Return to Transcripts main page
Americans Getting Married at Older Ages than Previously; Senator Kyrsten Sinema Raises Objections to Methods of Paying for Social Spending in Senate Reconciliation Bill; Remains Found Which May be Brian Laundrie's. Aired 8-8:30a ET
Aired October 21, 2021 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: This is why, more people, especially women, are going to college, so they're getting out of college at a later age. Second women rely less on men for financial security, right. If you're someone who is not going to college, you may need a breadwinner to be able to provide for you. And more than that, this is really interesting, polling shows that people date for longer to make sure that they're compatible with their partner. It's not like we're going in after five months and getting married. Some people date for years and years and years and years before they get married, and they get older. And as I mention, the rule says the older you get, you're more acceptable for large age gaps.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Why take a chance?
BERMAN: Why take a chance? But this rule was sort of everywhere over time.
ENTEN: Yes. So, I mentioned before how you take the half plus seven rule, how it was the idea of the socially minimal age, socially acceptable minimum age. But before the late 1990s, it was actually the ideal age. It was the ideal age. It was even mentioned in Malcolm X's autobiography. I looked at articles around the time of the Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton scandal. It was mentioned there as well, this it was in fact the ideal.
And this is what essentially it is. It was started by men in the 1800s, the late 1800s, who were playing into the norms back then of men as the sole breadwinner. So they were basically playing on these tropes of an older man providing for a younger woman.
BERMAN: Very quickly, what are you seeing in terms of same sex marriage?
ENTEN: The last thing I'll point out here is what is interesting and what we cover in the podcast is it turns out that men in same sex marriages are far more likely to break the rule than anybody else. And we asked our sex columnist Dan Savage about why this is on the podcast. You are to listen in to figure out why.
BERMAN: It really it is an interesting discussion, Harry, and digging into the numbers tells a really interesting story.
ENTEN: Yes, and we also even cover whether or not age gaps truly do matter, whether or not the divorce rates are important.
BERMAN: Can't wait for the answers. Thank you very much. If you want to know whether these do matter, tune into the latest episode of Harry's podcast, "Margins of Error." Harry, thank you very much.
And NEW DAY continues right now.
For viewers here in the United States of all ages, and also around the world, I'm John Berman with Brianna Keilar. It is Thursday, October 21st. A critical moment in the Biden presidency. Just when it looked like Democrats were coming together on a social spending deal, Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema apparently has raised a new objection, or maybe it's an old objection just coming to a head now. She doesn't like how it is going to be paid for. This could be a setback with so much on the line.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: So tonight, the president is traveling to Baltimore. He is making the case for his legislative hopes in a live CNN town hall. And he still has some selling to do. So let's talk about that with Kaitlan Collins, our CNN chief White House correspondent, and Dana Bash, CNN chief political correspondent and co-anchor of "STATE OF THE UNION."
Kaitlan, what can Biden do that is going to put a Kyrsten Sinema on the same page as an AOC?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It's really difficult for him. And when I asked him a version of that question recently, how do you get Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin to reconcile their differences when it comes to this, he just laughed. He didn't say anything, because it really is a challenge, obviously, to overcome. And that's why they have been deadlocked in these talks for several weeks trying to come to an agreement.
And now we're seeing it start to take shape. It's a scaled back version. How they solve this issue with Kyrsten Sinema, though, is going to be an interesting one because, of course, this is something she's been opposed to, raising the corporate tax rate, raising tax rates -- tax increases on high earners. But now they really need to figure out what they're going to do about it, because are they going to have time to figure out a new tax structure to find a way to pay for it. But also by the time that they want the framework, which is Friday and definitely next week when he leaves to go on his first foreign trip.
But also they see this as a political winner, raising taxes on corporations. That is something the president talks about almost every time he's out on the trail, out speaking to voters like he was yesterday in Pennsylvania. So if they scrap that, how do you message that, because that is something that has polled really well, and the White House knows that.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right. And I think the question that John asked about is this something that has been there and is just coming to light is probably the right one, because we know what happens with these negotiations. As the differences narrow, and as they come to agreement, the things that they are not yet agreed upon, they become very big issues. And when you're somebody with leverage, Kyrsten Sinema, you take those issues, and you highlight them because that is how you get what you want.
My understanding in talking to people around these negotiations is that they genuinely are way closer than they were.
Not to say that they're there, not to say that the notion of not raising taxes on the highest earners or not raising taxes in corporate America is something that they're going to scrap, but that its' workable. And you said, Kaitlan, well, that the president laughed when you said how do you get Joe Manchin and Bernie Sanders in a room together. He kind of did it. He did it. You saw the two of them after they were going back and forth with op-eds actually getting together. The president wasn't there, but they did get together. There is no question that the president encouraged that.
And guess what happened? They started to talk to each other and have a better understanding of one another.
PAUL: It is feeling a little bit, though, like yesterday was a bit of a false summit. Yes, they have climbed the mountain, but they're not quite there. And there is still a ways to go. And I wonder if Kyrsten Sinema, is she really cool with being a black fly in the chardonnay, to quote Alanis Morissette. You don't even know what we're talking about.
COLLINS: Yes, I do.
KEILAR: OK, great. But is she really --
BASH: Isn't that ironic.
KEILAR: Is she fine with being the spoiler?
BASH: Yes, because she doesn't consider herself a spoiler necessarily on this. I have to tell you, this is funny, maybe not funny. I was talking to an Arizona Republican yesterday, an Arizona Republican who said, you know who the best Republican we have right now is in Arizona? Kyrsten Sinema. And it was a joke, but not, because the point was is that she is holding up, from their perspective, the Democratic agenda.
Having said that, from her perspective, she is using the leverage that she knows she has. The challenge, and I know you hear this from the White House, is what exactly does she want? How do they get her to whatever that place is, and still come up with a compromise?
KEILAR: Are they confident they can? COLLINS: They do feel really confident. When you actually talk to
people, they seem much more confident this week and like they're in a better place than they were last week. But they still know that a lot of dynamics are changing here. And the bill that you're looking at right now, the way it's taking shape, looks a lot different than the way they proposed it. And so that's the challenge that's facing the president, which is when he's in Scranton, Pennsylvania, as he was last night with us, when he's doing the CNN town hall tonight, what he's talking about, what he's selling isn't fully formed yet. And so one thing that he talked about a lot was the two years of free community college. That was a big priority of his. I don't imagine he would let it go easily, but he did tell Democrats this week, I don't think it is going to be in there.
KEILAR: The third attempt last night in the Senate to pass a voting rights bill, as we see big lie after big lie bill passed in the state, what is this for? What is the point of this as the White House sees it?
COLLINS: I have seen -- I've never heard so much criticism of the White House except for when it comes to voting rights. That has been a big issue that you hear from allies of the president, Democratic allies who say they don't necessarily think that the White House is doing enough here. You talk to the us who, they say, OK, well, our hands are tied. There's not much we can do. Look, we've got Joe Manchin coming out and introducing this bill that he put his muscle behind, it didn't get any more votes than the last one did when it comes to the votes that were needed.
And so I think that they feel that they're in this situation where they have the president issuing strong public statements, as he did yesterday. But when it comes to actual movement on this issue, that's still a really big concern for voting rights activists and what the White House is actually doing.
BASH: Exactly. And the expectation is that after this negotiation over the social safety net bill and infrastructure actually gets done, that the president has to focus on that, because I've been working on a project on voting rights, and whether it's Texas, or more importantly, the states that actually went for Joe Biden -- Arizona, Georgia, the laws are different enough, particularly in Georgia, that Democrats feel that it might be actually hard to win.
And we're talking about the short-term, like, in Senate seat -- in the Senate seat, in congressional seats, because of the changes in the law. And this voting rights legislation, it used to be so hugely bipartisan. The last time it was signed into law, it was a Republican president, George W. Bush, and there were Democrats and Republicans standing behind him. It was overwhelmingly supported. And things have changed with the idea that the federal government is involved. And that's why this has to be, from the Democrats' point of view, one of those issues that you have to pull the fire alarm on and say, if we have to do this with only Democrats, we have to find a way.
KEILAR: It seems like they're resigned to the fact, though, that this may just be a campaign issue, and that is perhaps a very sad thing for the country overall. Dana and Kaitlan, lovely to hang out with you this morning.
President Biden taking some questions from the American people in a CNN exclusive. Anderson Cooper is moderating this CNN presidential town hall, and that will start tonight at 8:00 eastern.
BERMAN: I've got to say, I'm on team Kaitlan there. I didn't know the black fly in the chardonnay reference at first. Took me a second to catch up to you all.
KEILAR: You know, Alanis Morissette lyrics are an essential part of this show.
KEILAR: As essential as loyalty to the movie "Armageddon" and the Red Xox. So we'll work on it, Berman.
BERMAN: Armageddon, Red Sox, and then more data four or five is Alanis Morissette.
BASH: He's not a child of the 90s.
BERMAN: All right, new developments overnight in the manhunt for Brian Laundrie, the fiance of Gabby Petito. Here is what the Laundrie family's lawyer tells CNN about remains found yesterday near a Florida nature preserve.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The probability is strong that it is Brian's remains. But we're going to wait for forensic results come in and verify that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Police canine teams are back on the scene there this morning. The area had been underwater until recently. And a source close to the investigation tells CNN the remains appear to have been there a while. Authorities also found what they believe to be Laundrie's backpack and a notebook.
Joining me now, Dr. Priya Banerjee, a board certified forensic pathologist. Doctor, thank you so much for being with us. When do you think there will be answers?
DR. PRIYA BANERJEE, BOARD CERTIFIED FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Thank you for having me. This is obviously an extremely difficult case. Decomposition there, like you said, underwater, and it is partial remains they found. I think first we can expect within hopefully a few days the actual identification of the body. And then the autopsy results can take a lot longer in this case.
BERMAN: And what would the difference there be?
BANERJEE: Sure. Identification would just be who is this, right, where it is a presumption that it's Brian Laundrie, but by no means is that proven yet. And so depending on what features of the body are there, the head and the teeth are present, they can use dental records to identify him. Otherwise, they probably have to use DNA. DNA can take a little bit more time.
In contrast, the actual reason why he died, that's going to be quite challenging, especially if you don't have the whole body. I know that there is quite a search going on today in that same area.
BERMAN: I want to ask about the other belongings that were found there, including, according to the father, Brian Laundrie's father, he was someone who came upon a bag of Brian Laundrie's there. What chain of custody issues does that present if Brian Laundrie's own father at one point was in possession of what could be key evidence?
BANERJEE: Sure. That's a great question. I think they're going to just have to believe him. I guess he found it in that area. He didn't take it away. Hopefully he turned it right over to authorities. A short exchange would mean that he didn't have time to really tamper with it, let's say. And I don't know the conditions in which these pieces were found. If they were still underwater, even what condition they're in to begin with.
BERMAN: As I said, and as you've been saying, so many questions still remain, major developments. I appreciate your insight this morning. Dr. Priya Banerjee, thank you very much.
BANERJEE: Thank you so much.
BERMAN: So Jelani Day's mother still doesn't know what led to her son's disappearance and death. We will speak to her live ahead.
KEILAR: And Steve Bannon about to be held in criminal contempt for defying the January 6th committee. Legendary journalist Bob Woodward will join us next.
And later, the prosecutors targeting a Trump golf course, could they uncover a potential tax scheme?
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Later today, the full House is set to vote on whether to hold Steve Bannon in contempt for defying a subpoena for the committee investigating the January 6th insurrection.
Ranking member Liz Cheney laid out what they believe to be Bannon's role in this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): It appears that Mr. Bannon had substantial advance knowledge of the plans for January 6th and likely had an important role in formulating those plans. Mr. Bannon was in the war room at the Willard on January 6th, he also appears to have detailed knowledge regarding the president's efforts to sell millions of Americans the fraud that the election was stolen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Joining us now, Bob Woodward, associate editor of "The Washington Post" and co-author of "Peril."
And, Bob, it's within "Peril" we first learned of the existence of this so-called war room that was being used on January 5th.
What more can you tell us about this?
BOB WOODWARD, CO-AUTHOR, "PERIL": Yeah, I just looked back at what we have in the book, and quite directly have -- we did -- we have the dots. We didn't connect them, though they're there. And they're seven conspiratorial actions by Trump and Bannon, essentially to subvert and destroy the process of certifying who the next president is going to be.
And when you think about it, it's just like Watergate. It's a destruction of the process that we want to trust, and the -- I'm sorry, my memory is not great on this, can I go through some of those conspiratorial actions?
BERMAN: Yes, by all means.
WOODWARD: First of all, on December 30th, Bannon talks to Trump and says you got to make a dramatic return to Washington. Trump is in Mar- a-Lago, he's going to have the New Year's Eve party down there. But he -- he comes back and Bannon says to Trump, you've got to call Vice President Pence off the ski slopes where they -- pence's staff and advisers have stashed him away because they know in a week he's going to have to certify or decide what he's going to do about who the next president is.
And then Bannon says to Trump, January 6th is the moment of reckoning here.
And if we can challenge the legitimacy of Biden, it will make -- it casts shadow over the Biden presidency and then he says we are going to kill the Biden presidency in the crib.
The violent language, of course, it was manifest, the violence itself, on January 6th. Then on January 5th as Liz Cheney was pointing out, Bannon meets with others, including Rudy Giuliani and their phony Republicans to block the certification of Biden, and then you put all this in and Trump put out a phony statement at the time.
This is on the public record saying he and Pence agreed that Pence has the power to walk away and essentially get Trump certified as president. But that's totally untrue. So, anyway, we have a very clear cut case, I would suspect it is quite
possible that Attorney General Merrick Garland will appoint a special counsel to look at this, because the evidence is so clear for a massive Watergate style attempt to destroy the process of electing a president.
BERMAN: A massive Watergate-style attempt to destroy the process of electing a president.
How deep does it go? Because one of the things Liz Cheney suggested yesterday was that the president's assertion of executive privilege in and of itself was some kind of an indication that he had either knowledge of or was involved in the planning of the insurrection itself.
WOODWARD: Well, when you string it all out, and you just look at his tweets, I mean, he says, you know, in his tweet on December 30th, January 6th, see you in D.C.
He is actually talking about January 6th. And then he tweets in a -- there is no ambiguity in this, he says in a tweet, just hours before. I mean, this is 1:00 a.m. on January 6th, the day of the insurrection, if Vice President Mike Pence comes through for us, we will win the presidency. Many states want to direct -- believe they want to decertify the mistake they made in certifying Biden incorrectly.
There is no evidence of that. And he says Mike can send it back. Other words, Pence can do t and maybe theoretically he can, but it is -- I've done this for 50 years. This is a cold case of conspiracy. There are other people involved which are laid out in the book and if we're going to have this delicate process of selecting a president and you have one of the candidates who wants to claim it's stolen without any evidence, what have we got, and to Pence's credit, it was a wobbly course to get there, he did certify Biden as president.
BERMAN: Stay with us, Bob, if you will. We have much more to ask you, including Congressman Jim Jordan who can't seem to keep his story straight about when and how much he talked to Trump on January 6th.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: And new this morning, Pfizer just releasing new data on its booster shot. We'll see how well they work.
KEILAR: Today, the full House will vote on whether to hold Trump ally Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for defying subpoenas for the January 6th committee for his role in the insurrection. Republicans telling their members vote no and that includes Congressman Jim Jordan who defended Trump at a contentious hearing yesterday even though he himself may be called as a witness.
The reason he spoke to Trump on January 6th, except Jim Jordan can't quite seem to get his story straight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When did you speak with former president on January 6th? Did you talk to the former president before, during or after the attack on the Capitol?
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Of course I talked to the president. I've been clear about that. I talked to him all the time. Of course I talked to the president. I talked to him that day. I've been clear about that. I don't recall the number of times.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was it before, during or after --
JORDAN: I talked to the president after the attack.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So not before or during?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you --
JORDAN: I've been clear about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: But he hasn't been clear at all. Jordan seems just as flustered to answer that question now as he was in July when he said he would look into it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TV HOST: Did you talk to the former president that day?
JORDAN: I talked to the former president umpteenth times, thousands.
TV HOST: I mean, on January 6.
DJORDAN: Countless times, I talked to the president -- I never talk about what we talk about. I don't think that's appropriate. I don't talk about what happens in Republican conferences.
I talked to the president numerous times. I continue to talk to the president.
TV HOST: I mean on January 6th, Congressman?
JORDAN: Yes. I mean, I talked to the president -- I talked to the president so many, I can't remember all the days I talked to him. But I certainly talked to the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: A day later after having time to consider it, this is what happened when Jordan was asked again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you speak with president Trump on January 6th?
JORDAN: Yeah, I mean, I spoke with the president last week. I speak with the president all the time. I spoke with him on January 6th. I mean, I talked with President Trump all the time.