Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) is Interviewed about Online Privacy; Weisselberg Sentenced to 5 Months; Biden and Kishida Meet for Summit; Biden Calls Netanyahu's Approach to Gaza War a Mistake. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired April 10, 2024 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:31:07]

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back.

Your online data, your privacy, and how it's used by companies could be headed for a major overhaul. Republican Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell recently teamed up to unveil the American Privacy Rights Act. It's a bipartisan, bicameral plan that, if passed, could create a national standard regulating how companies can use your data for the very first time.

Joining me now is one of the architects of that proposal, Congressman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state.

Congresswoman, thank you very much for being here.

REP. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS (R-WA): Thank you.

HUNT: So, this law could potentially rival what many people in Europe have already been enjoying in terms of regulations around how companies can use the massive amounts of data that are collected about us when we do simple things on our phones each and every day. Can you tell us what your proposal would do?

RODGERS: Yes. So, this would - this would really be historic. It's been long overdue. Almost two decades in the making for us to establish a national privacy data security law protecting individuals' personal data online. So, it's establishing privacy rights for individuals and it helps all of us, but especially our children.

It is different than what Europe put into place. That has caused a lot of concerns among small businesses in particular, and what we believe, because of the work that we have done, it limits the amount of data that can be collected to begin with. So, data minimization. And then when your data is transferred, when it's sold, you will be notified that your data is being used and you would have an option to opt out of that.

So, it really is establishing the privacy rights of an individual to know what's being collected, how it's being used, if it's being sold, if it's being used in targeted advertising, and you would have more rights over how your data is being used.

HUNT: What would the recourse be if, for example, a company wants to sell my data and I'm notified? How - in according to if this bill goes through as it is, how would I be able to stop that?

RODGERS: Well, it establishes a private right of action for the first time where an individual would be able to bring forward a lawsuit if there's been substantial harm. So, we set this threshold in the - in the legislation, in the proposed bill, that there would be, if there's substantial harm that has been caused because of the way that your data has been used or sold, you'd be able to bring that lawsuit forward.

But they're - for the businesses, we aren't interested in targeting businesses that just somehow, you know, inadvertently are using data wrong. If you are not selling your data, you're not covered at all. There's a threshold for small businesses. And we want to make sure that we're really going after the bad actors in this bill.

HUNT: What is the position of the major tech companies on this legislation, Facebook, Google? Do you anticipate significant pushback from those groups?

RODGERS: Yes. They are collecting right now unlimited amounts of data. There is - there's no limit on the amount of data that is being collected. Sensitive data, tracking your location, your search history, biometric data. There's - and so this is, for the first time, there would be a limitation put on companies as to the collection of data, and then the individual has a right to know what's being collected. So they're - they're not going to be happy about that and - and how it curbs the targeted advertising. If you're an individual and you like, you know, to get those ads, you know, you go online and you search for a pair of running shoes and all of a sudden you're, you know, flooded with all kinds of ads.

HUNT: All you see are running shoes.

RODGERS: Yes.

HUNT: Yes, I'm familiar.

RODGERS: You know, but you would have - you would have the - you would be empowered for the first time to determine whether or not you want your data to be used like that.

HUNT: What do they collect on us now that they wouldn't be allowed to collect on us under this law?

RODGERS: Well, they would - right now it's unlimited.

HUNT: Right. I've got that.

RODGERS: So, I think - I think -

HUNT: But like can you - do you have an example of something?

RODGERS: Well, I would say, you know, right now we don't even know.

[06:35:02]

So, you would have the right to know what's been collected on you. If there's a profile that's been put together on - you know, then you would have a right to know what's being collected. And then if it is - and if it is, especially for our children, under the age of 17, if it is - there is a prohibition on the collection of sensitive data on our children, on the tracking, the targeting of kids online, the dangerous algorithms that have been developed for the purposes of just keeping eyes, you know, keeping our kids' eyes, or all of us actually, on the screens, that - that - it's especially helpful for our kids, but it's really foundational as we think about AI and this, you know, large datasets and how they are going to be used in the future. This is foundational to protecting our privacy online and for individuals to be empowered to actually know what's being collected and then if it's being sold or if it's being transferred, it's going to empower individuals to have more control over that.

HUNT: Why should Americans be confident that Congress is capable of regulating? (INAUDIBLE) - and you mentioned AI.

RODGERS: Yes.

HUNT: If it's taken this long for us to get here on data privacy, how is Congress prepared to grapple with - I mean there's - the papers today are full of the story about Meta and them working with OpenAI to create computers that can actually think for us. I mean is Congress prepared to deal with the implications of all this?

RODGERS: We've had a number of years, a lot of members on both sides of the aisle, House and Senate, that have been working on establishing a privacy right, believing that it is important that individuals are somehow protected online and that we have more control over the data that's being collected that we, that we know what's actually being collected.

And so there's been a lot of work done, years' worth of work, and I'm really encouraged right now that Senator Cantwell, is the chair of Commerce Committee in that - in the Senate and myself as the chair of the House committee, have been able to hammer out a bill and reach an agreement on some of the - you know, the preemption of the state laws right now. There's a patchwork of state laws that causes even more confusion.

HUNT: Yes.

RODGERS: So, there's been a lot of work done and now we have a moment to act. This would be historic. And it's really important for all Americans, but especially our kids.

HUNT: All right, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Thank you very much for your time.

RODGERS: Good to be here.

HUNT: I really appreciate it.

RODGERS: Thank you.

HUNT: OK, today, the Trump Organization's long serving formal financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, will be sentenced to five months in jail for lying under oath to the attorney general about the overvaluation of Donald Trump's triplex apartment. Weisselberg, who has already served time for tax evasion, is a longtime Trump confidant and has been at the center of Trump's business dealings, including, if you may remember, the former president's hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Weisselberg is executive one, correct?

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Yes. The bottom signature I believe is Allen Weisselberg.

I was asked again with Allen Weisselberg.

I was instructed by Allen.

In the office with me was Allen Weisselberg.

Mr. Weisselberg, for sure.

Allen Weisselberg.

Allen Weisselberg.

Allen Weisselberg.

Allen Weisselberg.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): Who would know the answer to those questions?

COHEN: Allen Weisselberg

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: OK.

Our panel is back with us.

David, Weisselberg has been fiercely loyal to Trump. How do you see Trump world reacting to this today?

DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, "THE ATLANTIC": I want to widen the frame on this question a little bit -

HUNT: Yes, go ahead.

FRUM: To deal with something that you will often hear from defenders of the Trump Organization. It was - the Trump Organization. Yes, maybe they allied crazily to their banks, but they didn't default on their loans and the banks can't possibly have been fooled. Every banker in New York knew that Donald Trump was what he was. So, who was harmed? So, who was harmed? And it's important to answer that question.

So, the answer - the answer that people need to understand when they asked this question, is there - there were three parties to these transactions. There was Trump, the borrower, who lied about the security of the loan, there was the bank employee who made the loan and collected a bonus for the loan, and there is the bank shareholder, who did not receive the payment that the bank shareholders should have made - should have received for the risk that the bank employee was taking.

HUNT: OK. I think I'm following you. Yes.

FRUM: So, when people - when people say the banks, they are confusing - the people who made the loans -

HUNT: Right.

FRUM: Were not the people who would suffer if the loans went bad.

HUNT: Got it.

FRUM: They didn't own the bank. They were the employees of the bank.

So, one of the things that is going on here and in the background, the reason this case is so serious is, I think a lot of these bank officers did know that Trump was lying to them and they were working with him against their shareholders, that there was a larger scheme of corruption here of this bad borrower who should have been paying 23 percent interest rate to - like - like -- these are unsecured loans. This is what you pay when you get a credit card and there's no security. You should have been paying 23 percent. You shouldn't have been getting the loans at all. The bank officers took risks for their bonuses, and they stuck their bank shareholders with the risk that the one would go bad.

[06:40:03]

Those are the victims, and it is not a victimless crime when you steal from shareholders.

HUNT: Do you agree?

DOUG JONES, FORMER SENATOR (D-AL): Yes, yes, I absolutely agree. And I think there's another point too. As a - as a - as a prosecutor, it's not always about the loss to the victim, it's about the profits that could not have been obtained but for the false statements. The Trump Organization made money off of lying. They made money off of giving these false statements. And that is just a - that's just not sustainable. It could shatter the entire system up there. So, there's both the victim and the false prophet that come into play here.

HUNT: Right. HUNT: So, Shermichael, I think it's - we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the reason that he's being sentenced to anything is because he lied.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, he did lie and he's trying to protect someone he worked for, for 30 plus years.

But I will say, to the point of the shareholders, maybe they didn't make as much money as they could have made, but I think there's not an American out there who could really care about how much money bankers and finance make. I think most people think they make way too much money as is. And so this is why I have always believed that this particular case, in comparison to all the others, really won't impact Trump that greatly politically.

I think this is complicated. David explained this with shareholders. And people are watching and saying, what is David Frum talking about here?

The other case is easier to understand. Again, he paid back the loans, David. Maybe he got a better interest rate. But who out there would not want a better interest rate on their credit cards or anything else for that matter.

FRUM: Here's - here's why the ordinary person should care. We are a decade and a half away from the gravest finance crisis since the Great Depression, caused when banks go under, because at the back of the shareholder is the taxpayer.

HUNT: Yes.

FRUM: If - if he's lying - if loans go bad, ultimately it is the taxpayer who pays. And these bank officers who recklessly went to a man who was lying and who they maybe knew was lying, that is part of the systematic risk that everybody saw the cost of in 2009. This is now -

HUNT: Yes, look, we're still paying the political price for that today.

FRUM: We're still paying -

SINGLETON: Yes.

FRUM: For the political and the financial crisis, a generation lost opportunities. And that was all behind - that was all done by bad loans. Bad loans are not victimless. Bad loans are potentially catastrophic. And the taxpayer ultimately backs every loan in the system (ph).

SINGLETON: But the system won't crumble because of this one particular case, David. That's all I'm saying.

FRUM: The system will crumble if borrowers get into the habit of lying. JONES: But they - but - but people who are out there that are making loans - are taking out loans every day, who are being honest and whatever, and they see somebody making a gazillion dollars off of lying, that they can relate to.

SINGLETON: No, I agree with that. That's a fair point.

JONES: That they can relate to.

HUNT: Yes.

SINGLETON: Fair point.

HUNT: All right, very interesting. All right, coming up here, we're going to play for you what Marjorie Taylor Greene's fellow House Republicans have to say about her threat to oust the House speaker.

Plus, more problems for Boeing. What a new whistleblower is raising concerns about, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:46:54]

HUNT: Forty-six minutes past the hour. Here's your morning roundup.

Today, Nebraska's legislature debates whether to award the state's Electoral College votes through a winner-take-all system, which is something Donald Trump wants. He won Nebraska in 2020, but President Biden earned a single electoral vote in Omaha, one that could make all the difference.

The FAA is investigating Boeing after a whistleblower repeatedly raised concerns about flaws in its 777 and 787 Dreamliner. The complaint did not include the newer 737 Max jet that has been grounded twice by the FAA.

President Biden may be left off another presidential ballot. Alabama's secretary of states says he might not make the ballot because the Democratic National Convention takes place after their August 15th deadline.

All right, President Biden and the Japanese prime minister are meeting for bilateral talks today during an official visit to Washington. The Bidens welcomed Prime Minister Kishida and his wife at the White House last night ahead of a formal state dinner tonight.

CNN's Arlette Saenz joins us now, live from the White House with more.

Arlette, what's the goal of the visit? What do we expect to see?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, President Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida are hoping to showcase the close relationship between the U.S. and Japan at a time when they are both trying to blunt the economic and military might of China. Japan has really been at the cornerstone of President Biden's Indo- Pacific strategy as he sought to strengthen alliances and partnerships in the region. Japan has been central to many of the groupings that the Biden administration has announced, but has also served as a key ally of the U.S. in its support for Ukraine amid Russia's invasion there.

Now, this will all be on display in just a few hours when the president welcomes Kishida here for the full pomp and circumstance of a South Lawn arrival ceremony. The two will have bilateral meetings and a joint news conference as well. And they're preparing to announce a host of initiatives. And part of that includes upping the military and security ties between the two countries. Senior administration officials say that will include changes to U.S. force posture in Japan as they're trying to integrate the U.S. and Japanese military in some ways. Officials say that this will take some time to play out and strategize on. It could take a matter of months before there's an actual plan in place.

They will also be implementing and creating a military industrial council to talk about ways that they might be able to co-produce defense weapons. There's also expected to be major announcements when it comes to space at a time when Japan has shown keen interest in landing an astronaut on the moon. And then there's efforts to really improve people to people ties at a time when student exchanges have been low.

But all of this will be capped off by a lavish state dinner tonight as they are trying to roll out the red carpet, stressing the closeness of this relationship between the two countries.

HUNT: All right, Arlette Saenz for us at the White House.

Arlette, thanks very much for that.

President Biden has previously criticized Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza as indiscriminate and its military actions as over the top.

[06:50:01]

Now he's using a new word to describe Netanyahu's approach to the war. He called it a mistake in an interview with Univision.

Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think what he's doing is a mistake. I don't agree with his approach. I think it's outrageous that those four - first three vehicles were hit by drones and taken out on a highway where it wasn't like it was along the shore, it wasn't like it was a convoy moving or cetera.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: So, David Frum, these Biden comments come as Tony Blinken was overseas, we showed this earlier in the show, saying that - he was asking, where is the outrage over Hamas? So, that was the message he was given. But it seems to be a bit at odds with what the president was saying there.

FRUM: I don't think it's hard to understand what the administration is saying and doing. They have delivered every form of material aid that Israel could need. And they've delivered every form of intelligence aid. They have just signed a new deal for the long-term purchase of F- 15 jets over the next I don't know how many years that is going to assure Israel's air supremacy in the region into the indefinite future.

At the same time, they have criticisms of the way Israel is handling this military operation. So, it is not hard to see that you can balance both material - you have a friend. Your friend is making important decisions. You don't think they're all right. You back your friend. You provide your friend with everything your friend needs. But when you first make your criticisms privately and then when they go unheard the criticisms become more and more public.

I mean pretty obviously what Israel is doing is not working. There is not - in six months Hamas is still in the fields, still a fighting force. And meanwhile, there are very high costs to civilians and passersby. That - this is not a successful operation yet, and the White House is within its rights to say so, first privately and then publicly.

HUNT: Senator.

JONES: Yes, no, I agree totally with David. And I think if you look back, we don't know a lot of what was said behind closed doors but - you know, in November or December. But I think if you'd look back and start seeing what Vice President Harris said when she was in Selma, Alabama, that's when you first - really, I think, first started seeing the administration stepping up their criticism a little bit. And it's been ramping up ever since.

And I think that it's appropriate. I mean what people are seeing over there is horrific and there's got to be some changes. So I - and I think members of Congress, even folks like Tim Kaine and others are now beginning to question sales without conditions. And I think you'll see more of that as you go and putting a little bit more pressure.

HUNT: How do you think the president should be balancing the progressive political pressure he's getting here in this country with our politics?

JONES: You know, look, from my perspective, I think he needs to be the president of the United States, not necessarily trying to balance the pressure from the right or the left within the party. He needs to be the leader that he is. And I think he's doing a very, very good job. He has always been, on the one hand, a staunch supporter of Israel, but also one that has advocated a two-state solution. He's very sensitive to the plight of what's going on in Gaza right now, but that's a very different thing than having to - trying to navigate politics within a caucus that can be very fractured on these issues.

HUNT: Yes.

All right, let's go now to this. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's crusade against House Speaker Mike Johnson facing some pretty intense backlash from House Republicans. In her strongest threat yet against Johnson, Greene sent a letter to her Republican colleagues Tuesday, making a direct pitch for Johnson's removal. And several GOP lawmakers say they're frustrated with the chaos Greene is stoking and that they're not on her side

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TROY NEHIS (R-TX): It's an impossible job. The Lord Jesus himself could not manage this conference or this - you just can't do it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think Mike Johnson is a great human. He doesn't lie like the last guy.

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): I think people don't like dysfunction, so that's not good for our side. And with the one seat majority, it does only take a couple people to create dysfunction.

REP. TONY GONALES (R-TX): I think Speaker Johnson is working his guts out doing the best he can with a lot of feral cats

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Feral cats.

Shermichael, Marjorie Taylor Greene to - the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, just did a new interview this morning. We're working on trying to turn some of that around. But basically he said he tried to call Marjorie Taylor Greene. She basically wouldn't take his calls.

SINGLETON: Yes.

HUNT: And then he also criticized her as saying it was very dangerous to be throwing this around right now and she hopes that - he hopes that she'll realize that in the end.

I mean I do significantly question why - I mean why does she think this is a good idea? Like, I don't get it?

SINGLETON: I don't know. With a one seat majority they're already likely going to lose the House. Democrats have an advantage. And this is brilliant political fodder for Democrats to be able to market in every single, very tight, moderate Republican district to say, these folks can't govern. They're not doing anything to move the needle forward on immigration. They're not tackling the Ukrainian issue. They're just not doing anything. People don't want that.

I wish, Kasie, I could get all the Republicans together on - on immigration, on reproductive rights, and on Congress and say, what in the heck are you guys doing, because as a strategist, we're losing, we're seeding whatever advantage we potentially could have on any of these issues to our Democratic counterparts.

[06:55:07]

This is nonsensical to me.

HUNT: So, it sounds like we actually can show you what - what Mike Johnson had to say about his - I mean, I guess his view is pretty predictable since he'd like to keep his job. Still, here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Pulling a motion to vacate, removing the speaker right now, is exactly the opposite of what we need to show the country. We can't close the Congress down, because that's what will happen. They will blame us, right? And so it won't hurt our chances of growing the majority or our party or President Trump's chances for his election because all of our fates in some sense are tied together.

So, it's - it's really a very dangerous thing to be waving around a motion to vacate right now when we've got to demonstrate that we can keep this country moving forward. And I hope that she'll realize that in the end. And I think others are trying to make that case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, that's the current House speaker.

David, let me show you what the former house speaker, Kevin McCarthy, had to say about Marjorie Taylor Greene recently. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN MCCARTHY, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: And the one thing I've always found about Margorie is, she's a very serious legislator that deals with policy. And the best way to deal with anyone like that is sit down and talk to them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: David Frum.

FRUM: OK, so Marjorie Taylor Greene is a licensed cloud of American politics, but I don't think we should make her -

HUNT: She's not a very serious legislator?

FRUM: I don't think we should make her the center of the story. In order to keep his job, Speaker Johnson is willing to sell out the cause of Ukraine. He is - this is - we are marking now the sixth month - we're approaching the sixth month of the - of inaction by this House of Representatives on the president's October 20th requests for aid to Ukraine. Ukraine men and women in combat are dying. Ukrainian cities are being destroyed all because of Speaker Johnson's determination to keep his job by not allowing a vote that could be won if he would allow Republicans and Democrats to vote together. HUNT: Well, some of this is happening because he's signaling that he is going to do it. I mean she is focused on that and saying, I'm going to do this if you do that.

FRUM: This is - no, he doesn't have a Ukraine strategy. He has a save his job strategy.

HUNT: Got it.

FRUM: So, he signals he's going to do it and then he doesn't do it. It's six months and people are dying and a war is being lost and cities are being destroyed. What he ought to do is say, there is a majority in the House of Representatives for this bill. It will be made up of about half my Republican caucus and almost all the Democrats and I am going to vote for the - I'm going to let the House of Representatives vote and not just a majority of the majority. But his determination to save his job is losing a war. And his job is not that important. He's not that important. And I don't think we should allow him to villainize Marjorie Taylor Greene when he is the main protagonist in the most shameful episode in American foreign policy in two generations.

JONES: Absolutely agree with David on that. And to - for me there's another - there's another story that's connected to this. And that has nothing to do with Marjorie Taylor Greene, per say. But it is the fact that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s campaign - lead campaign person in New York says they want a contingent election. They're not in it to win it. They want to throw it to the House of Representatives.

And that's what we want. That's who we want to elect a president of the United States, a dysfunctional House of Representatives? I think that that's a big story that people need to pay attention to, that a vote for Robert F. Kennedy could put the vote for your - your vote for president of the United States with a dysfunctional House of Representatives.

HUNT: That's a very interesting angle on the RFK story that we have not yet covered here, that I will make sure that we do continue to cover.

Shermichael, to David's point about Ukraine. I mean it does seem like it - the House speaker has an incredible opportunity to be a savior for the west in many ways is how potentially you think about it. If you want to be a big figure on the world stage, that's not necessarily how you do it.

SINGLETON: No. Most Americans, to David's point, actually supports supporting Ukraine. They understand that Russia is a villain that we have to defeat by any means necessary.

SINGLETON: I agree with David, take the vote. This idea of allowing one person to take the entire conference, the entire body hostage because of whatever ludicrous grievance they have is absurd to me. And I respect Mike Johnson. I know him personally. But he needs to take a tough stance and say, I am the speaker. If you don't like it, bring your ridiculous vote, and I'll do what I have to do to try to keep my job.

HUNT: Senator, what - what does the White House think of Johnson?

JONES: Oh, I - you know, look, I wouldn't pretend to - to try to - to speak for the White House on some of the -

HUNT: Well, what do - what do folks that you talk to in this town, what do they view as his strengths, his weaknesses?

JONES: Well, I think the strength is, you know, that he is the speaker of the House. But his weaknesses is, is that he doesn't know how to use the power. He is there and does not have a clue about how he used that gavel. And I think - I think Democrats are always hold up Nancy Pelosi as the standard. For someone who understood the politics, who understood the gavel, who understood how to use the speakership, to do the right thing, or at least what she perceived. Not everybody agreed with her -

HUNT: Right.

JONES: But she did things. She moved things forward. And Mike Johnson seems paralyzed. Completely out of his league when it comes to trying to exercise the gavel of the speaker of the House of Representatives.

SINGLETON: Yes.

[07:00:03]

HUNT: Dave, we've got 30 seconds in the show. You agree?

FRUM: Yes. Go to Hakeem Jeffries and say, from time to time I'm going to need 25 votes. I don't - not on policy issues, by I need 25 votes. There must be something you want from me.

HUNT: There must be something you want from me.

JONES: Bingo.

HUNT: Fair enough. All right. Thank you all very much for a great conversation today. Really appreciate having you here at the table.

Thanks to all of you for joining us. We had a story wonderful story about a rescue dog in Taiwan. Maybe we'll bring you that one tomorrow. We ran out of time.

I'm Kasie Hunt. Don't go anywhere. "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.