tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN November 4, 2021 8:00am-9:00am PDT
hello, everyone. i'm kate bolduan. here's what we're watching at this hour. big strategy shift. house speaker nancy pelosi pushing a head for a vote on president biden's agenda even if it puts house democrats more at odds with senate democrats. 12 jurors but only one who is african-american. now a warning about discrimination from the judge at the trial of the men who killed ahmaud arbery. and a new weapon against covid. a pill to fight the virus that is being called a possible game
changer. thanks for being here. we begin with new developments on democrats' e frt efforts to president biden's agenda through congress. house democrats are meeting at this hour to talk about changes to their trillion-dollar spending plan. house speaker nancy pelosi is pushing for votes as early as today on that as well as the bipartisan infrastructure plan. quite honestly, that is hard to see right now. we're waiting to hear from the speaker any minute. it comes as democrats are struggling to find a path forward after this week's disappointing election results. president biden is blaming congressional democrats for not passing those bills before election day. but democrats are breathing a sigh of relief, at least a little bit, after phil murphy pulled off a win over his republican challenger. the close race in a state that president biden won by 16 points last year captures why democrats
are raising alarm about 2022. let's begin with manu raju live on capitol hill. what are you hearing? >> reporter: nancy pelosi just told her caucus in a closed-door meeting that she does plan to have a vote on that bigger bill as soon as tonight. now, this plan as you know has changed multiple times over the past several weeks, so we'll see if it actually comes to fruition. she is trying to push ahead to get this bill out of the house tonight. she can only afford to lose three votes, and that margin of error, it's possible she could lose more than those votes if she moves ahead, which is why it's uncertain if she would do that. a member of members in ore own caucus want to learn more about the details of the bill, the cost analysis, get an official estimate for the nonpartisan congressional budget office before they go ahead and have the vote. at this hour she has asked her caucus on whether to vote yes or no on this bill.
she told them there is a deadline by 11:00 a.m. to say where they will come down. perhaps that plan could once again change. the home for pelosi is to have a vote tonight and move on to the bipartisan infrastructure bill tomorrow. that bill, of course, $1.2 trillion for roads, bridges, broad band, waterways. it's been waiting action in the house for months, but she wants to move forward on both pieces of legislation before the end of the week. now, how this ultimately plays out remains to be seen. we expect to hear from her in a matter of moments. we'll ask her whether or not she does plan to move forward and whether they will decide to punt this once again. but right now, white house officials are meeting with the democrats in the house, going through this bill section by section, and indicating that they, too, want to get this done. kate, as we've seen from this process over months, can it get done? if it gets done in the house, there is a whole question about the senate, and that's a whole different problem with joe manchin indicating he wants substantial changes to the bill when it goes over there, assuming in a matter of weeks.
>> exactly. manu is there in the room. we're going to get back to manu and the speaker when this all happens, because things could be changing. manu, thanks so much. stand by. in the meantime, republican congressman tom reed is a member of the problem solvers caucus. congressman, from what manu is saying, the speaker is pushing for a vote tonight on the bigger spending bill and then the vote tomorrow on infrastructure. you don't support the bigger spending bill. you have been a yes on infrastructure. but just first and foremost, logistically, do you think it that's actually going to happen this series of votes? >> i don't see how that could happen this evening or this week. they're still waiting for the official referee, the congressional budget office, to score the bill. that's a responsible legislative position because you want to know what's in the bill before you pass it to figure out what's there. the referee is the one that people look to to say how much
does this cost, who's affected by the tax increases? a lot of my colleagues on the democratic side are concerned. but the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the $1.2 trillion bill, that's ready to go. that has my full support, republican support, democratic support. we should get this delivered to the president's desk so the american people win from this gridlock rather than continue the fighting. >> you've been saying that for quite some time, let's move forward on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, as well as many other members of the problem solvers caucus. i remember you telling cnn at one point you think 10 or 20 republicans could get behind that effort, could get behind supporting that. do you still think that's the case? i know this changes day by day, but on infrastructure, are you still looking at numbers like that? >> i am. talking to my colleagues, because the ones of us that have shown support for it, that bill has been obviously vetted for months, this is about roads, highways, its's about airports, rail, everything, american
ports, and they've got 19 senate republicans. we're ready to move on this bill, and i think there's still a strong support of republican base that will be there of 10 to 20, somewhere in that range. >> let me ask, an important provision to lawmaker who is represent states with high taxes like new york, your state, is being proposed, new provision being proposed to be included at least maybe in the senate. bob menendez is part of this, and that's eliminating the cap for some people. if that is added, does that make it harder for you to vote against the larger bill? >> it doesn't make it harder for me because the $1.7 trillion bill has so many expansions of government policies and has other tax increases in it, that that provision, obviously i support it, the repeal of the salt tax, but i will tell you that's not enough to move me to a yes on that overall huge package they're pushing forward. the thing about the salt taxes, we have to be honest with the american people. this is going to help higher income earners.
there's no denying that. so this game that's played of we're not going to tax middle-class americans and make sure the 1% pay their fair share, that's not what the salt deduction is all about. they'll have hypocrisy to deal be. i don't know how they thread that needle. i hope they figure out a solution. >> let me ask you on the broader question of the message from the elections on tuesday. i wanted to play for you what joe biden said when he was asked about what the message was from the election, specifically the democratic loss in virginia. listen to this. >> people are upset and uncertain about a lot of things from covid to school to jobs to a whole range of things, and the cost of a gallon of gasoline. so if i'm able to pass and sign into law my build back better
initiative, you'll see those th things, a lot of them, ameliorated quickly and swiftly. >> is he right? what was the lesson from virginia? >> the lesson was the dysfunction of congress has to stop. we have to put the american people, the people on the front line first, and listen to them. they don't know what's in this bill. they don't know what we're legislating in detail, but they want to see congress function and they're tired of the back-and-forth that we here in washington, d.c., sometimes focus on. i think what the president is touching on is that he has an agenda he wants to accomplish. i respect that. but it's not the agenda of the american people. you look at the polls saying we're not on the right track in america, that's the voice you have to listen to. they support infrastructure. they recognize roads, airports, they know that. now let's get bank a win. and the president -- i'll give the credit to the president. i don't care who gets credit. at the end of the day, the
american people win. >> on some level, getting stuff done, a little what he's talk about, you agree with that. >> absolutely. that's why kicking this over to the senate, the spending bill, it's not going to make its way through the senate. so why would you go through this exercise? and my colleagues on the democratic party will have to vote for it, they won't be voting for the final package. that will put them further at risk in their political future. >> the virginia election, there was nothing thing we saw in that virginia election, was that the republican, now the governor elect, glen youngkin, he made a choice in run big keeping donald trump at arm's length, never appearing with him. he outperformed trump in every county in the state. do you think another lesson from that election is that trump is still a drag on the gop, republicans should run by running -- you know, keeping him at arm's length? >> i think what the governor
elect did in virginia that was very wise is he recognized that silent voice that president trump tapped into and still continues to listen to and continues to be a major force representing. and it's bigger than president trump in my humble. . it's that voice of the forgotten man and woman back home. that's where i think the lesson from that election on the republican side comes from. and so we'll continue to work with president trump. obviously, i supported president trump when he ran, one of the first eight to endorse him, and his policies resonated with the american people. the style, obviously, people had a different opinion on that. but i will tell you the policy is driving the narrative and the listening to the hardworking men and women of america. >> thank you for your time. >> good to be with you. coming up for us, one black juror and 11 white jurors will decide the trial in the killing of ahmaud arbery. with race being a central issue in the case, is that fair?
in 2016, i was working at the amazon warehouse when my brother passed away. and a couple of years later, my mother passed away. after taking care of them, i knew that i really wanted to become a nurse. amazon helped me with training and tuition. today, i'm a medical assistant and i'm studying to become a registered nurse. in filipino: you'll always be in my heart.
(man 1) oh, this looks like we're in a screen saver. (man 2) yeah, but we need to go higher. (man 1) higher. (man 2) definitely higher. (man 1) we're like yodeling high. [yodeling] yo-de-le-he... (man 2) hey, no. uh-uh, don't do that. (man 1) we should go even higher! (man 2) yeah, let's do it. (both) woah! (man 2) i'm good. (man 1) me, too. (man 2) mm-hm. (vo) adventure has a new look. (man 1) let's go lower. (man 2) lower, that sounds good. (vo) discover more in the all-new subaru outback wilderness. love. it's what makes subaru, subaru.
coming up for us, one black doping this morning in a georgia courtroom, the jury will consist of one black man and 11 white juries to decide the fate of three men accused of chasing down and killing ahmaud arbery. prosecutors objected to this arguing other potential black jurors were cut out because of race. 25-year-old arbery, you'll
remember, was out just jogging, just jogging in south georgia last year when he was shot three times with a shotgun. cnn's martin savidge is live in georgia with more on this. martin, what more are you hearing about this jury makeup and the case now? >> reporter: yeah. good morning, kate. there is a lot of controversy now surrounding this case, especially in light of the fact of what we know about the makeup of this jury. you pointed out the most critical part is we have 12 juror, 11 white, one african-american. if you expand to include the alternates, it is 15 who are white and one who is african-american, or if you break it down by gender, again, with the 16, it's 11 who are female and 5 who are male. the defense, when they heard that, immediately jumped up -- i'm sorry, the prosecution when they heard that immediately jumped up and filed a motion in court alleging that the defense
had purposely struck african-americans simply based on the color of their skin. the defense said no, they eliminated people because they felt they could not be impartial. they argued back and forth for two hours, sometimes emotionally, and then the judge came in with basically his decision. here's what the judge said. >> this court has found there appears to be intentional discrimination in the panel. quite a few african-american jurors were excused through pre-emptry strikes exercised by the defense, but that doesn't mean that the court has the authority to reseat -- >> reporter: so there you hear the judge essentially saying he agrees with the prosecution, he believes that at least a number of jurors on the part of the defense were struck because they were black, but he also said as a result of the law in georgia
he didn't have a whole lot of recourse. so the jury is going to be what it is, 11 whites and 1 african-american. kate? >> martin, thank you so much for that reporting. we'll continue to follow this. we have big developments in another big trial. a juror dismissed over an offensive joke, and prosecutors showed jurors also in the kyle rittenhouse trial a key piece of video evidence, fbi aerial surveillance video they say shows rittenhouse moving towards protesters right before he shoots three people, killing two of them. cnn is live if kenosha, wisconsin, with more on this. shamon, what shall you hearing? >> reporter: yeah. so drama this morning over a juror the judge taking the bench this morning, telling the court, the attorneys that he wanted to raise some issues over comments that a jury made to a deputy on
tuesday as they were leaving the court. according to the judge, pretty offensive stuff. when you think about it, the judge saying that the juror was joking, it had reference to do with jacob blake. of course jacob blake is the man shot by police that ultimately led to the unrest here in kenosha. and what the judge said that this juror was joking about, saying why did it take seven shots to shoot jacob blake? obviously, highly offensive comments. the juror said he was joking to the deputy about it. but the judge was concerned over the appearance of bias, and therefore he said he had to dismiss this juror. of course there are a lot of concerns over how things are being conducted inside this courtroom. the judge concerned over the perception of this trial. he has made references to some of the activity that's going on outside of the courtroom. so he dismissed this juror. so now we are left with 19 jurors. we came in with 20.
we are now left with 19. as for today's testimony, we're continuing with video. they have a daily employee on the stand now testifying about an interview he conducted with kyle rittenhouse on the night of the shooting. >> there is a lot going on there. thank you, shamon. we'll continue to follow this out of kenosha, wisconsin. coming up for us, the powers of congress and the former president put to the test today in a federal courtroom. will a judge block the release of january 6th documents? we'll discuss. that's why they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh, yeah. that's the spot. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ psoriatic arthritis, made my joints stiff, swollen, painful. tremfya® is approved to help reduce joint symptoms in adults with active psoriatic arthritis. some patients even felt less fatigued. serious allergic reactions may occur.
tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tremfya®. emerge tremfyant™. janssen can help you explore cost support options. going to tell you about exciting medicare advantage plans that can provide broad coverage, and still may save you money on monthly premiums and prescription drugs. with specifics in the legislation and the amendment from what was seen last week, it was very inspiring and heartening to see the depth
of knowledge, the value-based decisions that were made in the committees and the -- just the ongoing commitment to getting the job done for the people. i'm so proud of the president. i'll come back to that. but the president returning from representing america to show that america is back, whether it comes to fighting the pandemic of covid, whether it's saving the planet from the climate crisis, whether it's enormous success that he had with the global minimum tax, major, major accomplishment, making progress in how we deal with keeping iran from becoming nuclear and also issues that related to, again, global security. security, security. and also economy and governance. he had a beautiful visit with the pope. you know his schedule, but you
don't know the pride we take in all of it. i was particularly inspired by his visit with the pope fresh off of my own visit. i've heard some of you cavalierly say on tv why don't the congress go there? well, i did. i did when i was in rome for the g-20 of parliamentarians which preceded the g-20 of the leaders of the countries. to see his holiness' commitment to the people of the world, talking about a pandemic or a planet, just so inspiring. so to see the two of them, the president of the united states, a devout catholic, and his holiness, the pope, glorious leader, but also knowledgeable about saving the planet, respectful of the refugees that puts strain on migrations and
other conflicts. so, again, proud of the president. also for him to come home at a time, only a few days, but in that time, the system was established with little children to be able to get the vaccination to keep them safe, to keep their families safe, as we know how things spread in school. and to see the beautiful pictures of the children, some of them near tears getting a shot, others very proud of the fact they'll be on tv or whatever. so it begins and ends with everything we do. and now that we see -- it's about 750,000 people who have died from covid in the united states, 5 million in the world. so sad. sadly this morning some of our members are saying good-bye to congressman dale killdie of
michigan. he had a noble spirit of public service. he, too, was in the church -- i don't know if he was actually ordained but studying for the priesthood and he brought those values to the congress with a definite separation of church and state. so our prayers are with his nephew, dan, who serves with us now, and to his wife, gail, and to the rest of the family. good-bye to dale. hello to a new congresswoman chantelle brown, elected in ohio. i think this was 80/20 in the election. a proud daughter of cleveland, a strong advocate for working families, and a courageous voice for civil rights. she's here to build back better and i'm happy to swear her in later today. so build back better, that's why you're here, right? just completing a meeting of the
house democrats. again, i wish everyone could see the pride we take in the work that has been done by the members, by the chairman, by the staff. relentless. not only our own staffs and the committee's staff, but the congressional budget office, the council office and the rest. this morning we have a report from joint tacks, which is -- documenting how the bill -- validating how the legislation is paid for. it came in about 10:00. i refer it to you for your review. it's a very solid -- people said it isn't paid for. people say a lot of things. but this document joint text is objective, not democratic, not republican, it's objective view, and it is solidly paid for. that doesn't even take into account the money that we'll get from what we're very proud of is
an agreement on prescription drugs, which generates resources as well as enforcement, which is several hundred $400 billion in enforcement. so here we are with all of this. the prescription drug bill is something that is from last week. it enables us to do something we've been trying to do for a very long time. the secretary of hhs negotiated for lower drug prices, outrageous price hikes above inflation, and making it more affordable for insurance. it's not just about medicare prices. it's about the private sector, commercial sector as well. we're very excited about what happens in the legislation, took pride in hearing various committees address how children are affected. you know, but the biden child
tax credit, universal pre-k in 3- and 4-year-olds, families of child care costs. again, this is an area where we have consensus, house and senate have, for a long time. nothing very new in that care section except the fact that we would like to put on the table the family and medical leave, so needed and so popular in our country, and make such a difference in the lives of america's families. very important to women but men, too, to have that opportunity. it is, again, better jobs, lower cost, reduces the debt and makes the wealthy and those pay their fair share. it's not punitive. it's just fair. particularly appropriate at this time is what it does for the climate crisis. again, i'm sure you read the
bill last week, and i'm sure you're well aware of some amendments to it this week. but i just want to remind you, the largest investment to the climate crisis in history cults pollution and reduces energy costs and creates good-paying jobs. it's a health issue, clean air, clean water for our children. it's a jobs issue, being competitive and pre-eminent in the world in terms of new green technologies and technology is really what's helping us to advance in making these jobs better and us more competitive. third, it's a national security issue, as national security experts tell us the competition from resources resulting from drought and famine and rising sea levels and encroachment of deserts and the rest, that migration can create conflict and therefore a national
security issue but as always a values issue for us to pass on this plan to future generations in the best possible way. and young people have taken a lead on this, so it's very -- very exciting. so on the build back better, one of the other issues we were dealing with since last week is the immigration issue. i think we're finding common ground in what is in the bill has good resonance. others want more, so do i, but you don't get it all. we're open to it. we're adding to the legislation, which i'm sure you're versed in, is the permit and protection, and we would like to have registry in there because we think it is the easiest, most efficient, fair way to deal with people who are here so that they can work and their families can feel safe and they will not be exploited.
but it doesn't seem to have a big prospect in the senate, so we want to ask members to vote for something -- we wouldn't ask them to vote for something that wouldn't have good prospect in the senate, if it's controversial. i urge the senate to put it forth. the parliamentarian perhaps not getting bogged down in their rules, it's up to them, but it's their calling. if they want to do that, we want to do that, but it has to start with them because it is -- the parliamentarian has already put forth the message that this would not -- this would be either burdenable or privilege and we can't have that. what else? i guess it's time to take your questions. >> madam speaker -- >> okay. >> what effect do you think having not passed these bills had on tuesday's election results? >> well, let me say it a
different way. i think that getting the job done, producing result for the american people, is always very positive. each election is different. as you know, i was former party chair and i always know, let's look down into the numbers and see what it is. but i do think as the american people learn more about what we are doing in this legislation, for families, for children, for women in the workforce to save our planet, it will be very positive. you can't deny it would be very positive. >> do you think democrats were penalized for not getting these things done? >> i haven't seen all of the analysis, and i know from my own experience that as i've said to you before, the anecdote is not data. let's see what the data is as it comes in. but there's no question. the more results we can produce in a way that is -- people understand in their lives, the
better it is. i'm heartbroken because terry mcauliffe is a great leader in our country and was a great governor of virginia, and i hoped he was a once and future governor. also, we're all interested in races as well. i haven't seen much of that. new jersey, nice victory. i spoke to the governor this morning to congratulate him. again, we'll be working together to build back better. but without saying what impact it had, it's always a positive message to have results that are understand by the public. >> could you project this week a little bit what you expect? do you expect a vote tonight? is it possible you might just vote on the infrastructure bill considering everybody seems to be bought in and saying it's ready for a vote? >> no. >> okay. so -- what are the big hurdles
you have to overcome? >> i'll let you know as soon as i wish to. you're just worried about your own schedule. i know that. but the fact is our members are engaged in very thoughtful deliberation with each other. as i said to you before, 90% of this bill had been agreed to, white house, senate, and written. we've made some changes since last week. people need to familiarize themselves with it. that was the purpose of our meeting this morning. i was inspired by just once again hearing the depth of knowledge and breadth of vision of our colleagues. and we'll let you know. but i think many of you know i was really very unhappy about not passing this last week. i really was very unhappy, because we had an october 31st deadline, and i thought that that was eloquent but not enough, i guess. so now we're going to pass both
bills. but in order to do so, we have to have votes for both bills. and that's where we are. >> madam speaker, you mentioned you don't want members to vote on something that may not have a good prospect when it goes over to the senate. when it comes down to paid family leave, now included in this bill, senator joe manchin believes it shouldn't be in this bill. do you believe that the president can convince him otherwise? and what's your message to senator manchin on why it deserves to be in this bill? >> well, i don't make it a habit of talking to senator manchin on the tv. we're friends. i respect him. he's a good person. he's agreed to so much that is in the bill, universal pre-k and child care, agreed to affordable care expanded to embrace those left out of the med case, especially our seniors who depend on that for long-term care. he's been supportive of the child tax credit. there are so many things. home health care and the rest.
some of the stuff we're not finished with yet, but we have had some areas of agreement there. the fact is there's one difference between some of these issues like hearing, he's not for hearing in the bill. hearing has a very broad universal support. in terms of family medical leave, it's no sacrifice for anybody to vote for something that might not see the light of day. and we hope it will see the light of day. it's universal. it's compromise. four weeks. i'd rather have it longer. i wanted six weeks. that's when little babies can finally be able to go to child care. but nonetheless, four weeks. so my message to not joe manchin, i mean, we talked enough about messages, but with
all the respect in the world for the point of view he represents, i disagree. i think that this is appropriate for this legislation. it fits comfortably with child care, health care, home care, family and medical leave. and it has the full support of our caucus. there are other issues that -- for example, registry, which may or may not, people will be willing to vote for it if there's a real prospect for success in the senate. and we'll have to see what that is. so we reserve the right to make distinctions among them. >> i've talked to some moderates who said maybe they need more time to review the legislation. >> well, you know, this has been up for -- first of all, this is the bill basically, we had $3.5 trillion, has to cut it in half, that was drastic, and that's what was posted last week. now we ask for public comment, and we had public comment. you act upon the comment.
and that is -- this would ordinarily be a situation, more on the subject you ever want to know, and rejected as soon as these bills are passed. not useful in their life for the future. on reconciliation, you really can't do an expansive managers amendment. we put the bill out last week. there are changes. managers amendment. pass it on. reconciliation, you have to have it embraced in a totality of another amendment, but it's really that it contains it all so that it adds up. that's what reconciliation is about. and so when people are saying, this is a whole new bill, no, it isn't. but if you imagined it as a managers amendment, it might be easier to grasp because you're just seeing the differences. that's what members presented today. again, no managers amendment,
reconciliation that is substantive. therefore, you have to cloak it or couch it in a similar -- this week it's called an amendment, that is last week it was. is that going to serve you well in your life? >> -- parliamentarian as an immigration project inhibit your ability to produce an impartial judgment on immigrant relief proposals? >> i mean, the judgment about the parliamentarian is one for the senate, for the senate. i just don't agree with the original -- that the policy outweighed the budgetary aspects of the bill. but she's the parliamentarian. you have to talk to the senate about judgments about their people. >> your leadership took a whip count, the deadline about a half hour ago. >> i'm sorry? >> your leadership took a whip count of members on the build back better. the deadline for that was about
half an hour ago. are there democrats still saying they won't vote for this if you have the votes to pass this by the end of the week? >> well, you are my priority. i came right from the caucus to this meeting, so i'm not familiar with what that is. but again, we have questions that members had, whether i would's about is it really paid for. that was one of the questions. yesterday we had a session where we listened to them and they want to know is it really paid for and how. we had this morning richie neal and ryan deese from the white house talk about how it was with the idea -- that was early. at 10:00, the joint text committee would have been released. have you seen it? you've seen it. okay. that was one piece. the other piece was about inflation, and we had the experts' opinions, in fact, very recent, today from moody's that the bill was paid -- since it is
paid for, it would not increase inflation. and, in fact, it would add to our economy because of child care enabling more women to fully participate in it. did you see the whip count? mr. clyburn keeps it close to the vest. >> a number of virginia democrats are critical of the decision not to put the infrastructure bill on the floor before the election. they say that cribbed to terry mcauliffe's loss. do you believe the house democrats in any way are partially responsible for what happened? >> wasn't that the question you asked? >> similar. >> what i said was any sign of progress is all the good for the public when they understand what it is. i think they understand infrastructure pretty well. so it would have been better if we had.
i don't know because i hadn't seen the data, perhaps you had. i think there were other issues at work in that election and remains not for me to make an observation unsubstantiated by data and science and fact. i'm very scientific about elections. district by district, within the district region by region, and we'll see what that is. but it was not a good night. but you have to -- if that's what they said, that's your story. i'm not going to comment on their story. >> so -- >> we need more women in the room. >> we have this number from the joint committee. >> yes. >> obviously, you have theed tos
of all pointterry mcauliffe, sh comment but said it was not a good night. additionally on the path forward on this massive spending bill, we're talking about she is pushing for votes tonight. tomorrow on this, it is definitely still unclear if that is going to happen. we'll stick close to this. i'll be sure to bring you updates. also happening at this hour, it is a critical day of testing donald trump's powers as a former president. a federal judge is hearing arguments right now from trump's legal team trying to keep white house records from january 6th, to keep them confidential, rodriguez that could shed light on his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. the house committee investigating the capitol insurrection wants the national archives to hand over more than 700 pages of documents here. trump sued to stop that, arguing executive privilege. now, my next guest played a role in making sure the 2020 election was not overturned. georgia's secretary of state, the author of a new book called
"integrity counts," in which he writes forcefully against donald trump's false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election. thanks for being here. appr good morning. >> good morning. you often say, and i've seen you say a couple times, you're an engineer, not a lawyer. so you don't like weighing in on legal matters. but would you like to see what these documents could reveal about trump's efforts to overturn the election that a federal judge is kind of hearing arguments about today? >> i think transparency and openness is always a good thing so that people can see the entire picture of exactly what did happen in the past. that's why i wrote my book "integrity counts. "it's fact based. i go back day by day of everything we face nld our office and that's what your focus was, what happened in georgia. i can report to the people like i did a year ago, that president trump came up short in the state of georgia. i have give you all the facts that support that. >> i want to remind viewers -- we've heard this many times, but
it still shocks me every time i hear it, about the phone call that thrust you into the center of donald trump's attempt to overturn the election. a long call, but here is a portion of it. >> we have won this election. in georgia based on all of this, and there's nothing wrong with saying that, brad. the people of georgia are angry. the people of the country are angry. and there's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you've recalculated. i just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. >> you write in your book that -- this is how you write it, "i felt then and still believe today that this was a thr threat," talking about what was laid out in that call. you have said that the select committee has reached out to you. i'm curious, what does reached out mean? can you explain? >> well, we just had
conversations with our lawyer and perhaps i'll be up there just to share my insights and what i saw there. so that's going on right now. but in that call, president trump did say one thing that i aguy with, that people were angry. the reason people were angry on my side of the aisle, because i'm republican, because they had been fed lie after lie, misinformation, misinformation, falsehoods after falsehoods. that's whooo i detail in my book. every single allegation that was made so i can correct the narrative. i'm just one person. i don't have 80 million twitter followers, so i know what i'm up against. but i wanted to calmly and factually explain to people, here are what the facts are. >> you do lay that out. as you just said, you think thaw yao may go up to speak to the committee? >> who knows? that's up to the committee. i know they wanted to make sure there's an open and transparent process. i think people know it was a shock to our system. i think perhaps people understand that that was really the straw that broke the camel's back. but we want to make sure that
everyone understands in g.a. dwa, we have fair and honest elections, and i want to make sure people understand i will walk the line of integrity to make sure we have fair and honest elections. >> the committee itself and its efforts has come under attack from republicans on capitol hill. do you support the efforts of the select committee to get at this, to get at the extent that trump went to overthrow the election and his role in motivating the attack on the capitol? i think if we have an open and transparent process, people look at the information. i don't think we want to minimize it. we want to look at what the objective truth is. the fact that president trump did not carry the state of georgia. i can talk about that because that's my job. it's not other states and what happened in washington, d.c. we all watched what happened on january 6th and people can draw their own conclusions. so i think that the work they do, i hope it's solid work and we'll see what their report says at the end of the day. i want people to understand that in georgia, 28,000 people did
not vote for anyone for president. they skipped that, yet they vote down ballot. senator david perdue got 20,000 more votes than president trump did in the metropolitan areas of atlanta and also athens. that explains a lot why president trump came up short. >> you recount in your book as well the attacks you faced after the 2020 election. death threats texted to your wife, an encounter with someone outside of your home. a local georgian election official with whom you have clashed with in the past just yesterday announced he's resigning at least in part over death threats that he and his staff have faced, a local election official in georgia. this speaks to a larger -- the larger national problem that is not going away, which is the serious threats and fear that election officials are living with. and donald trump made that okay. how concerned are you about the long-term impact of this?
>> well, what we saw in georgia after the election is we had poll workers -- in fact, we had some poll workers who were followed home in bartow county which went over 75% of president trump, followed home. that's the kind of intimidation that should never occur. a young poll worker was threatened along with his family members because he had a unique last name kind of like i do. that should never happen. we had election directors. if you have an election and your poll workers don't show up, what are you going to do? the poll workers are giving back to their committees. it doesn't pay a lot. it's a 14-hour day. you have to do training. those poll workers are po people you meet at the grocery store, the ball field, church, rotary, organizations like that. they're good, honest, decent people. they're salt of the earth people just giving back to their country to make sure we have fair and honest elections. we should never allow that to happen again.
>> secretary, thank you for your time. >> thank you. a quick programming note for all of you -- join jake tapper for a cnn special report called "trumping democracy: an american coup." it airs at 9:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow night on cnn. coming up for us, the mayor of st. louis is trying to do something about gun violence in her city only to have a speech that she's giving about that interrupted by gunfire. she joins me live next . . .
advanced non-small cell lung cancer can change everything. but your first treatment could be a chemo-free combination of two immunotherapies that works differently. it could mean a chance to live longer. opdivo plus yervoy is for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread, tests positive for pd-l1, and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. it's the only fda-approved
combination of two immunotherapies. opdivo plus yervoy equals... a chance for more time together. more family time. more quiet time. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to harm healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea; constipation; severe stomach pain, nausea or vomiting; dizziness; fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems; muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur together and more often when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. here's to a chance to live longer. ask your doctor about chemo-free opdivo plus yervoy. thank you to all those in our clinical trials.
i'm going to turn now to america's gun violence epidemic which is surging during the pandemic. the fbi reports that 2021 fun violence rates were up nearly 30% compared to the prior year, and if you take one local example, homicide in st. louis, missouri was the highest in the country last year, the worst the city has seen in 50 years. take a look at what happened recently when the mayor of st. louis, missouri, was out in public addressing this issue. >> what i did hear today from brother al in curing violence -- [ gunshots ] >> isn't that wonderful. >> what you heard there very
clearly gunshots. joining me now is that mayor, mayor of st. louis jones. mayor jones, thank you for being here >> thank you for having me. >> one thing that strikes me, and i know you also noted it, is you do not flinch when those shots rang out so clearly as you're speaking to cameras. what does that say? i mean, do you as the mayor feel safe in your city? >> so, yes, i absolutely feel safe? st. louis, but what it speaks to is a broader desensitization of the environment that i live in, that my son lives in, that many black and brown families live in in our city because of the proliferation of weapons that, you know, everybody has access to a gun. >> the pandemic has made crime worse in many cities across the country, as we've not. there's no one single solution. there's no one solution for every city, every town, every state. what are you doing in st. louis to turn this around?
toship this trend, and when do you think you're going to know if it's working or not? >> well, i think that some of the things that we've started to do are already working. we are making market investments in community violence intervention programs. we set aside an additional $5 million from arma funds that were granted to the city through the american recovery plan argument, through the federal government, and then also we're encouraged by the build back better act that is going to set aside $5 billion for cbi initiatives, but it's going to take addressing the root causes of crime, and that's going to take time because we didn't get to this problem overnight, and we won't get out of it overnight, but we're already seeing that homicides are down almost a third from last year, and then we're also deploying different deployment strategies of our existence force to make sure that we are present in neighborhoods and doing more community policing, so this
coupled with other violence intervention initiatives we're starting to see some progress. >> on tuesday voters in minneapolis, minnesota rejected a ballot measure that would have replaced their police department with the way it was described as a public health-oriented department of public safety and the voters rejected that. what do you think that says about the push for police reform and criminal justice reform after george floyd's murder there? >> well, i think you absolutely have to consider gun violence as a public health cries, and that's what we're doing in the city of st. louis. we're going to declare gun violence as a public health crisis and use all of the tools in the toolbox to help address that with our new health director, dr. davis. we're going to pull our flagship universities and hospitals to the table and see how we can address root causes and the social determinants of health. i don't see that as a rejection.
i think people want to go in a different direction and we need to transform our public safety system with one that leads with prevention instead of arresting and incarcerating. >> but in your city it's no consideration of, you know, getting rid of or replacing the police department as part of that strategy? >> no, absolutely not. we're trying to transform our public safety system to one that leads with prevention an not arresting and incars nating, and we started a cops and clinicians program earlier this year that pairs officers with licensed clinical social services and other health responders, diverted people from jail and prevented suicides and diverted people from our emergency rooms and we need to take a different holistic approach to public safety. >> takes a whole community. you're doing really interesting things in that regard. you mentioned the build back better act. i know you're supportive of the administration's efforts here and i'm interested in your perspective of the battle in the democratic party or call it negotiation within the democratic party in washington right now.
you have infrastructure and that major social spending bill being debated, and as a local official dealing with these issues every day, is it more important right now or a priority for democrats to push to go big which is going to take some time, or is it better and more of a priority to get something done now and immediately know, immediately, knowing that it will be smaller? >> well, i spoke with my congresswoman congresswoman cori bush and one of the things i told her is don't let perfect be the enemy of good, and so i think that, you know, the negotiations should continue to happen. hopefully through those negotiations we can get manchin and sinema to agree on what they will support instead of constantly telling us what they won't support, and we need to get this done for the american people because people are dying, people are hurt, and these are great things within the bill that are going to save families and to save lives, and so we
sent our representatives to washington, d.c. to represent us and to help us and hopefully we can get this passed before everybody goes home for holiday break. >> mayor, thank you for coming on. >> thank you for having me. >> and thank you all so much for being with us cade. i'm kate balduan. "inside politics" with john king starts now. hello and welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king in washington. busy news day for us of the right now a court battle over the insurrection. a judge deciding whether to give lawmakers access to call records, visitor logs, giga bytes of files former president trump wants to keep secret. plus the biden administration giving companies more time. it delays its vaccine mandate for large employers until january. adam kinzinger says he won't go quietly into political