Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Ally Steve Bannon Indicted For Contempt Of Congress; Judge Becomes Polarizing Figure In Homicide Case; Americans Face Sticker Shock As Inflation Hits 30-Year High; Former Raiders Coach Jon Gruden Sues NFL Over Leaked Emails. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired November 13, 2021 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:59:53]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: Check this out. The Rockefeller Christmas tree arrived this morning in New York City. This year's tree is a 79-foot Norway spruce weighing 12 tons. It will be decked out with more than 50,000 colored lights and topped with a Swarovski star weighing 900 pounds. We'll see it all lit up during an official lighting ceremony on December 1st.

This year's tree came from Elkton, Maryland about 150 miles away from here in Washington. It was donated by a couple who had it standing in their yard for 85 years. Can you imagine that?

And after it was cut down, a sprouting baby tree was immediately planted in the place where it once stood. Remarkable to see the tree there coming to Rockefeller Center. Can't wait.

And you're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

The January 6 committee wants answers about the insurrection and their power just levelled up. A federal grand jury has now indicted former Trump Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress after he ignored a subpoena and refused to turn over documents to the select committee. He now has an arrest warrant and is expected to turn himself in on Monday.

This news obviously serious for Bannon, but also for others who have been defying these subpoenas and have been subpoenaed and have been considering taking Bannon's lead.

Committee member Adam Schiff issued this warning. We put this up on screen. It says, "Let this send a message to all those with knowledge of the attack on our democracy. The days of defying subpoenas with impunity are over. We will expose those responsible for January 6. No one is above the law."

The only missing thing at this point -- there's a lot missing -- and at Mark Meadows, Trump's former White House chief of staff skipped out on a deposition Friday just hours before Bannon was indicted.

CNN's Evan Perez joins me now. Evan, what the committee is basically saying about Meadows at this point is, you know, watch what we did with Steve Bannon. And this is coming -- this is potentially coming for you. You can cooperate or not. It's up to you.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right. I mean I think the gamble they're making or I think the effort here is that they believe mark Meadows is going to probably take a different tack than Steve Bannon, who you know, I think he feels standing up to this committee and is good for his podcast, his career.

Mark Meadows is a different guy. He's a former member of Congress and 30 days in jail may not sound so great to him. And so they're hoping that he arrives at a different conclusion.

We heard a little bit from the committee though about what they believe is missing here. And I will put up just a part of what they said yesterday.

"Mr. Meadows has failed to answer even the most basic questions including whether he was using a private cell phone to communicate on January 6th and where his text messages from that day are."

And Jim, you know, this is something we saw in the Russia investigation, the Mueller investigation. There were people who the FBI wanted to talk to who mysteriously had thrown away, you know, thrown away their communications devices or used encrypted or destroyed them.

And so some of the answers this committee believes perhaps are hidden that way and maybe will never be found.

ACOSTA: And -- but people have actually spoken with the committee up until this point. I mean the committee has information.

PEREZ: There's a lot of information.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: I mean they are gathering --

PEREZ: They have.

ACOSTA: -- a lot of information.

PEREZ: And that's part of what's interesting here is that some former Trump officials have gone into this committee, including former Justice Department officials who have painted a very, very dark picture of those key days around January 6th when the president was trying to get the Justice Department to weigh in on his side, to say that there was fraud in various states. And to set the stage for something bigger on January 6th.

But for January 6th to have been even worse, right, unless those people stood up, but here's a list you see. About three dozens subpoenas have gone out. But in addition to some of the Justice Department officials, you have some people who voluntarily, including Alyssa Farah, who was a communications official at the White House. But you can see that list right there is a list of people who have essentially formed a wall of silence so far.

ACOSTA: all right. Evan Perez, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

And for more on this, I'm joined by former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, Nick Akerman. Nick, thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate it.

Do you think this indictment will scare these other uncooperative Trump allies like Mark Meadows into playing ball? I mean is this -- I mean have they circled the wagons here?

NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: I think they've circled the wagons. I think tis -- certainly, this indictment is important, but if the goal of the committee is to get people to cooperate, to comply with the subpoenas, provide documents, this is by far not the optimum choice that they had.

[17:04:57]

AKERMAN: The way to get these people to cooperate would be to invoke their civil contempt powers, which is kind of counterintuitive in the sense that we have a criminal prosecution.

And what I'm saying is under the civil contempt powers, they could have sent the sergeant at arms out and the congressional paddy wagon, picked up Steve Bannon, thrown him in jail and kept him there until he agreed to cooperate.

The problem with the current indictment is it's going to go through the regular process of a criminal prosecution. He's going to be arraigned on Monday. There's going to be discovery, documents are going to be asked for. The government will turn things over. There's going to be pretrial motions.

All of this is going to take time. Steve Bannon will not see a jail cell for a long time. He's probably going to be given bail under our bail statute.

So if the committee really wants to send the right message, they've really got to be using this civil contempt proceeding that they have all the right to use. They can bring people in. They can put them in prison. They can bring them before the committee if the person refuses to testify. They can keep them in prison if they refuse to testify because they assert their Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination.

They have the power to give him immunity. And if he then doesn't cooperate, they can still keep him in jail. That is really the hammer that they have that they should have used.

And what concerns me is why didn't they use it? Is it because the committee is afraid of political blowback from the Trump people? I mean, that's what really concerns me. And it's not just the committee. It's also the Department of Justice. What we do know from this whole process is that the Department of Justice has not subpoenaed Trump's presidential records.

They've indicted over 700 people on the insurrection, for being on the Capitol steps on January 6th, but yet they have not asked for those documents.

ACOSTA: And you've seen this play out before. I mean, this is right out of the stall-and-delay playbook, right? I mean that's the name of the game here for the Trump team.

AKERMAN: Absolutely. And the criminal prosecution gives them a little more opportunity to pull the old stall-and-delay tactic. The fact that the Department of Justice isn't asking for these documents means that they can try and run out the clock until the Republicans think they're going to take over Congress in the midterms and then disband the committee.

And then where are we with these documents? Are they still going to be pending motions before the United States Supreme Court.

Whereas the Department of Justice could keep this going and turn this into a criminal investigation. I mean keep in mind, the committee' sole purpose here is to recommend legislation and to do things to protect the security of congress.

The goal of the Department of Justice is punitive. It's to punish people for what they did.

ACOSTA: Right.

AKERMAN: Now, clearly, Bannon could be punished for what he did. It's certainly not a resume builder to be under federal indictment. Although --

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: Yes. Well, I think it is -- I think it is for him. I think he sees it that way.

AKERMAN: Exactly.

ACOSTA: I think he sees it -- he sees himself as, you know, like the next Nelson Mandela or something. It's just totally absurd. But that's how he's going to play it up to the public.

I want to ask you about this because I spoke with Trump's former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, a short time ago. Here's what she said about secret meetings held by Trump and the role that Meadows played, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows played in those meetings. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANIE GRISHAM, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president at the time was so paranoid of leaks that a lot of our meetings took place in the residence. Number one, so he could keep track of who was in there and if it leaked out, he would try to, you know, figure that out. But number two, so that it was very much kept off the books and documents, anything that was written down could probably be thrown in the trash where people can't, you know, come and retrieve them to put into the archives.

So that happened quite a bit. And I'm sure the select committee is aware of that and is looking into that. Mark Meadows was one towards the end who was definitely helping to plan those meetings.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: It all sounds very Nixonian.

AKERMAN: No question about it. I mean they were trying to cover this up right from the get go. And that's why this testimony is so important. That's why it's important to get Steve Bannon in there. It's important to get Mark Meadows in and everybody that was connected with that war room at the Warwick Hotel (ph).

I mean the idea that there was a war room that was overseeing what was going on at the Capitol on January 6th is absolutely chilling. And if there ever was a situation --

ACOSTA: Right. A war on what? A war on us. A war on our democracy. Yes.

AKERMAN: Exactly. I mean this idea of executive privilege, total rubbish. Executive privilege doesn't apply when you're talking about overthrowing the government in an insurrection. It just doesn't apply. It's a red herring.

[17:09:58]

ACOSTA: Yes. Let me ask you -- I want to ask you about this new audio of Trump. I'm sure you've heard it. In it the former president seems to defend the insurrectionists who were heard chanting "Hang Mike Pence". Again, shocking, not surprising behavior on the part of the former president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you worried about him during that siege?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, I thought he was well protected and I had heard he was in good shape.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You heard those chants. That was terrible. I mean, you know the --

TRUMP: He could have -- well, the people were very angry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were saying "Hang Mike Pence".

TRUMP: Because it's -- it's common sense. It's common sense that you're supposed to protect. How can you, if you know a vote is fraudulent, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

TRUMP: How can you pass on a fraudulent vote to congress?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: It sounds like Trump was getting updates on what was -- I heard Mike Pence was ok. I mean who knows if that's even true because we had heard that Trump was not really keeping tabs on his vice president at the time.

But he seems to be volunteering some information that he was getting updates on his vice president being chased around the Capitol.

AKERMAN: Well, even better. I mean that is an admission that could be used in a criminal trial against Donald Trump. I mean he's basically admitting to the lie that he's been spreading from day one about having won the election.

Two, he's not really taking any offense at the idea of people were shouting "Hang Mike Pence".

And then when you couple that with the testimony of all of the others where Mike Pence was really trying -- people were trying to pressure him to reject the vote that came through in the electoral college. When you put all that together, you've got a pretty decent case against Donald Trump, a criminal case.

ACOSTA: Why won't they bring a case against him? We were just talking about this in the last hour.

AKERMAN: Because I think that the Department of Justice just doesn't want -- it's politics. They think they're getting involved in politics when in fact, this is such a serious issue. The idea --

ACOSTA: Do you think they should?

AKERMAN: They should -- absolutely should. And at a minimum, they ought to be investigating it. We know they're not because they haven't subpoenaed those records.

Normally, with a grand jury investigation, you don't know what they're doing. Here, we know exactly what they're doing because if they had subpoenaed it, they would have had to go through the whole process that's laid out in the Presidential Documents Act of 1976 -- or 7 -- it's all in there.

And we would have known about it just like everybody knew about the tape issue with Richard Nixon going up to the Supreme Court.

So the question is where is Merrick Garland? Why is he asleep on the job? Where is our Department of Justice that ought to be protecting us and at a minimum, investigating Trump's role in this entire matter. Even Mitch McConnell said after he voted against impeachment the second time that the -- that Donald Trump is still subject to criminal laws of the United States.

ACOSTA: Absolutely. And it's time to get on with it because time is running out.

All right. Nick Akerman, thank you so much. We appreciate your time.

AKERMAN: Thank you.

ACOSTA: All right. The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, his words and behavior are all making headlines, but could it also influence the verdict? It's a very good question. We'll ask a former Wisconsin State Supreme Court justice that very question, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE BRUCE SHROEDER, KENOSHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN: Don't get brazen with me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:13:17]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: 500 National Guard troops are now on standby outside Kenosha, Wisconsin ahead of a verdict in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. The jury could begin deliberations on Monday and the highly anticipated trial has been heavily scrutinized but what garnered the nation's attention in the last week is not any one piece of evidence or testimony but the behavior of the judge, which has been very bizarre at times.

Here's CNN's Kyung Lah.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(CROSSTALK)

SCHROEDER: It makes no sense. You're out of luck.

KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kenosha County circuit court Judge Bruce Schroeder as animated today --

SCHROEDER: I would not say that about this one.

LAH: As he's been throughout the high profile murder trial of defending Kyle Rittenhouse. Wisconsin's longest serving circuit judge, Schroeder is a known history buff, connecting with the jurors in a game of Jeopardy.

SCHROEDER: Both the 100 and 200 meters in the 1988 Olympics. Who is it? Florence Griffith-Joyner (ph).

LAH: Trying to keep the mood light with jokes that sometimes fail. Like this culturally insensitive remark.

SCHROEDER: Hope the agents (INAUDIBLE) isn't coming. He isn't on one of those boats in Long Beach Harbor.

LAH: But doesn't hold back when crossed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The court left the door open.

SCHROEDER: For me, not for you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My understanding is --

SCHROEDER: You should have come and asked. Don't get brazen with me.

JOHN ANTHONY WARD, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I've been yelled at. I mean if you push the line, you will get him yelling at you. If Judge Schroeder is yelling at you, you know that you're still in the game. You're not going to get a mistrial.

LAH: Defense attorney John Anthony Ward says he's argued before Judge Schroeder hundreds, if not thousands of times in nearly four decades of practice in Kenosha.

WARD: Judge Schroeder is there's not a pro-defense judge under any stretch of the imagination. Many a defendant have entered a plea bargain thinking they were going to get probation to end up in prison totally to their shock.

LAH: Schroeder's every word, decision and behavior has come under intense scrutiny in this two-week trial. Schroeder has not allowed attorneys to call the three men shot by Rittenhouse victims. A long standing rule of this judge but could be described at looters or rioters.

But Schroeder is no stranger to the spotlight from a high profile 2008 homicide of a woman, the ruling overturned and still being argued today, as Schroeder pointed out in court.

SHROEDER: And one of the things that I've read over and over and over again is about how I messed up the state against Genson (ph) case, which is now pending downstairs. Actually, I had it 100 percent correct in the first place.

[17:19:59]

LAH: Schroeder was the judge in an unusual condition of parole for a woman convicted of shoplifting at the Pleasant Prairie Outlet Mall. Schroeder ruled the woman had to tell any store that sells goods that she walked into, that she had been convicted of shoplifting, telling her, it's going to embarrass you, of course.

Earlier this year, the Wisconsin state court of appeals disagreed saying Schroeder's ruling falls into the category of shaming.

In the Rittenhouse trial, where national politics and race are clashing, even the judge's ring tone is being watched. That's "God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood, one of Donald Trump's rally songs.

WARD: This judge is apolitical. If you try to define Judge Schroeder on the basis of politics, you're going to get lost. What's important to him is if the person's guilty, that he's found guilty. And if he's not guilty, then he's found not guilty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Our thanks to Kyung Lah for that excellent report.

Joining us now to talk about this is Judge Janine Geske. She is a former circuit court judge in Wisconsin, a former state Supreme Court justice and teaches law at Marquette University. Great school. Judge Geske, thanks so much for joining us.

JUDGE JANINE GESKE, FORMER WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: It's a law school.

ACOSTA: Terrific law school. With the nation watching this case -- I mean this has just been, forgive me, I've watched a lot of court cases over the years. I've covered a lot of court cases over the years. I have never seen a judge behave in this manner.

And I know people are he's folksy and he has a weird sense of humor, all of that. But just so strange to see during a murder trial. What has been your reaction to this?

GESKE: Well, there are different levels. You know, I actually was appointed to the bench The point of events two years before him, so I'm old as well.

But you know, there are a couple of things going on. You know, he has lost his temper. He has not been mindful of the fact that what he says and what he does can impact not only the jurors, but the larger public.

It is so important that a court look and be impartial, that independent branch of government. And that people are getting a fair trial.

There's going to be a lot of dissatisfaction with the verdict, whatever it is. And it's important people have faith in this trial.

And some of the earlier ruling although he really got angry outside the presence of the jury, I think his legal decisions were right. He shouldn't have lost his temper.

The judge sets the tone in the courtroom and if you lose you temper, people will lose their temper. And he obviously was very, very angry. Things have disintegrated since then in my view and you just highlighted some of those things -- whether it's the ring tone. Whether it's the Asian (ph)statement, whether it's the -- you mentioned the applause for a defense witness because he was a veteran.

Those things really impact people's feeling that this is a courtroom that we can have trust in.

ACOSTA: Yes, I mean, he sounds like he's watched too much Bill O'Reilly. I mean he's acting like Archie Bunker in there. And I'm sorry it's supposed to be a courtroom. I don't get it. You know, I know there are cameras in the courtroom. It's really sort of an argument against cameras in the courtroom, which I'm a big proponent of. We should have cameras in the courtroom.

But not if the judge is going to act like Archie Bunker.

GESKE: Well, I'm a proponent of cameras in the courtroom. Wisconsin was one of the first states to have cameras. Many of my homicide cases were on camera and I think it's important to be on camera for this trial. People have to see it and decide, you know, whether or not that's what you want in a courtroom.

And so yes, it's been very unfortunate. But I want to add is that my experience with juries is do want to add my experience with juries is the jury will not be impacted by any of that. They are concentrating on the witnesses, Rittenhouse's testimony. And I think the jury will do the job they have to do.

You know, the bigger concern is the wider perception of whether this is impartial justice.

ACOSTA: Yes. And Thursday was Veterans Day and you alluded to this just a few moments ago, when the judge asked the courtroom if any one present was a veteran and the only veteran turned out to be a witness for the defense. Let's watch what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHROEDER: Any veterans in the room, on the jury or anywhere else? Well, that's unusual not to have at least somebody in here. Dr. Black is, what branch?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Army, sir.

SCHROEDER: Ok. I think we can give a round of applause to the people who have served our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: I mean, we all salute our veterans. We are so thankful for their service, especially on Veterans Day. We should show our gratitude. But the jury was asked to applaud a defense witness.

GESKE: That broke my heart. This was an important defense witness on use of force. If somebody that they have to decide whether it's a credible witness or not a credible witness, it should not be based on anything the judge said about that witness.

[17:24:57]

GESKE: And to me, that was one of the most egregious things he did, which is to have the jury sort of focus and applaud this particular witness before he testified. I was very sorry he did that because I think the perception is that it was biased.

ACOSTA: Yes. And I want to put the charges up against Kyle Rittenhouse on the screen.

The judge is expected to tell attorneys today whether he will allow the jury to consider lesser charges. What do you make of that?

GESKE: I think lesser charges are going to be indicated in a number of the charges. You know, there's this whole question of self-defense and who initiated and whether the gun of one of the victims was pointed at Rittenhouse before he pulled the trigger.

And so there could be lesser included. That also gives the jury a chance to compromise. It would not surprise me if this jury is a hung jury. That would not surprise me. They have a very tough decision but they could also find lesser includeds. I think they're going to be out for a long time.

ACOSTA: Interesting. And Kyle Rittenhouse' mother gave an interview to Fox News this week. Let's play a clip from that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Have you and your son discussed whether or not if he had to do it again, he would go into a situation like that?

MOTHER OF KYLE RITTENHOUSE: With Kyle, I know him. And he probably would do it again because that's the type of person he is. He always wants to help people. Even since he was a little boy. That's all he wanted to do was help people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: What did you think about that? What's that?

GESKE: Just a little breathtaking. Very upsetting. You know, to say that you wound up murdering two people or taking two people's lives and injured someone else and that you would do it again when he didn't have to be there and he didn't have to be there with that very serious weapon.

You know, it's his mom and I understand she's trying to stand with him, but you'd like to think that he would say I wouldn't do that again.

ACOSTA: Right.

GESKE: Not that it's going to make any difference in this trial.

ACOSTA: But I mean, here's the thing. I mean the jury is not supposed to watch this stuff. What's your experience?

(CROSSTALK)

GESKE: I know. I am concerned about that. You know, when we first, when I first started trying murders, we used to sequester every first degree murder. That was our common practice.

And you know, now we've gotten to a point that it's too expensive and everything and judges tend not to do it. I think this is a case where they should have been sequestered. There's so much social media and attention and it's hard to tell them to be disconnected.

I'm sure they're trying, but you know, what's the likelihood that all 12 that sit in that box have not been exposed to something during this trial. It's pretty remote.

I know they'll take the responsibility seriously, but there's a risk. Frankly, if I heard that, I would be really concerned as a juror if I was trying to think, he'd do this again if he had an opportunity.

ACOSTA: Yes. No question. All right. Former Justice Janine Geske. Justice Geske, thanks so much for all those insights. You were really terrific. Thanks for breaking it down for us. Thanks so much.

GESKE: Thank you. Thank you.

ACOSTA: All right.

We appreciate it.

Coming up next, when can you expect prices to come down and is there anything more President Biden can do to fight inflation? That's next.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:32:51]

ACOSTA: Sticker shock is real. Today, California tied its all-time record for gas prices. It hit an average of $4.67 a gallon.

Prices are rising on just about everything else, too. As you can see on your screen. And now there are concerns about shortages as the holiday season approaches.

With me now is professor of marketing at NYU Stern School of Business and a host of CNN's upcoming streaming platform on CNN Plus, Scott Galloway.

Professor Scott Galloway, great to see you.

This is kind of a baffling issue. I mean, we know everybody is feeling it. Everybody's feeling this pinch. But it's sort of come out of nowhere.

And I haven't been able to find anybody who's been able to put their finger on why it's happening. Why is this happening?

SCOTT GALLOWAY, PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: Jim, I would say it's baffling for you young guys. Inflation used to be something we dealt with a lot in the '70s and '80s. Most adults haven't seen it since the '80s.

It started --

(CROSSTALK) ACOSTA: I was a little young back then. I remember the gas lines. I was a little young.

GALLOWAY: It's a kind of perfect storm. Just as we have container ships stranded 20 miles off the Long Beach coast, you also have massive stimulus. Simply put, there's just more dollars chasing fewer products.

And the word you're going to see used less and less is transitory. It looks like this is going to go well into the next year because it doesn't look like the supply chain issues are getting out soon.

Consumers have a lot of money and a lot of disposable income at their disposal, so it doesn't look like this is going to go away. And .9 percent, up 6.6 percent, the highest in 30 years.

ACOSTA: But the economy is going pretty, I mean, gangbusters right now. The unemployment rate has fallen.

The Delta surge, put a dent in growth to some extent, but it has been recovering quite well since the depths of COVID.

Biden is going to get credit for a good economy, blamed for a bad economy.

[17:35:00]

I suppose inflation has a way, has a tendency to carve into what our -- you know, the data that show economic gains. I mean, that is one barometer that it sounds like the White House can't fix.

GALLOWAY: Well, it is the flip side to a very good coin. And that is we did come back from the precipice of what could have been an economic collapse. The question is, did we overdo it?

When you say the economy is strong, a lot of it is through whose lens are you looking.

Because when you're lower or no income, when you factor in the surge in energy, in food prices, all of the wage increases you've enjoyed at those levels have been wiped out. So the purchases power has gone down.

And the "S" word of stagflation, where productivity goes down, at the same time, you have inflation. It's what everyone is scared of.

It's a great time to own assets. If you own homes, stocks, you're seeing your wealth protect you from inflation.

But if the majority of your income comes from wages, which have been eaten up by inflation, this is a very ugly time.

ACOSTA: And the White House would argue folks are getting the child tax credit and that can help, you know, adjust for that.

But what about, you know, the fact that folks are feeling the pinch and this is going to be going for some time now.

And on top of that, there are also a record number of Americans quitting their jobs right now. More than four million in September.

How is it that people are quitting their jobs right now and the price of everything is getting more expensive? Those things don't seem to go with one another.

GALLOWAY: Yes, people are calling it the Great Resignation. Two months in a row, we had more people quit than in any months on record.

I would call it the Great Reassessment, where people have more money in their pockets and decide they don't want to go back to work 40 hours a week so they can live in their car.

In addition, Jim, if you really look at the problems and you zero in on the fact that a disproportionate number of people leaving the workforce are women.

It all leads to one place. And that is without schools fully open or family leave, women have to be home. They're the primary caregivers for generations older and younger. And they just don't have the option.

Or their life is too stressful they're deciding to leverage work from home remote capabilities and deciding to exit the workforce.

I believe if you wanted to tame inflation, to get out in front of this incredible labor shortage, a lot of it leads back to helping people in the homes, specifically women, have the ability to go to work.

I think all roads kind of mostly lead to the same place and that is we need to be or not be one of the seven nations that doesn't have some sort of paid maternity leave and just give women the chance to get back to work.

ACOSTA: I was going to ask you about that, is whether or not the Biden agenda could help tackle some of this.

We just saw the infrastructure bill passed. Paid leave, which you just mentioned, is part of, or maybe part of -- we'll see what the final legislation looks like -- Biden's social economic and climate package.

Is there stuff in there that would, you know, bring some relief?

GALLOWAY: Well, a lot of it, if you think about infrastructure, if you think about a lot of the supply chain problems, it is creating a dearth of products.

A lot of the spending in the programs in this infrastructure bill should, long-term, structurally, help increase or unclog our supply chain. We have dramatic spending around ports improvements, airports. So long-term, it should help.

Family leave should help. Give people more options, including going back to work. But these are not going to be -- these are not short-term fixes.

Short-term fixes would be like announcing you're releasing some of those 600 million barrels in the Strategic petroleum Reserve. It would probably be raising interest rates to suppress some of the borrowing.

There are several tools at their disposal. None of them are a silver bullet. But the infrastructure plan is a fix but it's a long-term fix, Jim.

ACOSTA: Yes. And of course, tapping the Strategic petroleum Reserve, that comes with consequences, too.

All right, Scott Galloway, no easy answers. But thanks for helping us take a stab at it. Appreciate your time.

GALLOWAY: Thank you, Jim.

[17:39:28]

ACOSTA: All right, coming up next, he was forced to resign after caught using racist, homophobic and misogynistic language. Now former NFL head coach, Jon Gruden, is suing the league and it's league claiming there was an orchestrated effort to destroy him. Those details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: Breaking news. Aaron Rodgers is back. The Green Bay Packers have activated their star quarterback from the reserve COVID-19 list, setting him up to play in tomorrow's game against the Seattle Seahawks.

Rodgers, who tested positive for COVID earlier this month, has completed a 10-day quarantine, which forced him to miss last week's game against the Kansas City Chiefs.

Rodgers drew criticism for saying he was, quote, "immunized" against COVID before recently revealing he was not. The Packer's Rodgers and another teammate have been fined by the NFL for not following COVID protocols.

In other NFL news, former Las Vegas Raiders coach, Jon Gruden, is suing the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell over leaked e-mails that led to his resignation.

[17:45:01]

CNN's Coy Wire reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Jim, Jon Gruden resigned last month as the Raiders' head coach after emails containing racist and homophobic messages were uncovered during an investigation of workplace and culture of the Washington Football Team. His emails to former Washington president, Bruce Allen, and others,

were sent between 2011 and 2018 when Gruden was working for ESPN and were leaked to several media outlets.

A "New York Times" report says Gruden denounced women being employed as on-field officials, criticized a team drafting an openly gay player, and used a homophobic slur when referring to Commissioner Roger Goodell.

"The Wall Street Journal" reports that Gruden used racially insensitive language to describe NFL Players Association executive director, DeMaurice Smith.

The lawsuits says the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell leaked the emails as part of a, quote, "malicious and orchestrated campaign,: unquote, to destroy Gruden's career.

Now Gruden's attorney saying, quote:

"There's no explanation or justification for why Gruden's emails were the only ones made public out of the 650,000 emails collected in the NFL's investigation of the Washington Football Team or for why the emails were held for months before being released in the middle of the Raiders' season," unquote.

The lawsuits claims that Goodell and the league suggested they'd make other documents public if the Raiders didn't fire Gruden. And says Gruden has, quote, "suffered severe financial damages and harm to his career and reputation," unquote, as a result of their actions.

NFL spokesman, Brian McCarthy, tells CNN the allegations are meritless and that the NFL will vigorously defend itself against these claims -- Jim?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: Thanks, Coy.

A portion of this transcript has been removed.

ACOSTA: And finally, the top-10 "CNN Heroes" have been announced. And as you vote over the next few weeks, we'll be reintroducing our top 10.

Here is Lyndy Doughty.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LYNDA DOUGHTY, CNN HERO: Releasing a seal is really bittersweet. And as much I'm excited to see the animal released, it's hard in the sense of now seeing the animal gone.

You guys know that you're going back to the ocean?

So any seal that we rescue, the ultimate goal is for that animal to be release released back into the ocean. Ah.

I feel this intense responsibility to help these animals. And really this is what I was put on this earth to do.

Yay!

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Great stuff. Cast your vote at CNNheroes.com.

That's the news. Reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. I'll see you back here tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. Eastern.

Pamela Brown takes over the NEWSROOM, live, after a quick break.

Have a good night. Enjoy that sunset.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)