Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

CDC Looking Into Rare Heart Issue in Young Vaccinated People; Progressives Fume at Biden As Voting Rights Bill Dies In Senate; Voting Rights Fight Exposes Dem Party Fractures; Justices Rule Schools Limited in How They Can Regulate Off-Campus Speech; Eric Adams Leads Early Vote Count in NYC's Dem Mayoral Primary. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired June 23, 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]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Hello and welcome to "Inside Politics". I'm Dana Bash in Washington. John King is off today. A major first amendment decision from the Supreme Court the justices' side with a high school student who flipped her coaches, the bird dropped the F-bomb on Snapchat, and they rolled the Supreme Court that is that her school was wrong to punish her.

And a Trump family Rift; news CNN reporting that the former president is miffed at his son in law Jared Kushner over a book deal and a fight over just how much he shaped the Trump Presidency?

Plus, a big meeting of CDC vaccine advisors tries to settle some big questions. Will we need booster shots and when? And is there a link between vaccines and some heart problems in a small group of kids?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CDC DIRECTOR: We have been receiving reports now from other countries and into CDC, of potential issues of Myocarditis or Pericarditis, the inflammation of the heart or the lining around the heart. And there's been this question as to whether it's been associated with these mRNA vaccines and if it has, what the risk is?

I think the day that you're going to see this afternoon that we'll see this afternoon at this advisory committee meeting will overwhelmingly demonstrate that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Up first, the Biden Administration at a crossroads. The president wants a big and bipartisan deal on infrastructure. But progressives in his own party are mad that the president and moderate senate democrats won't chuck the filibuster to make progress on another critical agenda item voting rights.

Here in the studio to share their reporting and their insights CNN's Jeff Zeleny, Seung Min Kim of "The Washington Post" "POLITICO's" Rachel Bade, and Brittany Shepherd of Yahoo News, happy Wednesday to all of you.

Jeff, let me start with you. What are you hearing from your sources at the White House about just how difficult it is right now? And how critical this week and maybe even this day are to the Biden agenda?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: These days, are really very critical and they're numbered. I mean, the reality is time is running out for there to be a bipartisan deal. The grumbling on Capitol Hill from Democrats, it's getting much louder.

Senator Elizabeth Warren told our Manu Raju earlier today that, you know, time is running out there wasting time. So the president, though still hopes there can be a deal. His team is going to be up on Capitol Hill meeting with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer.

So it's not entirely clear, still how this plan is going to be paid for? I mean, the argument has been the same, they're still seems to be enough energy to keep these conversations alive. So the White House is a little more optimistic than I actually thought they would be.

I thought there'd be some pessimism. They're still optimistic, because I think the president is still optimistic. He still believes that they can get a bipartisan bill done. But this week, we'll test really something that's been pretty remarkable for the Biden Administration.

They've kept Democrats together. Will Democrats stay together after all this? That's going to be Speaker Pelosi's of course huge task here if the agreements reached on the other side.

BASH: Well, let me give you a teaser on that. Right now it's looking like no, and that is just based on what Jamaal Bowman, a progressive, very outspoken Democrat said on this program yesterday. I want to play what he said and also how the White House Jen Psaki in particular responded?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN (D-NY): He's not absent, but he needs to be a lot more vocal and a lot more out front.

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Those words are a fight against the wrong opponent, and he signed a historic executive action just several weeks ago, that puts in place a number of protections to ensure that people have the ability to vote. I would say that's hardly being silent. That's hardly sitting on the back bench. And we are - he will be standing with advocates in this fight for the foreseeable future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: The "he" of course, is the president frustration that he is not more active? Yes, of course, he's been active in infrastructure. But the question here is about voting rights, which didn't even get, you know, get on the Senate floor for debate yesterday, because every Republican voted no one proceeding to the bill. SEUNG MIN KIM, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: He certainly not absent but he's certainly been quiet compared to his overt involvement in the infrastructure, discussions and all through the year he has invited key members of the Oval Office for these discussions on a major sweeping jobs bill and infrastructure legislation.

On voting rights, not so much he has left that for the Senate Democratic Caucus to work out its own little family differences. And obviously you see Vice President Harris on the Hill saying yesterday, the fight is not over. Try to energize the base but seriously - but they are - there are serious concerns about what can actually happen?

[12:05:00]

KIM: I think the focus is obviously going to look to potential more executive actions, more actions by the Justice Department. But on the legislative front, it does seem over at this point. And the problem for Biden is that they're - the bully pulpit only goes so far, particularly with very stubborn Senators who are set in their ways on how the Senate should function?

What they are and are not willing to blow up to advance a policy measures such as the voting rights measure? And Senators Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, have made it adamantly clear for months now that they are not willing to do that, and that no one - including the president of the United States is not going to change their mind.

BASH: Good.

BRITTANY SHEPHERD, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, YAHOO NEWS: Sorry to get into. What's so interesting about what Seung Min was saying about the White House's defense? When you talk to progressives outside of the Hill, they're saying that that fights that Harris talking about hasn't even begun.

But it takes only five minutes to walk from the Oval to the Brady Briefing Room and for Biden to be extremely firm. But we have to understand there's been a lot on the president's planes going to Russia trying to deal with Putin trying to deal with the gun rights here.

Immigration, there's just a slew of things that you can only cash so many poker chips on. But progressives are saying, well, we try to deal with Republicans. They are against her to find the election in your name. If you believe that they're against democracy, why do you believe that they are faithful negotiators?

That's the frustration from the Caucus on the Hill and outside and in states where they believe Republican states are still passing these restrictive voting rights laws. And Democrats are pulling their hair out saying, well, who cares? Who cares about Joe Manchin? Please come to the states and help us or no one's going to be able to vote and this narrow majority that we have coming in the midterms will just go?

RACHAEL BADE, POLITICO PLAYBOOK CO-AUTHOR: It's like they wanted to just see the effort, right? They wanted to see, you know, as you mentioned, President Biden go up to the bully pulpit, go to the microphone and sit, talk about this more bring, you know, democratic legislators, from across the country to Washington do some sort of big events, some sort of big focus on voting rights.

I mean, the issue that the Democrats have is that they made voting rights S1 and HR1, those are two bills, you know, they reserved for their top priorities. They're talking about the end of democracy. They're saying this is a top priority.

And yet, there was clearly you know a lack of action from the White House to actually even just try to move public sentiment to put that pressure on the Senators to get something done. And so clearly activists, they want to see more.

BASH: I just want to play something that Jim Clyburn who is not in the Senate. So he doesn't, you know, get to vote on even really have a key voice on filibuster, but because he is a member of the House leadership, what he has been saying about it is quite interesting. I want to play what he said, and then talk about it on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM CLYBURN (D-SC): I have never asked that the filibuster, be eliminated. I do believe that we all do for constitutional issues, what we've done with the budget? We ought to use reconciliation to maintain democratic principles and move forward without a pursuit of a more perfect union.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: So this is really noteworthy. And this is where the conversation is not just as going is happening now. Because you said the voting rights bill HR1, S1, they're dead right now. So do you think that - those kinds of conversations getting out, having Kamala Harris, you know, do what she was assigned to do, which is go ahead and get public support, galvanize is going to have any effect on Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, the ones who are saying, we're not going to get rid of that filibuster for anything, no matter what?

ZELENY: It's hard for me to believe that it would. I mean, even though the power of the presidential megaphone can be incredibly powerful, but it also has limits, particularly when they are trying to do other things. We started talking about infrastructure that's connected to this.

I believe that that talking to sources. That is why President Biden has been a little bit more restrained and not calling out some Republicans by name and other things. He still wants to get a deal on some things. So I think that is why he's been a little bit more muted in his response on this. But I'm a little skeptical that even summers of rallies can change minds of Senators.

BASH: Yes.

ZELENY: Manchin and Sinema, I just think it's difficult. BASH: And what you said is so important about how it is all connected, because what you're seeing now is infrastructure still going on two tracks, right? You have the bipartisan negotiations about the traditional infrastructure, roads, bridges, things like that.

And then you have Bernie Sanders, who's the Budget Chair working on a very big package, which he's hoping to get through with Democrats only. And progressives are saying we're not you know, we're going to protest with some of them.

We're not going to even support the bipartisan bill unless you, leadership, you, Mr. President, promise us to get more involved on these other issues, which they consider existential to democracy, meaning voting rights.

KIM: Right. And that's the leverage they have because we talk about it so often. That right now in the Senate there's no room for error among Democrats. There are margin for error in the House there's also very little margin for error there.

[12:10:00]

KIM: And it's been progressive in the House Democratic Caucus who has been more willing to protest against their leadership to get policy measures that they want. So they know they have the leverage and something that they can extract.

Going back to Jeff's point, I think you're going to see Democratic leaders shift their focus towards really picking up more seats in the 22 elections, because the more Democrats who support eliminating the system the filibuster you get in the Senate, the more likely that is but that obviously isn't going to come soon enough.

ZELENY: If there is still--

BASH: Yes, right. And which could be determined by how the voting laws are in each of these states. So it's a whole circle everybody standby. Up. Next, we're going to look at the Supreme Court, which sided this morning with a high school cheerleader in a landmark free speech case, the lawyer for that cheerleader joins me live to discuss stay with me.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

BASH: F-school, F-softball, F-cheer F-everything those are Brandi Levy's profanity laced outburst against her school, which launched a Supreme Court case that is now the backbone of a decision with a major first amendment ruling, which has implications that are far reaching.

The justices today ruled that a Pennsylvania Public School violated Ms. Levy's first amendment rights when it suspended her. CNN's Laura Coats joins us now. Laura, eight to one decision the majority was written by Justice Brayer and here is what he wrote in part.

"The school itself has an interest in protecting students' unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus America's public schools are the nurseries of democracy", going on to say "That protection must include the protection of unpopular ideas for popular ideas have less need for protection".

So my question for you, Laura, as a legal expert, how far reaching is this decision when it comes to free speech protections? Is it limited to students? Is it limited to public school students? Or does it go beyond that?

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it is around public schools. And remember, private schools have always had extended liberty in terms of how they're able to interact and regulate student behavior.

This way goes back to the 1969 case of Tinker, the infamous case where students protesting the Vietnam War wanted to wear the black armbands to protest that symbolic speech. And in that case, the Supreme Court said look, a student's rights for free speech in the first segment do not stop at the gates.

This question was about whether the schools purview extended beyond those gates for now, we know about an off campus speech, social media being used here. The court did say essentially, look, a school does have some interest in regulating behavior that might actually impact school bullying, for example, extensive issues surrounding the conduct that might implicate students or might be very disruptive in some way.

But here, it was a pretty close universe effects of Snapchat, hundreds of people yes, had seen it, but it was about not targeting a particular person wasn't extensive abuse. So this was not the case. I can get you over the hump of that Tinker decision that said it's got to be truly disruptive. This is going to have wide reaching implications though Dana.

BASH: Laura, standby. I want to bring in Sara Rose an Attorney for that cheerleader. Thank you so much for joining me. First of all, have you talked to your client? And how is she feeling about this decision?

SARA ROSE, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY AT ACLU PENNSYLVANIA: Yes, so I have talked to Brandi and she is just thrilled by this decision. You know, she is no longer a cheerleader. She's no longer even in high school. And so at this point, she was really just fighting for the rights of other kids. And she's just so happy with the result that we got today.

BASH: Yes, she's a college student now. What is this say to you? You are her attorney, but also a Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU in Pennsylvania.

ROSE: So I mean, I think this is the most significant decision for young people's free speech rights in 50 years. So we were just very pleased that the court ruled in favor of Brandi and held that the school violated her first amendment rights when it punished her for the snap.

But you know, the office - the court also put in place a lot of, you know, protections for students off campus speech, that are really important, especially in this digital era.

BASH: OK, Sara Rose, thank you so much for joining me this morning. I guess congratulations are in order. This was a long battle. And it's not every day that a lawyer gets to win a case at the Supreme Court. So thank you again.

And, Laura, I want to go back to you. Before I went to Sara, you said that there are far reaching implications. What are they?

COATES: Well remember, we're talking about a school being able to trying to say they wanted to say to the Supreme Court, if it's off campus, even if it's off campus speech, if it's a student at our schools, we can regulate that.

Well, what about the advent of social media or conversations that are happening or things that essentially would say, just because you're a student, you get 24 access of censorship, or you can regulate what I'm doing. You can stand in the - in the stance of my parents as what they call in local apprentice.

The Supreme Court said no, if it's off campus speech that is not disruptive, even if it's vulgar, even if you have some interest in trying to mind the good manners or educate that, look, you have students who are going to express viewpoints that are critical.

Imagine the world of criticism a student might have who are particularly adept at understanding the world around them, of course, who want to criticize the powers that be who want to speak truth to power. This is why it's so expansive.

If a school was able to simply silence through discipline, the statements that were unpopular or critical of a school or critical of an aspect of their rearing. Well imagine how they would be silent and their speech would be chilled in the political context, in this social context and other things?

So the court essentially said, look, we can regulate things are truly disruptive, but we can't act as someone who's going to suppress your free speech rights. The Supreme Court got it right and it's going to extend beyond this.

[12:20:00]

BASH: So fascinating and you're right. The limit that they put into this the majority decision about suggesting bullying. I mean, you and I are both parents of young children. That was noteworthy certainly to me and I'm sure it was to you as well. Laura, thank you so much for making sense of at all for us.

COATES: Absolutely.

BASH: And coming up there is an early front runner in New York's Democratic Mayoral Primary but can Eric Adams keep his advantage, more on that next?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [12:25:00]

BASH: We're still waiting for a winner in America's most anticipated primary for Mayor New York City. Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams is off to a substantial early lead followed by progressive favorite Maya Wiley and Former Sanitation Commissioner Kathryn Garcia. Former Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang conceded after he placed a distant fourth.

New Yorkers might not know the winner until next month, the city voted using ranked choice and because no candidate received more than 50 percent of the first choice vote the count will continue in the weeks ahead.

Joining me now is Gloria Pazmino. She is a Political Reporter for New York One. Thank you so much. I know it's been a very long night and morning for you. So our viewers know leading the field, as I mentioned is Eric Adams. He is a Former NYPD Captain.

He campaigned on cracking down on crime in New York City. So Gloria based on your reporting, how much do you think his lead has to do with crime, the spike in crime being such a big issue in New York City right now?

GLORIA PAZMINO, POLITICAL REPORTER, NY1: Yes, I mean, this was really a central theme of not just his entire campaign, but specifically of the Eric Adams campaign, as you said Dana a Former NYPD Captain, someone who ran a campaign focused on the fact that he's a Former Police Officer.

And sold it as part of the reason he would be the one to both reform the NYPD which is something we know New Yorkers have been talking about in the last year, but also to get a handle on the rise in crime that we have unfortunately seen around the city in the last year.

This is something that's not happening just here in New York City. But we're seeing in other major cities across the country. There's been an increase in crime, specifically here in New York in shootings. So he really made that a part of his campaign.

Other candidates were also speaking about public safety but Eric Adams really drove the message that he would be the one to address this immediately. And he certainly had a support a lot of support going into this in what the polls showed and it looks like he for now is very comfortable in the lead.

BASH: So tell us about Maya Wiley and Kathryn Garcia, who are second and third right now. What are you watching for there?

PAZMINO: Yes, I mean, in some ways, Dana this is already historic, right? We've never had two women topping the ballot in New York City ever before. New York City has never had a Woman Mayor. There has been 109 Mayors all of them have been men, only one Black Mayor.

So Eric Adams if he does win he could potentially become the city's second black mayor, but to the women to Maya Wiley to Kathryn Garcia, Maya Wiley in second place. Kathryn Garcia, the Former Sanitation Commissioner in third place.

Maya Wiley has a big difference to make up here. She ran a very different campaign. She has sort of been embraced by the progressive wing of the Democratic here - Democratic Party here in the city, and has a lot of support. Kathryn Garcia, on the other hand, ran a more moderate raise very similar messaging to that of Eric Adams.

BASH: So interesting. So we only have the early vote counts for now. Explain how this race is going to play out over the next few weeks, as they begin to count melon ballots and so forth? When do you think and when do you hear the winner will be known?

PAZMINO: Yes, we're going to have to ask everyone, all New Yorkers to be patient, which is not something that New Yorkers are known for? They're going to have to wait, you know, the Board of Elections is going to be counting.

Not until next week, June 29th, is when the first round of rank choice counting will begin at the selection. As you said at the top Dana this is the first time the city is using this mode of voting rank choice voting, where voters get to rank their choices. And unless somebody pulls off 51 percent of the vote, we go into these counts.

So it's expected next Tuesday, we kind of get to do primary election day all over again. And then there's also the factor of the absentee ballots, which will also make a big difference in the totals going into next week.

BASH: Gloria Pazmino, thank you so much for joining me and breaking it all down. I appreciate it.

PAZMINO: Thank you.

BASH: And so the question is, what does this race in New York City say about the Democratic Party right now in 2021? We're going to discuss that after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:30:00]