>> brennan: welcome back to "face the nation." we continue our conversation with former director of the national economic council gary cohn. so after the signing ceremony the president did this week with china, he said: >> i made a lot of bankers look very good. >> brennan: the top six u.s. banks saved up $32 billion because of the tax cuts that you helped craft. this according to bloomberg news. the hit on the tax law is that it is good for corporations. it's good for business. it's not good for the little guy. why do you think this mall sis is wrong? the president seems to be saying and applauding that he's helping out big banks. >> well, our tax bill is clearly

working. we've made u.s. businesses competitive against with the rest of the world. we lowered the corporate tax rate to 21%. we now have a corporate tax rate that is competitive with the rest of the world. we lowered corporate tax rates, and that in itself costs less than $100 billion a year to do that. but it stimulates huge economic growth. the businesses in the united states can now thrive, which means they can grow, they can go our and hire people, which we've seen. we've seen record unemployment. we've seen record unemployment rates down to 3.5%. we've seen wage goa. we've seen 3% plus wage growth. most importantly -- the tax law?ou put this all >> a lot of it has to do with the tax law. it has. to we've seen higher-end wage growth at the bottom pay scale than we have at the top. we've seeing the incentives we created in the tax law by lowering the corporate rate, we're seeing that happen. >> brennan: there is a whole debate about the contribution to the deficit. i want to put that aside and i want to focus on something,

though, that is really resonating politically. and it is this broader argument that this country somehow is rigged to benefit the wealthy and disadvantage the poor. and you have even had jamie diamon, the former head of goldman sachs, they've said that they're all concerned about income inequality growing in this country. are you concerned? >> of course i'm concerned. we're all concerned. >> brennan: you don't think there have been contributions to that through the tax law? >> i think there have been contributions to the positive. if you look at the day dark you will see that we have grown wages at the bottom end of the spay scale faster than we've grown at the top. it's exactly what we're trying to do. we're trying to attract more jobs back to the united states. put more people to work. and that's what we're seeing happening. >> brennan: michael bloomberg says about this tax law, nearly all the money goes to people like me who don't need it.

this is a guy who knows wall street, who is a billionaire. he is saying that the tax law is only advantaging people like him. >> i'd love to know how it's advantaging him. i'd love to see that, because at the end of the day, we have lowered rates. i agree that we have lowered rates. we have broadened the base meaning that we make more of your income taxable. that's basic tax policy. lower rates, broaden based. meaning you get rid of more of the loopholes that people have used to deduct from their income what they pay taxes on. we got rid of a lot of the loopholes, to people are having to pay more taxes. they're having to pay taxes on more of their income. yes, they're paying it at a lower rate. >> brennan: are you going to endorse michael bloomberg, whose board i believe you sit on? >> i do not. i sit on one of his emerging market boards. be v f him: but that doesn't neg >> it does not.

>> brennan: two of the candidates who are also vying for democratic nomination, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, constantly come back to this idea of income inequality. they have proposed taxes on billionaires, taxes on financial transations. elizabeth warren has referred to that, people making over $50 million having an additional 2% tax. what would the impact of those policies be from your perspective? >> look, our tax system in the united states is very, very progressive. we have over 50% of the population today do not pay a dollar of federal tax. so if you're going to collect more revenue, which i'm not against, we have to collect more revenue, it's going to come from the top half of workers, in fact, it's going to come from the top 10% of workers. that's where you can find the taxable income. i think that we will end up doing that. we will potentially need to do that, but these newfangled plans we're coming up with, we don't need to do things like that to collect more income from people. we have basic tax system that

works. we can do some basic fundamental things. if we need to collect more money. the question is: do we need to collect more money? we look at spending and we look at revenue and we don't talk about them in t sam se. we collect taxes, and then we spend, and congress never thinks about how much money they have to spend, they just go spend. so you wouldn't run your household like that. i wouldn't run my household like that. i would decide how much revenue i have and how much i can spend. >> brennan: well, you're a democrat. >> yes, i am. >> brennan: is there a single democrat that you would consider voting for in. >> i'll consider voting for anyone. i vote on policy. >> brennan: even elizabeth warren? >> i will consider voting for anyone i said. i didn't say i would. i said i would consider voting for them. >> brennan: well, that's evasive. in pulling apart some of her proposal, you seem to reflect a lot of what wall street says, which is that there is deep concern over this focus on the financial community and corporations, et cetera. in this environment, is this peoplew on treetsee some ofhe

contuing to along lines of whatever the president is putting forward, even if they don't like some of his behavior, vote for him because of what he's doing? >> that's a hypothetical question. i don't know. what i do know is the economy is really strong. and the democrats have not really come up with an idea how to help the economy get even stronger. so it's probably easier to talk about corporate greed and talk about wall street and talk about technology companies because they don't have an answer for an economy that's growing 2.5% with 3.5% unemployment and 3% wage growth. i haven't heard their answer on that, except let's tax it to death. >> brennan: as you said, you identify as a democrat. you did have disagreements with the president on a number of things. i was there on trump tower the day of the charlottesville reference, find people on both sides. i remember your face that day. you were very public about some of your differences with the president. will you vote for him? >> i'm very supportive of the

president's economic policy. i'm supporteddive of what he's done on deregulation. i haven't heard anyone who has y yei ot social issues, as well. so, you know, in many respects i have to balance both sides of that equation before i figure out who i'm going to vote for. >> brennan: so you're leaving the door open? >> i'm leaving the door open, but at this point, i don't have any intention not to vote for the president. >> brennan: you are a frank guy. you're usually pretty direct. >> brennan: yeah. >> is there anyone around the president who can be direct with with with him right now? is there anyone doing what you said you did when guiding him on some of these economic policies? >> brennan: i don't know. i've been gone a year and a half. i'm sure there are people talking to the president. >> brennan: when the president can say, look, i've gotten these tariffs that have helped me get these free trade deal with america, this phase-one deal with china, doesn't that encourage the president's approach, one that you have differed with him on. >> it may encourage his approach, but he's also got advisers that i'm sure

cretarhin an had a lot of conversations where we agreed on tariffs. i'm sure the secretary is talking to the president on tariffs and what effect they're having and what effect they're not having. >> brennan: lastly, i want to ask you about a new book, i know you haven't read it, coming out, there have been excerpts released which directly reference you, which is why i want to give you chance to respond. the president is accused of calling advisers dopes and babies and the like. is the description of the president and his management style matching your experience? >> i don't know what book you're referring. to i have not read it, so i wouldn't know. >> brennan: the management style of berating advisers? >> look, the president, what you see on tv is exactly what you get in private with the president. the president is the same person behind closed doors as he is out in public, which is a unique feature. you know, it's not like he turns it on or turns it off when he walks outside, so you've seen

everything the president has. that's e w you're in a private meeting. >> brennan: all right. gary cohn, thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> brennan: we'll be right back with our political panel. stay with us. with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪ when we see you enter through our doors. we don't see who you're against, or for. whether tomorrow will be light or dark. all we see in you, is a spark. we see your kindness and humanity. the strength of each community. the more we look the more we find the sparks that make america shine. ♪ johnsbut we're also a cancer fighting,

hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready.

brennanurn now to our potical pal for some analysis, gerald seib, the executive washington editor for the "wall street journal," ed o'keefe covers the white house for cbs news. weijia jiang is our white house correspondent, and susan page is a washington bureau chief with "usa today." jerry, the senate may not be giving the president everything he wants in the impeachment trial. what's going on? >> i think a feeling has taken hold that's being conveyed to senate republicans that we would like to get this impeachment trial over as fast as possible as opposed to let's stretch it out and have the this exonerate

the president. there is now a real fear, the locker this goes on, the greater the risk of unexpected and unpleasant surprises and lev parnas, who you talked about earlier, illustrated that this week. somebody comes in out of the blue during the middle of a process and starts saying things that make republicans very nervous. maybe that increases the chances of senate republicans will vote to call witnesses. that's not where the white house wants to go. so i think you're seeing the president pressure senate republicans and you're seeing senate republicans having conversations this weekend about how can we speed this up and get to the finish line faster. >> brennan: susan, you heard from senator cornyn. he's talking about the gravity of the moment. that doesn't sound like something you put on fast forward. >> i thought it was remarkable what we saw over the last couple days. we have been talking about impeachment since inauguration day. it's not a surprise that the president is being impeached, although maybe it's a surprise that it's over ukraine. but i thought that with the transmission of the articles of impeachment with the arrival of the chief justice with the senators signing the oath book

that we had a sense of the importance, of the gravity of what's ahead. i'm not sure that's going to hold for an impeachment trial, especially with alan dershowitz on the president's defense team, but for at least a moment, it seemed like a different kind, a more serious exercise than it seemed before. >> brennan: weijia, you spoke to alan dershowitz in your reporting. he's got his own legal problems, but he's someone the public knows well from being on television. ken starr, people know him from the clinton impeachment. what is behind this casting, if that's the right word, of these individuals? >> that baggage could follow them, if you believe that the company you keep says something about you. but president trump clearly doesn't care, because he really cares about the appearance of his legal team. and he thinks that derby academy and starr, despite the other things that come along with them, will lend credibility to his case along with "great television ratings" according to

an adviser to the white house some the president thinks that they'll make for great tv to put on a show for who he believes are the real jurors in this case, not the senators, but the people watching at home. >> brennan: will it be great tv, ed? this is something that is so solemn, so scripted. the senators can't even speak. >> right. >> brennan: is mitch mcconnell planning for great tv? >> he's hoping for a dignified process, and if that means bad tv, so be it. remember, there are only going to be four camera angles in the room. we don't get to see the jurors necessarily during this trial. so no facial reactions from guys like jim inhofe or chris murphy. you know, it's just going to be sort of whoever is speaking and the chief justice for the most part. you'll get plenty of air time. mcconnell has four priorities here over the course of the next few weeks, manage the senate and make sure it's a dignified process. but he has to manage the president and his expectations. he's got to manage the fact that several of his colleagues, 22,

are up for reelection and seven or eight are in trickier contests than they would like, and he has his o reelection back home some he has to be seen as maintaining decorum but also keeping in the back of his mind or in front of him that this could be a factor 11 months from now in elections across the country. >> you know what he's lucky, john mccain is not in the sphat. could you imagine the fifth and sixth and seventh chores mcconnell could face if john mccabe was still representing the state of arizona. does that mean mitt romney would feel more empowered to stand up in a serious way? >> i would argue there could be somebody who emerges if not a mccain, some republican that does step up and say, we do need to allow this to play out. >> we should remember that the moment that would make for great tv to your question would be if john bolton, the former national security adviser does, in fact testify. that would be great tv. that would be a dramatic moment. i think not getting to that point is a top goal of mitch mcconnl and the white use. nolln

necessarily for the democrats, encry >>as for no they h rdil they hav sig up leerspeoplen thy are unhappy about this, and they're voting with their feet and their dollars right now to some extent. by the way, one of the other groups that has to be worried about this, the 30 house democrats who come from districts that donald trump won in 2016, and part of what the republican machinery is doing is going after those people. they voted except for one for impeachment. republicans would like to ensure they pay a price for that politically, as well. >> the campaign is capitalizing on this, too. every time there a twist and turn in the entire process, you see thatting with advertised to supporters, and they say there's a spike in the money they're bringing in every time something significant happens. and so they're not shying away from this, and they're owning the fact that it's helping them financially, so we'll continue

to see sort of this campaign for more money as this process goes on. >> brennan: is there concern in the white house about lev parnas, rudy giuliani's business associate. you've heard john cornyn and others saying, not related to this. >> there is concern, because he's already impacting this trial. unless senators are completely tuned out, they are absorbing what he is saying, and that are seeing what he is dropping in these document dumps some even though the president insists that he has no idea who parnas is, the problem is parnas has receipts. not one, not two, but a whole collection that tells a story of two men who know each other over the course of years, and so the president has to add to his defense, he can't just say, i don't know who he is. >> great tv maybe, but i'm not sure it matters in the substance of the trial in that there's not

really a dispute over what happened. aid got delayed, the president wanted an investigation of joe biden by ukraine, and now there is an argument about whether it's an impeachable offense. there is an argument about the president's motives, but in a way the facts are set, and i wonder if at the end of the day when we get to election day, does any of this even matter? this is part of the president -- in a way, people have absorbed this idea already and made up their minds about whether they care. >> brennan: ed, what about that and what about some of the jurors who are running for office themselves. >> four senators are running for president, bernie sanders, michael bennet, amy klobuchar and elizabeth warren. all of them concede this will be a problem. all of them admitting to voters, i might not be back before caucus day, sorry about that. they will send their spouses and surrogates. they're establishing office hours at their campaign offices across new hampshire and iowa more people to come meet their sure gaza city and ask questions. they will find ways from

washington if need with to campaign, whether that's holding skype sessions with voters or calling in to rallies and certainly doing television interview, but they all understand they could be at a huge disadvantage. if you look at the schedule in the coming days, who is spending time in iowa and new hampshire, joe biden and pete buttigieg who sit up there with elizabeth warren and bernie sanders. we have never seen anything like this. it will test whether being there and the facetime that voters in these early states crave is factor or whether those four senators have done enough already to bank away goodwill. >> brennan: jerry, what do you make of the argument that democrats need to be campaigning on issues like health care. speaker pelosi says, how do you respond to what gary cohn laid out, which was hard to run against a strong economy. how do you turn back? >> i thought it was very instructive that there was almost no discussion of peach in the debate the democrats had this week. they're not here to talk about this out in the country. second of all, i think gary cohn made a really good point. where is the conversation in the

democratic primary dialogue about how to create jobs and what the role of the private sector is in creating jobs. you listen in vain. there is no discussion of that. that's the bernie sanders/elizabeth warren effect on the field, but you wonder whether that's really reds indicating with the moderates in the party, because they would like to hear some kerr is -- soe conversation about job creation. >> the person talking about that is michael bloomberg, who is not competing in iowa, and who i think maybe somebody we're not talking about enough in terms of the possibility he could emerge as a contender. >> brennan: all right. well, thanks to all of you. we will be right back in a moment.

>> brennan: there's a lot of news on the supreme court beat this week, so who better to bring in for some analysis than our own chief legal correspondent jan crawford. jan, good to have you here. you know the court very well, and john roberts, chief justice, we don't hear from him very often. he will now be at the center of this senate impeachment trial. what do you... how is he going the shape this? >> well, that's the thing.

we may not hear very much from him at all during this trial, because his role in this trial is completely different than what you think of as the role of a judge. and in a sense he doesn't really have a lot of power. the estimate sets the rules. so they have first word. and that can overturn any of his rulings by a majority vote. so they have the last word. so john roberts is going to be in this really kind of weird position where he may rule on some related matters or issues, but then the senate could overrule him if it disagrees. >> brennan: now he's stepping into one of the most political hi heated partisan environment, staying above that is going to be tough. >> brennan: paragraph exactly. it will be very tough. that's why people said this will be a nightmare for the chief justice, but it's also an opportunity for him to show in this hyper partisan environment of the senate that he is above politics, that he is neutral, that he's not taking one side or the other some he's going to go there as the face of the supreme court and potentially see that as an opportunity to remind the american people that judges are above politics. that is his opportunity, and

this is also his challenge. >> brennan: i'm going to ask you about something else that seemingly was historic this week. both houses of the virginia legislature voted to ratify the equal rights melt. -- amendment. now, a lot of people would say, isn't that already law that you have to treat men and women equally? but actually this proposal was never amended to the constitution. you need 38 states, three-fourths of the country to go ahead and due it. why has this benchmark, why has this country flavor reached it and gone ahead and amended this in the constitution? >> that's the great question, right? because on the surface it seems really straightforward. of course women should be treated equally in the work prais. of course women should get the same kind of equal access that men would. that was the way it was viewed in 1972 when congress with the broad support, bipartisan supermajority of two-thirds approved that resolution and sent it to the states to ratify. three-fourths of the states needed to ratify it. 38 stays.

it gave the states a deadline of seven years to do so. everyone thought it's going to happen. 30 states passed it within first year. five more got on board pretty soon after that. and then it ground to halt. and the reason is conservatives started kind of taking issue with certain things, including the issue of abortion. the supreme court ruled in roe v. wade in 1973 that women had a constitutional right to abortion, and then it occurred to certain activists that this e.r.a. could further enshrine abortion rights in the constitution. so it became controversial. and there were other issues that act vits pointed out on the right that would raise concerns potentially for women. >> brennan: you said something important there, a seven-year deadline. so this means it's expired. is this just symbolic? >> potentially, yes. of this expired in 1979, congress tried to extend it to 1982 to give the states more time, and nota a so gottuck at 3

virginia now ostensibly would be the 38th state because we've had two other states recently approve it, and in the house later this month will take up a resolution to take out that deadline for any original amendment. but that's entirely questionable whether that is constitutional. congress passed that in 1972 with two-thirds vote. and now to say that they're going to change with it the simple majority, the courts i think it's pretty suspect. and they're going to have a huge legal battle on that going back the john roberts could make its way to the supreme court. >> brennan: on to your desk. jan crawford, thank you very much. we'll be right back. 's nice to y meet you in person. you're pete nocchio? oh, the pic? that was actually a professional headshot. i'm sure that's it, yeah. i, uh, i think i've lost a few pounds recently too. i'm actually doing a juice cleanse. wait! you don't... (glass breaking) (gasp) ah! oh...!

with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

>> brennan: that's it for us today. thank you for watching. until next week, for "face the nation," i'm margaret brennan. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org when you humble yourself under the mighty hand of god, in due time he will

exalt you. i'm excited about being with you every week. i hope you'll tune in. you'll be inspired, you'll be encouraged. i'm looking forward to seeing you right here. you are fully loaded and completely equipped for the race that's been designed for you.

president trump on trial. senators get set to hear impeachment arguments as partisan battle lines are drawn over witnesses and the evidence. >> there is ample evidence any jury would convict him in three minutes' flat. >> while president trump watches from the sidelines. >> this has been a political hit job. sitting on edge. gun rights supporters along with militia members and neo-nazis get set for a show of force in virginia's capital, as richmond fears the worst. independence day after the queen sets her terms, meghan markle's estranged father speaks out on the royal couple's exit. >> it's something that's ridiculous. they shouldn't be doing this. extradition fight. the chinese executive wanted in the u.s. is the focus of a