alisyn Camerota.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: And I'm Victor Blackwell.

It might happen this time. Speaker Pelosi says that...

CAMEROTA: You sure?

BLACKWELL: I'm not sure, but Speaker Pelosi says that she may put up for a vote the Build Back Better plan. This is at least the third time since September that this could happen.

That's a social safety net package. Sources say that she'd hoped to do it tonight, then a vote with a bipartisan infrastructure bill tomorrow. Now, just a short time ago, the speaker announced that a nonpartisan committee has validated that the $1.75 trillion package will be paid for.

The latest version of the larger bill includes family paid leave, medical leave, which had been scrapped earlier.

CAMEROTA: Now, adding it back is risky, since moderate Democratic Senator Joe Manchin opposes that measure. Still, the House majority whip, Jim Clyburn, is now trying to see if House Democrats have the votes for that bill.

CNN congressional correspondent Jessica Dean is on Capitol Hill for us.

So, Jessica, will they vote tonight?

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That is the question everyone is asking up here right now, Victor and Alisyn. And the answer is, we simply don't know yet.

We know that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants that Build Back Better vote tonight and is hoping for the bipartisan infrastructure vote tomorrow. But, Victor, as you said, we have been here before several weeks in a row, where they hoped they could get the votes, hoped they could get organized. And it didn't quite pan out the way they wanted.

So we are waiting to hear if they will vote on that. They have said they are whipping that vote. They are talking with members to see if they have got the votes. They don't want to bring it to the floor until they do.

So we wait to see how that transpires over the next hour, two or three up here on the Hill. Meantime, the Senate has one vote and they're leaving up for today. So they are on their way out of Capitol -- of the Capitol right now. So you might see some of them behind me.

Now, how this is paid for, what this is breaking down is, it's the bulk of the money is going to be coming from taxes on businesses, as you see there, and also taxes on high-income households, and then some other revenue builders there as well to get to their bottom line of what they're trying to create as far as revenue for all of this.

And then it comes down to what is in this bill. And as we have talked about, some things going in, coming out, vice versa. We know immigration continues to be the biggest sticking point right now. They have not found a way through on that. We do know that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as you mentioned, put paid leave back into the bill.

Here's what she said about that. We know also that Senator Joe Manchin is opposed. Listen to both of them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): I don't think it belongs in the bill. And I will tell you why.

That's a piece of legislation that really is needed from the standpoint, if we do it and do it right.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: You're going to vote no. You're going to vote against the plan to get it done now?

MANCHIN: John, I'm not saying what I'm going to vote. I haven't seen the bill yet. And you know we haven't even worked it in the Senate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: And it's important to note that Speaker Pelosi has changed her strategy on this. Originally, for weeks, she said she wanted to send the Build Back Better Act over to the Senate as something that would pass the Senate, so there wouldn't have to be changes made in it come back to the House.

And it underscores, hearing there from Pelosi and Manchin, that that is likely not going to happen. And what does that mean, Victor and Alisyn? This is going to stretch out longer, because now it's going to go from the House to the Senate and then have to pass the House again.

So that is a change in strategy. And that does change just how long this process will take. Now remember, as far as the bipartisan infrastructure bill, that's already made it through the Senate. It is simply waiting on a House vote. So as soon as the House can pass that, it will go to the president's desk -- Victor and Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Jessica Dean, thank you very much. Keep us posted as things change by the hour.

Let's bring in Dana Bash, our CNN chief political correspondent who co-anchors "STATE OF THE UNION."

Dana, before we get into the nitty-gritty of what's happening hour by hour, just from the 30,000-foot view, is this the lesson the Democrats are taking away from the election results this week, that they think they need to fast-track this Build Back Better bill, rather than thinking that maybe they have sort of missed the mark on some local issues?

And the reason I say this is because Joe Manchin, Senator Joe Manchin, had a very different takeaway from what the lessons learned for Democrats this week were. So here's him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANCHIN: We can't go too far left. This is not a center-left or a left country. We are a center, if anything, a little center-right country.

That's being shown. And we ought to be able to recognize that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: So where are we, Dana?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, he's not wrong if you look at the country holistically, and that's also a longer way of saying I told you so if you're Senator Joe Manchin, which is why he has been trying to be a one-man blockade, much to the derision of Democrats and progressives alike.

[14:05:11]

But one of the many reasons that he has been saying no, particularly when it was never mind $7 trillion, but even $3.75 trillion, is that he that argue, coming from a state where Donald Trump won by like 40 points, that that isn't the way that Democrats can win back and it's not the right prescription for the country.

So the answer to your question, Alisyn, is, Democrats who I talk to believe both. Both they do need to deliver. The big thing is the bipartisan infrastructure bill, but they believe, they argue wholeheartedly that passing a bunch of programs that will, from their perspective, make working people's lives easier, whether it is help with child care, or for seniors giving them help with hearing and -- well, probably right now, at the most it's hearing for Medicare, that that will relieve the burden on people feeling so awful.

Now, that's only one thing. The other thing that they understand is that they do have to address economic anxieties on a more day-to-day basis. But I'm not so sure. Maybe you to have heard. I'm not so sure how they are going to address that, because you still have the Biden administration trying to downplay the notion of inflation really being a determinative to thing, which is very different from how people feel when they're at the pump or at the grocery store.

BLACKWELL: Yes. No, haven't heard how they're going to address that.

And as you talk about one portion of the party, Blumenthal, Kaine, and others who say that the message is, we need to deliver, we need to get something done, you also have other Democrats.

I want to read something that Virginia Democrat member of Congress Abigail Spanberger said. She told "The New York Times" that: "Nobody elected the president to be FDR. They elected him to be a normal and stop the chaos," a reference to the former president.

She's essentially saying he, read the room, guys. Like, watch what happened on Tuesday and look around.

BASH: Yes. No, she's saying in different words, in different language what Joe Manchin said, what Alisyn just played.

And, look, it speaks to the really, really big difference in philosophies in approach within the Democratic Party. It is how they got to where they are in having control of Congress and the House and the Senate. If they didn't have a Joe Manchin, if he didn't exist, you can bet West Virginia would be represented by a Republican.

If a moderate like Abigail Spanberger didn't win in 2018 in her moderate to conservative district in Virginia, you can bet it would be represented by a Republican. So they're reflecting the people they represent.

That's what happens to you when you have a wide majority, and it's not even that wide, but if you have a big tent. And so as the progressives have gotten more numbers, and have become more bold in using those numbers for leverage, which is the story of what we have seen and the delay in these bills for weeks and weeks and weeks, you have seen the real ideological clash play out within the Democratic Party.

And what they're arguing is, OK, we have seen the clash. And now we know where the voters want us to go. Progressives aren't necessarily -- they're not there. They just are arguing that's just not true. It just hasn't been messaged right.

CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, speaking of one of the sticking points, so adding -- Speaker Pelosi adding back in the four weeks of paid family leave, Senator Joe Manchin, I think, says that that's a no-go for him. So is this an exercise in futility now?

BASH: Yes, it is. But it's also an exercise in politics and in strategy, because the reason why the speaker agreed to take out paid family leave of this larger package in the first place is because Joe Manchin told her that he's not going to say yes to this. He told it to the president, he told her directly, and every other Democratic leader that was negotiating with him.

But after the election on Tuesday night, she just decided, you know what, I'm just going to put in whatever I can to get passed, because it's what it's -- from her perspective, it's the right thing to do. Things are going to change in the Senate anyway, as we just heard from Jessica Dean. It's going to have to come back to the House.

So why not do what they want to do? And, by the way, on the raw politics of this, she clearly believes that it is an added benefit for Democrats who are on the front line who have to go home to their constituents and say, please reelect me, to be able to say, I voted yes for a bill that includes paid family leave, which is wildly popular even and especially among independents and some Republicans.

BLACKWELL: Now, when you say some Republicans, Senator Manchin said that it doesn't belong in the bill and is actually trying to negotiate with Republicans to try to get the support for a stand-alone bill for family -- paid family and medical leave.

[14:10:05]

Are there 10 votes, Republican votes out there for this?

BASH: Such a good question.

There's a lot of support for the notion of paid family leave within the Republican Party. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa supports the notion of it. Mike Lee of Utah supports it. Marco Rubio has a bill.

The question is how you get there and how is it devised? There are very, very, very different prescriptions for how to do that. They say we will do it through the Social Security Administration and delay Social -- if you're going to -- if I'm going to take paid family leave, when I have a baby, I will delay getting Social Security when I get older.

Then there are lots of other ideas to do a partnership with businesses to give businesses corporate tax rebates. So there is a lot of support for the idea of it, even among Republicans, because they are hearing from their constituents as well.

But once you get down to the sort of idea of, again, the philosophy of how to approach that, that's where the differences lie.

BLACKWELL: Yes, idea -- support for the idea, maybe not votes for a bill. So we will see if that moves forward.

BASH: Yes.

BLACKWELL: Dana Bash, good to see you.

BASH: So good to see you.

CAMEROTA: A federal judge today is considering former President Trump's request to keep roughly 700 pages of White House documents out of the hands of the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection.

Trump's legal team is trying to claim executive privilege.

BLACKWELL: Now, the judge immediately expressed some serious skepticism about the Trump team's argument, but also called Congress' request alarmingly broad.

CNN's Jessica Schneider is with us now.

So, what else do you hear from the judge?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, guys, Judge Tanya Chutkan, the district court judge in this case, she was extremely engaged throughout this almost-two-hour hearing.

She repeatedly challenged Trump's lawyers, but also she probed counsel for Congress about the fact that their demands did seem a bit to her overbroad. So, Judge Chutkan asked attorneys for Trump why she should even consider his lawsuit to keep those 700 pages out of the hands of the select committee, since he is the former president, and the current president, Joe Biden, has refused to assert executive privilege over those documents.

She also rebuffed Trump's lawyers assertion that there's no valid legislative purpose of the select committee and their requests for documents. She put it this way. She said: "Are you really saying that the president's notes, talking points, telephone conversations on January 6 have no relation to the matter on which Congress is considering legislation? The January 6 riot happened in the Capitol. That is literally Congress' house."

But Judge Chutkan also challenged the other side, acknowledging that some of these requests, in her words, while they do seem very narrowly tailored, some, in her words, were alarmingly broad. And she did say that there has to be some limit.

Now, Trump's lawyers, they kind of went over the top, according to the judge. They warned that if the document request was not blocked, it would open the door to partisanship. The judge then told him to dial down his rhetoric, especially as she and the lawyers for Congress pointed out most of the documents being requested actually belong to the presidency, the office of the president, and not the individual himself.

Of course, Trump is looking to block 700 pages. That includes records and working papers from his top advisers. It relates -- those papers relate to his false claims that the election was stolen and detailed a response to the attack on the Capitol, also included handwritten notes about January 6, also Trump's daily schedule, and White House visitor logs and call logs.

And the House counsel, it was interesting, they noted that part of what they want to find out here includes, were White House officials talking to groups, extremist groups, like the Proud Boys? And also what did the president know and when did he know it?

So, Alisyn and Victor, these documents right now are set to be handed over to Congress next Friday, unless a court steps in to stop that. The judge in this case, guys, she said that she would rule expeditiously. So it could come at any point. But even if she opens the door for these documents to be handed over next Friday, the Trump team could appeal this to the appellate level. Eventually, it could be blocked. They could go all the way up to the

Supreme Court. So I think for the next week or so it could be a game of chasing this through the courts to see if anyone will block this before it's due to be handed over to the select committee -- Alisyn and Victor.

BLACKWELL: All right, Jessica Schneider with all the details, thank you so much.

Let's now take it to CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

You also paid close attention to the hearing, the proceedings today. What stood out to you?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Victor, well, both of the substantive arguments that Donald Trump's lawyers went -- made today went very poorly for them.

They started off with executive privilege. The first thing that Trump's lawyers argued is, well, as a former president, he could still have some interest in asserting executive privilege. The judge jumped right in and said -- and I quote -- "Isn't the person best able to determine executive privilege the executive?"

[14:15:10]

And Trump's lawyer said, well, he was the executive, essentially. And then the judge came back and said, but these are not two equal parties here. The current president really takes precedence and trumps, no pun intended, the prior president.

The other main argument was this idea that Trump is arguing that the committee does not have a legitimate legislative intent, meaning they can't just investigate. They have to have some laws in mind, but Congress said, we're looking at various pieces of potential legislation, the Electoral Account Act, right, which how the Congress takes votes from the states, what the vice president's powers are, and other things.

And the judge said, they have told U.S. Congress has said, this is the legislation we're looking at. Who are you or I to question them?

So both of those arguments went exceedingly poorly for Trump's lawyers.

CAMEROTA: But do you think that the committee and their requests is overly broad?

HONIG: The judge certainly thinks so. More importantly, I mean, the phrase that the judge use was alarmingly broad.

And, to be clear, what she specified was mostly with respect to time frame. The judge said, your requests go back to April of 2020. Why do you need requests that go back that far? And at one point, the judge said, I completely understand why you need documents relating to January 6, and January 5, and 4, 2021. But why do you need to go back to April of 2020?

The lawyer for the House said, well, that's when Trump started tweeting about election fraud. But the judge seemed skeptical of that. The judge seemed to think that's a bit much. So it could be that the judge says, I agree with Congress, you get the documents, but we need to set some sort of more narrow timing cutoff here.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

You have argued similar cases. Where do you think this goes?

HONIG: I think the judge is going to rule in favor of Congress. I think that was quite clear today.

I would -- it's always a risky game predicting what judges will do. But I think it is virtually certain that the judge rules in favor of Congress, meaning Congress gets these documents, perhaps a little bit of a narrower date range, and then it will be a rush to the Court of Appeals. Trump's lawyers will go right up to the court of appeals, say, you have to pause this, Court of Appeals, pause the district court, and you, Court of Appeals, now need to take this up.

I think that's the next step.

CAMEROTA: And then it could go even higher.

HONIG: Could go up to the Supreme Court. And I do think it's really important to note this judge, Judge Chutkan, other federal judges need to take an example from her. I mean, this lawsuit was filed two weeks ago. And here we are. Both sides have done long, very good, comprehensive briefs. We had argument today.

Judges can do this, right? They're going to get this decision done probably in, all told, less than three weeks. So, future federal judges, appellate judges, take a lesson here. Let's get this done quickly, whoever may win or lose.

CAMEROTA: That's such a great point, because we also often hear in cases like this, well, this will be clogged in the courts for -- indefinitely.

No, you're saying it can happen.

HONIG: People say that like it's a fact of nature, but it's just up to the judges. They're human beings like us. They can move quickly if they need to.

CAMEROTA: Yes. Elie Honig, thank you.

BLACKWELL: All right.

HONIG: Thank you both.

CAMEROTA: Also, make sure to join Jake Tapper for CNN's new special report, "Trumping Democracy: An American Coup." That's tomorrow night at 9:00 only on CNN. BLACKWELL: President Biden's new vaccine mandate affects nearly two-

thirds of American workers. What you need to know about the new January 4 deadline to get the shot.

CAMEROTA: And the disturbing joke that got a juror removed from the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:22:42]

CAMEROTA: The Biden administration officially setting a deadline for its national vaccine mandates. By January 4, all private businesses with 100 or more employees, certain health care workers and federal contractors will need to be fully vaccinated, or, if they're not, they have to provide a negative test every week and wear a mask in the workplace.

BLACKWELL: Now, that test-out option is not applicable to federal employees or health care workers whose employee accepts Medicare or Medicaid.

In all, this mandate impacts nearly two-thirds of all American workers.

CNN senior White House correspondent Phil Mattingly is with us now.

So, the big question is, how does the White House enforce all of this when it's enacted in a couple of months?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, no question about it.

Look, guys, this is -- these are the details that have been highly anticipated since President Biden announced this vaccine requirement for all large companies back in September. Now we know what it's actually going to entail. And, as Alisyn noted, for companies over 100 employees, would reach about 86 million people.

You add on the other regulation, emergency regulation related to health care workers, in total, covering more than 100 million workers across the United States. And, Victor, you asked about how you would actually not just implement, but enforce.

A couple of things to point out from that rulemaking today. It would include the violators could face fines roughly around $14,000. Fines could increase if they felt like companies were pursuing willful violations. When it comes to health care workers and health care facilities in particular, they could lose access to Medicare or Medicaid payments, planned compliance inspections for some workplaces via OSHA, which they usually do or regularly do.

I think what you hear from government officials is worker complaints will also be a very large component of this. And the implementation and the enforcement of this is obviously critical, as the administration moves forward on this. And you guys recall very well the president has been candid. This was not necessarily something he wanted to pursue, went more than a year or almost a year basically saying he didn't want to mandate anything. He didn't want to impose requirements.

But given the push for vaccinations and given the reticence in some quarters to get vaccinated, the administration has gone full go in this direction.

It's something that president alluded to in a statement today, saying -- quote -- "As we have seen with businesses large and small across all sectors of our economy, the overwhelming majority of Americans choose to get vaccinated. There have been no mass firings and worker shortages because of vaccination requirements, despite what some have predicted and falsely assert. Vaccination requirements have broad public support."

[14:25:08]

A couple things to take apart there. If you look at the polling, that is an accurate statement. If you look anecdotally at individual companies that have imposed vaccine requirements over the course of the last several months, the White House seems to believe and it seems to be backed up by the CEOs of those companies that there haven't been mass resignations in any way, shape or form.

Now, guys, the expectation is very clear that there will be legal challenges by some Republican attorneys general from the certain Republican states. Administration officials feel confident this will stand up to any of those challenges at this point. It's in large part why they're pursuing it. But this is obviously been a hot button political issue now for several weeks now.

And I think it's important to note, when you talk to administration officials, they make clear they believe these federal rules will preempt any state rules as they stand at this moment, including any bans on vaccination mandates or requirements going forward.

So they think this will not only stay in place, it will survive legal challenge, but, perhaps most importantly, they believe it will ramp up vaccinations as the administration continues that push they have been aggressively pursuing over the course of the last couple of months, guys.

BLACKWELL: All right, Phil Mattingly for us at the White House, thank you very much.

And now that kids ages 5 to 11 are eligible to be vaccinated, our friends from "Sesame Street" -- yes, we have friends on "Sesame Street."

CAMEROTA: A lot of them.

BLACKWELL: Yes, they are back now on CNN for a new town hall.

Join Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Erica Hill, Big Bird and the crew to get answers to your questions. "The ABCs of COVID Vaccines," a CNN/"Sesame Street" town hall for families, starts Saturday morning at 8:30.

CAMEROTA: Setting my alarm right now.

OK, a juror suddenly dismissed from the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. We have the disturbing reason why.

BLACKWELL: And a New Jersey truck driver is close, close to unseating one of the state's most powerful elected Democrats.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:30:00]