Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Voting Rights Vote, Infrastructure Talks Test Limits of Biden Presidency; Biden Agenda Faces Make or Break Week; Supreme Court Opens Door for Student Athletes to Get Paid; Inside the Trump DOJ's Controversial Data Sweep. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired June 21, 2021 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: John King picks up our coverage right now with "Inside Politics".

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Hello, everybody and welcome to "Inside Politics". I'm John King in Washington. It is a big and important week for the Biden agenda, a test vote on voting rights and a fish or cut bait moment on infrastructure. Well, Democratic goals now in limbo because of the party's tiny edge in Congress.

Plus, a Supreme Court sports shockwaves. The justices deliver a big victory to student athletes and send a warning to the NCAA and new details about the secret subpoena that swept up emails from two sitting Congressmen and the Trump White House Counsel.

Up first, though, for us this hour, a big vote this week, we'll test what President Biden can do and what he can't? Tomorrow, the Senate votes on a top White House and Democratic Party priority voting rights. The outcome will tell us a lot about the 50/50 Senate that will decide every piece of the Biden agenda.

The infrastructure is the other big Biden focus the White House enters this week with no optimism it can make a deal. But there are several snags over how to pay for it and over progressive complaints. It is simply too small, which means it is not just the president facing big tests.

The Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer hopes a bipartisan deal now will bring his two most moderate members into the fold for a much bigger Democratic plan down the road. But listen to this new CNN interview with Leader Schumer. Hope is one thing, a promise is something else.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The talks have gone on for some time about an infrastructure bill, some of the liberals in your Caucus I've talked to a concern that you've let this go on too long. What do you say to them say it's time to pass the big bill and pull the plug here?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The bottom line is I think we all know in our Caucus, we need big bold change with the problems facing America. And we also know one other thing, our unity is our strength. We with 50 votes, we all have to be on board to produce that kind of change. We're working to two tracks. I think they're both working very well. I'm very hopeful that we can get a lot done.

RAJU: I mean, what's your philosophy for allowing these talks to just continue without really knowing what's going to happen at the end?

SCHUMER: Continuing - today our Budget Committee is meeting I've been talking to the members. We've been on both tracks for a little while. And our goal is to get things done in July.

RAJU: Have you gotten a commitment from Senators Manchin and Sinema that they would back a party line vote reconciliation?

SCHUMER: I'm going to get into my individual talks with members. We all know we've got to come together or nothing gets done.

RAJU: Do you think they should give that kind of commitment?

SCHUMER: As I said--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: With us in studio to share their reporting and their insights CNN's Kaitlan Collins CNN's Manu Raju Cleve Wootson of "The Washington Post" and Jackie Kucinich of "The Daily Beast". Let's start with you Manu, listening there to the Secretary of State the Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Look, he has one of the hardest jobs in Washington. He's at 50/50 progressives in his party want everything moderates in his party want much less. He's - you're trying to crack the code there. They're going to have a voting rights test vote tomorrow. Joe Manchin wants a compromise. What does this mean for the party's agenda and for Leader Schumer and his management?

RAJU: Well, he is all about unity. That's what he was trying to preach over and over again. And he said to me very clearly, we can't get anything done unless we're all on the same page. And voting rights no one expects that to get what's needed here 60 votes, but what they want to get is 50 votes.

All the Democratic members of the Caucus in line, because this is a political message for their party going forward they want to argue it is the Republicans blocking things on easing voting access, and eventually take this to voters.

This is not an exercise to make a law because we know that's not going to happen. Infrastructure, on the other hand, is an exercise to make a law because there are these bipartisan talks are ongoing. And there are also concerned on the left.

I talked to Elizabeth Warren, who told me "I feel frustrated because we need to move on". And I asked her if she's allowing Chuck Schumer to allow these Republican talks to continue? And then I asked we asked Joe Manchin our colleague Ted Barrett asks Joe Manchin, if Schumer was pressuring him to fall in line behind a party line approach on infrastructure?

He said, Not at all. So Schumer is trying to keep not elite, those moderate members and tell the left we will eventually do a big bill, but just let these bipartisan talks play out. And then we could do it all together at the end. But it's just hard to see, it's going to be difficult to - at that needle.

KING: Leader Schumer benefits, I believe, tell me if you think I'm wrong from a president who served in the Senate for a very long time, who understands how hard his job is? Understands the 50/50 dynamics however, just look at some recent headlines, Biden in Congress faces summer grind to create legislation.

Risks and rewards the summer that could define the Biden Presidency, if you're the President of the United States, yes, your priority was the economy and COVID relief, but now voting rights infrastructure and beyond. His entire agenda depends on whether Democrats can stay together in these key votes?

CLEVE WOOTSON, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yes, exactly. You know, Biden had the excuse the rationale, got to tackle the pandemic, got to handle this. But now, you know, after campaigning as somebody that could get changed on that if you hand Democrats power in the Senate, that if you give them control, they can get things done.

He's now facing a situation where it's just difficult almost, you know, maybe even impossible to move forward on some of the most pressing issues of our debt.

KING: And you mentioned voting rights is not making legislation. Democrats are trying to stay together.

[12:05:00]

KING: Listen to the White House Press Secretary. Essentially conceding to your point, we'd like the - we don't expect 10 Republicans to suddenly show up and say, oh, never mind, we're with you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I wouldn't say we expect there to be 10 magical votes to appear from the Republicans in the Senate. They've been pretty clear that they don't want to make it easier to vote. They don't want to make it more accessible to vote. So this is just a first step. We'll see where it goes?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Is it a first step? Do the President and he's test the Vice President with this portfolio? Want to keep negotiating to try to find a smaller voting rights bill? Or do Democrats want to have this vote in the Senate, if it fails, simply try to carry the issue into the midterms. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It's carrying the issue. They're not getting a legislative victory here, but they would get a symbolic victory if they do get all 50 Democrats on board.

Because if not, then Republicans have that line of attack to say, well, not even all of the Democrats voted in favor of this. So this wasn't actually going to go anywhere. Otherwise, they can pin it all on Republicans.

And so saying, you know, we're not going to get that 10 magical number, those votes; the White House is being realistic. They know that this isn't going to go anywhere. So saying it's the first step. I mean, it's kind of the last step, I don't think anyone realistically expects there to be something that actually comes together here where you do see Republican support.

That's why it's so interesting that this is kind of the Vice President's new agenda trying to push forward on this and whether or not she tries to use that to muscle any kind of a deal remains to be seen what she uses that for, I think more likely, she's going to use as a messaging tool on the road to say, look what happened. And here's why it's so important that we put Democrats in office.

KING: And then when we move on to the next challenge, which is infrastructure, a key player, there will be Bernie Sanders, one of the leaders of progressives in the country, but all - especially in the United States Senate.

They have an agreement, a bipartisan group on a big price tag and on what would be in it, but then they don't have any agreement really on the hard part. How do you pay for it, which is why Senator Sanders say, figure it out soon, or--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): The President has said quite correctly, as he doesn't want to raise taxes on people making less than $400,000. I agree. In this proposal, which their bipartisan proposal, like ours is still in flux they have talked to some people at least for talking about raising the gas tax or a fee on electric cars, or maybe privatization of infrastructure, those to my mind are ideas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: So then how do they sort this out where a day 151, 152 of the Biden Presidency. We're heading into the summer where Washington likes to go home? June and early July are very, very important. And then you're heading into an election year.

I know people at home get frustrated when you have these Washington conversations, just the way this town works. You know, we get closer election year, nothing less happens. So Sanders has this $6 trillion plan that he's working on over here hoping Manchin, Sinema, any other reluctant Democrats come aboard.

In the short term, though, they have to figure out how to try to pay for this smaller plan in a way that doesn't violate the president's campaign promises.

JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It is a Rubik's Cube wrapped in a riddle, for sure. But I think, well, Manu is absolutely right. This is an exercise and actually making a lot of part of this on what they're going through with some of these bipartisan groups.

Some Democrats are looking at as an exercise to show the Manchins and the Sinemas of the world that look, everything was tried to try to get a compromise with Republicans, if they can't - if this falls apart and walks away, you're going to hear a lot louder from the left. Got to pass this reconciliation, time is running short.

We might not have this majority next year or after the midterm elections. And it makes it ever more important to push this through. And you know, frankly, Biden's reputation is potentially on the line here because one of the biggest criticisms we heard during the campaign was OK, he reaches across the aisle too much.

He trusts Republicans too much. And if these things continue to fall apart, the left is just going to get louder, about getting some of these things through to his desk and leaving the Republicans--

KING: And to that point where we will learn more about the president and how he views this because again, he's a former senator for almost four decades, a Former Vice President for eight years. But now he's the president.

Lindsey Graham, Republican on the other side says, Mr. President, you want this infrastructure deal step forward.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): President Biden, if you want an infrastructure deal of a trillion dollars, is there for the taking. You just need to get involved and lead. If you want to work with Republicans to spend a trillion dollars of own infrastructure is available to you if you don't want to go that route, and you pick $6 trillion reconciliation package I think you'll get a lot of pushback from every Republican.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That's a warning from a Republican that Mr. President, you know, you go the big route, we're going to revolt against you. Well, guess what? They're going to revolt against him. The question is, will the president step forward and tries to push the Democrats to try to broker these differences, whether it's getting progressive to compromise or getting Manchin and Sinema into the fall?

RAJU: I think that's ultimately going to be him to do that because Manchin he is not - Schumer would not say to me very clearly when I asked you have you gotten a commitment from Manchin to go this party line route?

[12:10:00] RAJU: I asked Manchin that same thing would you commit to doing the party line route? If the bipartisan talks, Peter out he would said, I'm not going to give that commitment? He said, it's not fair procedure--

KING: Forgive me for interrupting. But is he not giving the commitment because it doesn't exist right now, or because there's a wink nod, and they just can't talk about it right now because they got to go through some more steps in the dance?

RAJU: You know, it's hard exactly to say what it is? My sense of it, he wants to use it as leverage to negotiate the best possible deal both on the party line effort, as well as the bipartisan effort. So he's holding out.

But it will come down probably in a lot of ways to Joe Biden putting pressure on him in a way that Senator likes to be pressured, which is not twisting arms, per se, but gently bring him over to the fold. And that's going to be an uncomfortable effort. It's going to take some weeks to play.

KING: Is there a flip side of that, though, with the president and the younger progressives, largely on the House side, as a rough count, I could be off one or two, but I was going through the numbers the other day, and there I think 85 - roughly 85, House Democrats who have served in the majority under a Democratic President.

So you have a lot, there's 220 House Democrats; you have a lot of these younger members who've never been in this position, right? And they come through - they are they come to power. And you know, this is their - right? They campaign on these big broad goals.

But now they have a five or six vote majority in the House, a 50/50 Senate and a president who frankly is not as liberal as they are. Will he work them?

COLLINS: Well, that's what's so fascinating about this. If we were talking about an infrastructure proposal, like five years ago, and we were saying a trillion dollars, it would sound like a lot of people's dream, but it does speak to when Biden came into office, everyone talked about how visionary his agenda was going to be how big and bold it was going to be?

And we're seeing the reality of just how difficult it is because you're saying that his own - people from his own party, these rival factions, these progressives can derail his agenda pretty quickly, if they're not on board with this.

And I think that speaks to the nature of how many hurdles the White House has dealt with, with this is now that this bipartisan idea is gaining steam on Capitol Hill. Well, now they've got to deal with the progressives who aren't happy with what it looks like. And they're increasingly speaking out against it.

KING: It's the same - same principle we had when we were trying to tell the former president he lost the election math is math. The Democrats have a very narrow majority in the House and a 50/50 Senate that math is real, too.

All right, when we come back, we'll have more of Manu's interview with Senator Chuck Schumer coming up on a dysfunctional relationship. You want to hear that part. First, though, up next, a major decision on college sports coming down from the Supreme Court, that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

KING: Big legal victory for college athletes this morning. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the NCAA opening the door now for student athletes to get a piece of the billion dollar industry that profits off their names and their athletic abilities.

In a concurring opinion Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing this "Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate" the NCAA Justice Kavanaugh wrote is not above the law.

With us to share their insights on this Steve Vladeck, Law Professor at the University of Texas and our CNN Sports Correspondent Andy Scholes; Andy that was the point the court was making.

Let me read this is from the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, those who run the enterprise profit in a different way than the student athletes whose activities they oversee. The President of the NCAA earns nearly $4 million a year; commissioners at the top conferences take home between 2 million to 5 million.

So the court essentially saying a lot of people are making a ton of money here the athletes should get some of it. So my question is what's different right now? What at - what is the coach out there recruiting an athlete whether it's a football player or a basketball player, could be a swimmer, to come to a college? What can they promise today that they couldn't promise yesterday?

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, now the door is open to were in this decision, there is no limit to the educational related benefits schools can now offer. So that means if say a Zion Williamson is coming out of high school, a university could definitely come to him and they could say, you know, what, we're going to give you the most expensive computer there is?

We're going to give you this great internship at this rate, and the NCAA now can't do anything about it. But John, what this doesn't address is the name image and likeness battle that's still going on. That's a whole separate thing, even though there are a number of states that already have put in legislation outlawing the NCAA's right to limit that as well.

But right now it basically John, it's the haves can now do whatever they want the have not's are still going to be limited in what they're able to offer athletes. KING: So Steve, come in on that point in the sense that what changes and what questions do you have when you have a big game changing decision like this? Obviously, it changes the way - changes practices beginning immediately, but there are always ripples and Domino effects. And then somebody says, oh, wait, it didn't address this.

STEVE VLADECK, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW: Well, and John, I think this really is just the tip of the iceberg. So in addition to the NCAA rules, we also have conference wide rules that are not affected by today's decisions. We're dependent upon whether you're in the big 12, the SEC, the big 10, you could actually have different approaches after today's decision.

I think the real important here is that now the floodgates are open. Now we're going to see litigation, not just of name image and likeness, but of every single feature of the amateur model of NCAA competition, not just against them civil but also against the major conferences.

And you know, John, I think the gravamen of the majority opinion today with Justice Kavanaugh really went out of his way to underscored his concurrence is the NCAA is going to lose most of those cases because the whole premise undergirding the model that the NCAA is uniquely allowed to suppress the earning potential of their athletes.

That's really what the court has thrown out the door today, even if the immediate impact is limited.

KING: And so the question has always been Andy, that, you know, the schools are making so much money, the conferences are making so much money, the organizations are making so much money and the players get, you know, little or nothing.

If you look just at the statistics, this is from the NCAA, college baseball players, about 10 percent of them go on to the pros, basketball players, it's a little over 1 percent women's basketball, it's less than 1 percent. Football, it's about 1.6 percent.

And then there are a whole bunch of people were focusing on the sports they get a ton of attention because they have TV contracts or, you know, we know about the College World Series and like. How does this change the lives of every day maybe you know NCAA athletes who don't get a ton of attention? Do they get more benefits here? Is it only going to go to the sports that make the money?

[12:20:00]

SCHOLES: This specific decision John, it looks like it's still only going to cater to those high priced athletes, the ones that the universities really want to go after, and get that way they can offer them so much more other athletes that decision that's looming that will help the lower level athletes is the name image and likeness.

Because if the athletes are able to use their name, image and likeness to profit and make money on the side, that means, you know, the lower level athletes, they can go hold a camp in the summer and make money off of it because they're a baseball player at Texas or a volleyball player at Baylor, that will be the more important decision for the lower level athletes.

KING: And to that point, Steve, I want to come back to what you said about Justice Kavanaugh, because if you read his concurring opinion, he kind of says my words, not his that why'd it take so long? Why wasn't this done a long time ago, in the anti antitrust exemptions?

Here's one of the lines from his concurring opinion, "The NCAA's business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America, all of the restaurants in a region, for example, cannot come together to cut cooks wages, on the theory that customers prefer to eat food from low paid cooks".

You know, that has been the argument that all these athletes, we need to keep this special amateur status because fans like that, therefore we can play them. What do you see is the ramifications when now all these other cases come up the courts behind it?

VLADECK: Yes, I mean, John, I think the bloom is off the rose. And I think the reality is that, you know, whether it's in the name, image and likeness context that Andy was talking about, or other challenges to either NCAA wide, or conference wide or even University specific limits on the benefits that athletes and student athletes are eligible for.

You know, I think Justice Kavanaugh is sending in a pretty loud signal here, that there's now a majority at least, and perhaps even a unanimous court for the proposition that the special status that college athletics has had under our antitrust laws, really, for generations is gone.

And is you know, is going to be sort of a thing of the past before we know it. That has only modest implications on the specific issue the court decided today. But John is not hard to see how everywhere from you know, big time college football to say, you know, relatively small sports at you know, lesser known schools, this is going to be a game changer.

And it's going to be a game changer. It's going to take us years, if not decades to sort out, it's going to fundamentally require all the interested parties from the NCAA on down to rethink the relationship between student athletes and compensation in a context in which universities are making so much money off of so many of these currently unpaid individuals.

KING: It's a fascinating decision. As you know, it opens the door. We'll continue to keep Steve Vladeck and Andy Scholes grateful for the time and hustle. Today as we begin to at least - begin to understand it with watch this one play out thank you gentlemen.

Up next for us, new details on who may have actually been the target of those secret subpoenas that swept up the phone records and the text messages of two Democratic members of Congress?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [12:25:00]

KING: Some new reporting today on those controversial Trump Justice Department subpoenas that swept up records of two Democratic Congressmen along with their staff and some family members. Sources telling CNN it appears to have been the result of a leak investigation that initially included scrutinizing a senior aide on the House Intelligence Committee and not the lawmakers themselves.

A source also says the records of the Former White House Counsel Trump - Trump White House Counsel Don McGahn appear to have been obtained in a similar way in a separate probe of the feds joining our conversation CNN Legal Analyst Carrie Cordero and our Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez, so let's put this into some context.

Your reporting indicates they started. There's a leak. We're investigating this staffer, and then it mushroom from there. The question is once they realized we have records from Democratic members of Congress, did they follow the rules, regulations guidelines?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: And I guess even beyond that, John, did - do the existing rule needs to be changed because of some quirk that happened in this in this case? And I think that's one of the things that you're seeing.

Lisa Monaco, the Deputy Attorney General you know, beyond just right now trying to figure out, as I say, where the bodies are buried, right? They're trying to figure out what other nasty surprises there might be in other cases that weren't done the right way?

They are looking back at this one and to see whether they need to change the rules because as you pointed out, this is an investigation they were scrutinizing an aide, who it turns out was not the leaker, they cleared that person.

But in doing that they were they managed to get these numbers and these records belonging to those two lawmakers. And the obvious reason why everybody is suspicious is these are two prominent critics of the Former President.

KING: And so if you look for - Evan mentioned the rules and the guidelines, let's try to read a little bit more from the reporting. It's fabulous reporting should go online and read it if you haven't.

It's unclear what if anything the investigators did to alert supervisors after the names of the lawmakers were turned over in the records obtained through the subpoena? DOJ officials say it's possible the current procedures were technically followed despite claims by senior former officials to not know about the moves.

So let's say to Evan's point that they technically followed the rules. At one point is just common sense and good judgment come in. If you realize, oh, this is a Congressman. I need to brief this up. I need to stop this I need to step back. There's a basic competence question here isn't there? CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: There is, and there are also a management and leadership of the department during this period question as well, I think.

[12:30:00]