Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

El Chapo Guzman has Been Transferred To A Prison in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico; More Firefighters and Equipment Are Headed to Ft. McMurray, Albert; Donald Trump Really Switched Gears and Went After his Democratic Rival, Hillary Clinton. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired May 7, 2016 - 13:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:28] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: All right. Thanks so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

We are following breaking news about the notorious drug kingpin known as El Chapo. CNN has learned that he has been transferred to a prison, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, right across the border from El Paso, Texas.

CNN's Nick Valencia has been following this story. He joins us now by phone.

So Nick, what more can you tell us about how long El Chapo is expected to remain at that new prison?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on the phone): We weren't given a timeline, but we were told a senior Mexican federal law enforcement official that El Chapo was transferred very, very early this morning to a penitentiary in Ciudad Juarez, from the prison where he was being held, just outside of Mexico City (INAUDIBLE). This source tells me that it is closer to the United States. This is part of the derision process. It puts him closer in proximity to the U.S. where we knows that he is going to be extradited. When that is going to happen, we just don't know.

We had anticipated El Chapo to be in a U.S. court by sometime this summer. That was a timeline that we were given earlier this year in January by other official in Mexico. He is facing indictment in seven U.S. states from California to west Texas to Illinois, and the presumption was that El Chapo would be on the way to Chicago where they have testimonies, they have witness testimonies that could his hands on the drugs there on Chicago.

What we have just learned within the last few minutes, Fredricka, is that El Chapo has actually been transferred to this penitentiary in Ciudad Juarez, so that Mexican officials can further order the penitentiary where he was being held (INAUDIBLE) penitentiary. There were taking a number of security precautions to make sure that they did not have to suffer the same embarrassment that they suffered in July of 2015, when he was able to escape down that tunnel, that $50 million mile and a half tunnel that he was able to use and emerge in a rural countryside home.

He had been shuffled around between numbers of cells. He was being monitored 24/7. The security measures were so strict and so tight that within the last couple of months, we saw petitions by El Chapo's lawyer, complaining about the conditions, saying his client was not getting sleep. His client was not given his basic human rights while being held in the Mexican prison. Now what we're told is he's being transferred to this prison and to that penitentiary, which is not as secure as the most secure prison in Mexico, where he was being held. But again, now we're hearing from Mexican officials said he's only being put there in that Ciudad Juarez penitentiary so that they can further fortify the prison where he was being held.

WHITFIELD: So, Nick, as you're talking, we're also seeing re-wrap video, when you had a chance to see the area where El Chapo escaped, which was supposed to be a very fortified prison, which you are saying now they want to reinforce it. So wait a minute. So after he escaped, they didn't try to fortify or better fortify that prison. They are only wanted to do now to now after he was captured and now transferred to another facility possibly temporarily?

VALENCIA: There's a number of thing that has us scratching our heads here. The logic, there doesn't seem to be very much logic behind these decisions by the Mexican government officials as to their reasoning, as to why they're doing this now, all of a sudden. That's anyone's guess. What we had heard leading up to this report right now was that he was taking another step towards extradition. Now we are hearing from different officials that they're fortifying the penitentiary where he was being held. It really doesn't make sense, even as I'm hearing myself saying this out loud, this prison would be, as we've reported last hour, Fredricka, would be equivalent of the super max penitentiary that we have in the United States. The (INAUDIBLE), the most secure prison, El Chapo still able to escape that. Now we're being told that they need to take added security measures to ensure that he doesn't escape again.

Part of the accessibility and the ease to which he was able to escape was attributed to a construction that was going on around the prison at the time of his escape. I was just there back then (INAUDIBLE) in January and that same construction was still going on. This is to say that he was able to disguise the construction of that tunnel, masked it by the official construction that was going on outside the penitentiary. It really, you know, it doesn't make much sense, if these reports are coming out, why they would need to further fortify the cells that he's in. Perhaps they've received intelligence that he was planning another escape. We just don't know.

[13:05:13] WHITFIELD: Interesting. All right. Nick, don't go far. Stick around, in fact.

I also want to bring in justice reporter Evan Perez. Because, Evan, I understand you have some additional information about where potentially El Chapo would go in the U.S. if indeed transferred. EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (on the phone): That's right,

Fredricka. We know that a decision has been made to transfer him to Brooklyn to stand trial on federal charges. Now, this is a well-laid plan that the U.S. officials have been working on for months now, once the Mexicans, once the Mexican government decided that transfer him to extradite him to face charges here in the United States. That is something that they've been working on, especially on the security angles. So now that he's been transferred to Juarez, the question is, how quickly they're going to turn him over to U.S. authorities and then from there, he will be transferred quickly to Brooklyn. That's where he's going to stand trial.

And Brooklyn really presents a couple of advantages for the United States justice department, because it has a very secure federal detention center that's right in the court complex there and that makes sure that, you know, you can put him on trial and transfer him from his cell to the courtroom without really any security challenges. It is right there, seamless.

This is something that was decided in recent weeks after all the U.S. attorneys, there were about six U.S. attorneys offices around the country that had cases, active cases and charges against El Chapo Guzman. And it was decided that Brooklyn would be the case that would hold the trial. You can bet that's going to be one of the Mideast high-profile, most anticipated trials in the nation, certainly when that happens.

WHITFIELD: So Evan, what's the timetable, potentially? Anything you're hearing about when he would leave Mexico and enter the U.S.?

PEREZ: We don't know yet. This certainly came as a bit of a surprise that they were moving him to Juarez. And I can't imagine that the Mexican government wants to keep him there very long. Obviously, the prison where he's being held right now or where he was being held was considered the highest security prison in the nation. So to move him from there, it's probably not something that they want to do in Juarez for very long. So you can bet that those are conversations that are happening right now with U.S. officials.

Again, they're trying to keep a lot of this close to the vest, because all the security concerns, as Nick was mentioning, all the different concerns about whether or not the cartels were trying to get him out, whether he could depend on people to help keep him secure. So that's always a top concern with this country prison.

WHITFIELD: And then, Evan, if seven U.S. states want to prosecute El Chapo, you mentioned that he could potentially be at this federal center in Brooklyn. Once and if he is prosecuted in that state, in that borough of Brooklyn, would he then be potentially transferred to other states for prosecution or would that effort be somehow consolidated so that it is -- prosecution takes place in one central location.

PEREZ: No, that would be the one central location. And it's quite a little bit of a controversy inside the department, because as you can imagine, these prosecutors all want to try him. This is a very high- profile case. They all think that they have good cases. Certainly, we all thought that Chicago has the best chance to try El Chapo Guzman, because they have had a year's long investigation, and they have had what many people thought was the most developed case against him. But the final decision made by the judge's department was that he would be -- that he would stand trial in Brooklyn. And once that happens, then, you know, the anticipation is that if he's found guilty, then he would be sent to a high-security, maximum security prison here in the United States. Obviously, under U.S. and Mexican agreements, there is no chance of a death penalty, because Mexico does not have the death penalty and does not recognize and does not allow the citizens to be transferred to the United States, if there is the chance of a death penalty. So that would be something that would have to be off the table. But he would spend the rest of his life in a federal lockup, a maximum security lockup, if he is convicted in Brooklyn.

WHITFIELD: And Evan, his capture, his escape, his capture, in Mexico, in large part, it was credited -- he has friends. You know, there are people who he paid off. There are people who have their allegiance to him and protected him in hiding and protected him in his escape. Why do they think that would not be the case in the United States?

[13:10:06] PEREZ: Well, you know, they have a very good record here in the United States. Nobody's ever gotten away or escaped from one of these high-security federal lockups. Obviously, we know that this cartel and other cartels, Sinaloa cartels and others have friends, have operations in the United States. That's one of the major concerns for this cartel.

But one reason why the United States has sought to bring him here is because they know that this is the cartel that's very active. It's got its tentacles all over this country. And this is the reason why the justice department wants to send a message with this case. The anticipation is that the U.S. does not have the same problems that Mexico does with the corruption in the prison system. It's just a different game here. Nobody has ever escaped from one of these maximum security lockups in the United States. And so the anticipation is that he's probably better -- that he's more secure for him to be in this country than in Mexico.

WHITFIELD: And then, Evan, you know, just to refresh the memory of many people, his capture, El Chapo's capture, came on the heels of that secret, but then highly publicized meeting between he and actor Sean Penn, as well as actress, Mexican actress of a telenovela. So can you refresh us memories as to whether Sean Penn in any way was made complicit or in any way complemented the ultimate outcome and if he in any way is facing a legal road of his own in his meeting with El Chapo when he was on the run?

PEREZ: There is no indication at all that he could be in any legal jeopardy. In fact, the fact that -- in fact, his meeting with El Chapo was actually helpful to the investigation, to try to track him down and to try to find him. The U.S. was listening. The DEA has some very good wiretapping capabilities. The U.S. marshals were assisting the Mexican government, there's a lot of U.S. assistance that's not well known about right now that was used in trying to track down El Chapo. And they knew where he was, they knew when Sean Penn went, they were listening, they could hear when these conversations were taking place. They were monitoring all of that. And in some ways, Sean Penn's business down there actually helped the federal government in Mexico and the U.S. government know that for sure that they had the guy, they knew that this is where he was. So in some ways, his involvement was beneficial tracking down El Chapo.

Now, as far as the actress, we know there are some concerns about perhaps to whether he was receiving money from the Sinaloa organization that's something that the Mexican government has been investigating, reported that in the past. And that is something that the U.S. has been keeping an eye on, as well. The treasury department has been keeping an eye on, because if any of that money made it through the U.S. financial system, then that is something that the U.S. would be very interested in. The Mexican government says it's investigating that part of it.

WHITFIELD: And then Nick, back with us on the phone as well, are you getting any indication as to whether police or law enforcement or some reinforcement of that new facility where El Chapo have been significantly adapted for the length of his stay there?

VALENCIA: We don't know any of that. We don't know the fortification efforts, why they would not have taken those steps earlier, exactly what those efforts are. We had been told up until now, the most that he was doing was watching it 24/7, that he was heavily guarded, that he was being shuffled from cell to cell, being kept up at odd hours of the night. Just making sure that they always had eyes on him. What more could be done, we're not really sure about all of this.

To Evan's point about the cooperation between U.S. and Mexico, I think it's really important for our viewers to understand that this is the closest that we have seen relations between the two governments, in at least 20 years, dating back to the 1980s, when DEA agent, (INAUDIBLE), was killed by a cartel. Some would say -- there have been reports, I should say, that El Chapo had a hand in the death of that DEA agent. That really dried up relationships between Mexican government officials and U.S. government officials, law enforcement officials, I should say.

Now, what we are seeing that stronger cooperation. When El Chapo was captured and when he was being held before his escape, Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto has said the U.S. could have El Chapo after he's done stating the litany of charges that he was facing. He said we will send El Chapo to the extradited after he done serving his 200-year (INAUDIBLE).

Then the escape happened. It was an incredibly embarrassing moment for the administration of Enrique Pena Nieto. He was highly criticized for not coming back after that escape. He was on a tour in Europe and did not come back after the escape of the world's most notorious drug trafficker. Seven months later, of course, he was recaptured and singing a different tune, saying that he agreed with the extradition, that the Mexican government was going to take those steps. It was an incredible moment of pride and really a moment for Mexico to

take care of this criminal himself, because he was Mexico's most wanted man. They wanted to go through the legal proceedings. They wanted to go through the legal process in Mexico. That, of course, we saw the holes in the government there. We saw the access that El Chapo has, the incredible influence that he had in order to escape and then that eventually left the agreement between U.S. and Mexico to cooperate with this extradition process.

As far as timeline, you know, it is anyone's guess. You know, this great information coming to us from Evan Perez that we now know that he will face charges in Brooklyn. Will he go other states after that to face the other charges that he has there? Will he end up there in Illinois? Will he end up in California? Will he go to Texas? We don't know.

We had been told, though, leading up to this, that we could expect El Chapo to be here sometime this summer. When that exactly happens, though, we'll have to wait to see about that, Fred.

[13:16:39] WHITFIELD: Yes, lots of unanswered questions, still. This breaking news and we're able to bring to everybody.

Thank you so much by way great reporting from our Nick Valencia and Evan Perez. Thank you.

We'll have much more in the NEWSROOM straight ahead, including a look at that monster fire, already larger than New York City and it could double in size by tonight. The emotional toll, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:20:10] WHITFIELD: More firefighters and equipment are headed to Ft. McMurray, Alberta, as the devastating wildfire there threatens to double the size today, and force thousands of more people to flee for their lives. The fire is already as big as Hong Kong and smoke from it has drifted all the way to the southern United States.

CNN's Dan Simon has more details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Flames and smoke filling the sky as the convoy of desperate residents flee the - danger zone.

What have these last few days been like?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hell on earth. Just like hell.

SIMON: And the scenes are hellish. The fire that started five days ago is still out of control. And for the displaced, it's gone from bad to worse. Because food and water is running low, Canadian authorities moving some 25,000 people from camps, a double evacuation.

What was it like being in the camp?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hard. They rationed food. Low water. People were upset because they don't know what's going on.

SIMON: The fire has burned nearly 250,000 acres, more than ten times the size of Manhattan. In one of the more remarkable surveillance videos ever captured, a homeowner could watching his own house go down in flames only 20 minutes after evacuating.

Sixteen hundred structures, including homes and businesses destroyed. The heaviest damage in Ft. McMurray. A resident films his burned out neighborhood after seeing it for the first time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is my house. It was my house. Ashes are cool now. Nothing left. It's gone.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God! Our house is going to burn down.

SIMON: In another video, we hear a woman's desperation as she drives by the flames destroying her community. As weary residents clear the area, they are greeted by fuel trucks with gas stations either destroyed or down due to power outages. Fuel is a precious commodity.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Makes a guy feel good to help these people because they've been through so much loss and devastation lately.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SIMON: And you can see another one of these convoys fleeing the danger zone as more smoke comes behind us. We've seen a number of flare-ups all day long. This fire continues to grow. As a matter of fact, it may double in size by the end of the day, Fredricka. This remains a very fragile situation. We are told, though, that tomorrow, the temperatures may drop and there is a chance of rain, which would definitely help things. But even so, this fire is going to rage for some time, Fred.

WHITFIELD: It's extraordinary. All right, thank you so much. Dan Simon, appreciate that.

All right, still ahead, some Republican Party leaders are now actively looking for a conservative to mount a third party run to stop Trump. One of the leading -- one of those leading the search is a former GOP nominee. Details when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:26:42] WHITFIELD: All right. Let's talk politics, the road to the White House. Donald Trump is expected to speak in about two hours from now in Spokane, Washington. He has all but locked up the Republican nomination and now he is on a victory lap of sorts, hitting the campaign trail in states yet to vote. Well, last night, he was in Oregon and looking towards the November election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are going to start winning again. You're going to cast that vote in a week and then you're going to cast that big vote in November. And you're going to look back and you're going to say they are the greatest votes you've ever cast in your entire life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Trump continues his campaign swing through the west.

CNN's senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta is in Spokane and joins us live now.

All Right. So, what might the message be?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fredricka, we thought in the last 24 hours, that the message from Donald Trump was going to be aimed at some of these Republicans who just are not getting on board with this campaign. He was going after Lindsey Graham pretty hard yesterday and Jeb Bush after both of those two former rivals of Donald Trump announced that they will not support the presumptive GOP nominee.

But something very interesting happened and sort of eye-opening happened last night in Eugene, Oregon. I was at the event there in that part of Oregon. And Donald Trump really switched gears and went after his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, very hard, talking about how -- and this was his words, saying that she was an enabler of President Bill Clinton's indiscretions when he was president in the oval office. He also went after Elizabeth Warren, because warren has been talked about as a potential running mate for Hillary Clinton. Let's offer some of that sound and show you exactly what Donald Trump was talking about last night when he was talking about Hillary Clinton. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I just learned that crooked Hillary, along with her friend, you know. She has got this goofy friend named Elizabeth Warren. She's on a twitter rant. She's a goofus (ph). She's a goofus (ph). You ever see her? I mean, this woman, she's a basket case. By the way, she's done nothing in the United States Senate. I would love to run against her if I came from Massachusetts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Now, Donald Trump also described Elizabeth Warren as a fraud during that rally and he sent out a tweet as well last night. We put that up on screen, really going after the Massachusetts senator and referencing a controversy that occurred during her Senate campaign in Massachusetts when h claim that she is of native American heritage was questioned during the course of that election battle. But the tweet says quote "goofy Elizabeth Warren is weak and ineffective. Does nothing, all talk, no action. Maybe her Native American name."

That is pretty rough stuff, Fredricka. I mean, I think this is a pretty early indication that what we're about to see in the general election campaign from Donald Trump as essentially what we saw during the primary process and that is some very, very personal attacks. And what Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren may want to keep in mind is that all of those Republican rivals, 16 in all, who took on Donald Trump, it was essentially when they went personal attack for personal attack with Donald Trump, that, you know, very shortly after that, they ended up exiting the race.

And so Donald Trump may be doing that once again, setting that trap for Hillary Clinton, setting that trap for Elizabeth warren, to see if they'll take the bait - Fredricka.

[13:30:12] WHITFIELD: Boy. It is getting grizzlier, isn't it?

All right. Jim Acosta, thank you so much. We'll check back with you. All right.

All right. Trump may have the support of many Republican voters, but the presumptive nominee is not being welcomed with open arms from many party insiders. He is the last candidate standing after a GOP race that started with 17, as Jim underscored. But now some conservative Republicans are looking for yet another candidate. In fact, several members of the never-Trump movement are actively searching for a third party candidate to enter the race and derail Trump's presidential chances. Some heavy hitters from the GOP say they won't support Trump, including two former Republican presidents and the last GOP Mitt Romney. Romney has reportedly met with influential conservative Bill Kristol to help look for a conservative to mount a last-minute third party campaign. Senator Lindsey Graham adding fuel to the fire, telling CNN that he will not vote for Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: It's pretty easy to say no to Hillary, because I think she's the third term of Barack Obama. I just don't believe Donald Trump is a reliable conservative Republican. Good luck with Paul Ryan trying to find a conservative agenda with this guy. And I don't think he has the temperament or judgment to be commander in chief. A lot of my colleagues will vote for him enthusiastically. Some will hold their nose. I just can't go there with Donald.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right. Let's talk more about this push for a third party candidate with our political panel, Jennifer Rubin, writes the right-turn blog for "the Washington Post," good to see you. And Mike Shields is a CNN analyst and former chief of staff for the Republican National Committee. Good to see you as well.

All right. Jennifer, let me begin with you. You have made it clear that you don't support Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, and you would like a conservative to run as a third party candidate. Why? And do you feel that would mean that candidate would stand to get in the White House or would it just simply be another person other than Donald Trump?

JENNIFER RUBIN, RIGHT TURN BLOG, WASHINGTON POST: I think there are two reasons. One is, I think the dilemma that Lindsey Graham finds himself in and many Republicans do is just abhorrent to them, to try to muster up the courage or the will to vote for Donald Trump. The other's a very practical reason. And that is, without someone at

the top of the ticket, who Republicans are going to turn out for. Remember, Mitt Romney got over 90 percent of Republicans, and had a fairly good turnout, without that kind of Republican turnout driven by the top of the ticket, there are going to be a lot of senators, a lot of house members in the Republican Party who lose office. And we're talking here about the control of the Senate. We're talking even control of the house and in order to do that, I think you'll have to give something to the voters who is viable, who is sane, who is stable, and who they can cast a proud vote for.

WHITFIELD: So, Mike, I guess, a prelude to that concern, however, is still the who ends up in the White House. And if there's a third party candidate, doesn't that almost guarantee that Hillary Clinton, if she's the, you know, the nominee for the Democrats, would win?

MIKE SHIELD, CNN DELEGATE ANALYST: Normally, that would be the case. And you would think that. It's hard to know this election cycle, how to predict anything. But, look, I think Donald Trump is the -- is going to be the Republican nominee. He ran in the Republican primaries, the state parties across the country, Republican state parties put on their contests. He won. And so he's going to be the Republican nominee. I think it is up to him.

I think what you're hearing is something that Donald Trump can take care of. I think it is up to the candidate to understand that it is one thing to say, I'm the leader, it's another thing for people to want you to be their leader. And the way that you do that is by bringing people together. He's got some opportunities coming up, where he can start to make Republicans feel better about them being their nominee. Where he can stop Republicans wondering if they should need a third party candidate. Go meet with speaker Ryan and talk to him and bring him on board and say, you know, I'm going to work with you on your agenda.

WHITFIELD: That's about to happen next week.

SHIELDS: Yes, I think it's a great opportunity. I think Paul Ryan has given him a huge opportunity that he can take to say, you know what, I do want to be the leader of the Republican Party. The leader meaning bringing everybody together. And those are things that at his feet. He has to understand just because some Republicans may not be with him, it's up to him to reach out to them and bring them into the fold.

WHITFIELD: Yes. So Jennifer, we know the meeting I set to take place, but we just don't know what's going to be said, if promises will be made, if there'll be concessions. What would be your best guess?

RUBIN: I think Mike is right. It is up to Trump. But my own view, having watched him studiously for the last nine months is he is not capable of doing that. He is not capable, because he has no impulse control. He will say things that are offensive, both to Republicans and Democrats. And he has a deficit of knowledge that is so deep, that is so wide, that it goes beyond -- WHITFIELD: But that doesn't seem to matter to voters in these primary

races.

[13:35:01] RUBIN: Yes. But we're talking now about those Republicans wanting to vote for him. And Paul Ryan -- and it's not just Paul Ryan, look at the polls, only about 84 percent of Republicans are willing to vote for him. That's extraordinarily low by historical standards. I just don't think he's capable of doing it. The man says he is going to pay 50 cents on the dollar or whatever it is on the U.S. sovereign debt. That suggests to me that he has a fundamental lack of information that he's not going to be able to run a cohesive, coherent race. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he's been hiding all this expertise under a Bushel, but I sort of doubt it. And Paul Ryan is not someone who looks at politics simply as losing and winning, simply as a transaction. He's in it for the ideas. He is in to make positive change. He is not going to support someone, I feel relatively confident that he does not believe is going to be good for the country, constructive for the agenda that he thinks is important. And you may have the phenomenon where he doesn't endorse Donald Trump. It's happened before. It's extraordinary, but there's no rule that says he has to do it.

WHITFIELD: So it seems Mike, this conundrum really does underscore other complications between what the voter says it wants and what the Republican Party says it wants or says it has to deal with. In fact, this is another, I guess, moment from Lindsey Graham on what he had to say about why he will not support Donald Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Absolutely not.

BASH: No third party?

GRAHAM: No way. And I would advise people not to go down that road.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, Mike, is it inevitable that people will be going down that road?

SHIELDS: I don't know if it's inevitable. Like I said, I think it's up to Donald Trump to solve that. I mean, as Jennifer pointed out, his number with Republicans, I don't think we have elected a Republican president without getting at least 91 percent of his own party's vote. That's something he has to look at and work on. It's one thing to focus on some of the leaders in Washington that are saying things. Talk about those voters.

And on the Republican side, I do for members of the Republican Party, when they're asked about this. They may be frustrated with something that Donald Trump said or his stance on banning Muslims and those sorts of things, but focus on his voters. He had millions of people that came out and voted for him. And we want to keep them in the Republican Party. It was not a majority of the people that voted in the primary, but he won the process. And so, I think that both sides will have to do some work here. But

the onus is really on the nominee. He's now gotten to the position of leader of the Republican Party, as its nominee. A leader brings people together and says, you know what, I'm going to take the high road. You may disagree with me. Let's come in and figure out a way to work together. If he doesn't, by the way, he is going to lose the election. If he wants to win in November, it's really to his benefit to try to work on these things and stop any talk of a third party candidacy or else he may lose.

WHITFIELD: So Jennifer, really quickly, another big statement is being made, though, when you have leaders in the Republican Party who say, I am not endorsing him, as opposed to just remaining quiet, not saying anything. But there's an objective, it seems, by saying, I won't back him.

RUBIN: Right. I think they are expressing their own frustration. I think they also realize that they have a problem. It's not just these leaders. I think we made the mistake when we talk about the voters versus the leaders. As Mike said, there are a lot of voters who don't like him, either. And they're going to have to have a reason to come out and vote.

We also don't know whether Trump voters are going to bother voting for Senate and house candidates. Maybe they are just interested in their cult leader. So that's not going to save those house and Senate members either.

WHITFIELD: We'll leave it right there. Jennifer Rubin, Mike Shields, thanks so much to both of you.

SHIELDS: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right. Up next, breaking news. The notorious drug lord El Chapo one step closer now to coming to the United States to stand trial. What's next in his case, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:41:47] WHITFIELD: We are following breaking news now about the notorious drug kingpin, El Chapo. CNN has learned that he has been transferred to a prison in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, right across the border from El Paso, Texas. A statement from the Mexican government says he was moved because of renovations to improve security at the other prison. Of course, El Chapo escaped from Mexico's most secure prison last year, through a tunnel and was not captured until months later. He is facing extradition to the United States. And U.S. officials tell CNN this transfer so close to the border could speed up the process. He is expected to stand trial in Brooklyn, New York.

Let's bring in Sylvia Longmire, she is a former special agent with the U.S. air force and now an analyst on Mexico's drug war. Good to see you.

All right, so, what is -- how does this information strike you that he would be transferred from what was supposed to be a high-security facility, it is the one that he, you know, escaped from once before, but now he is going to a smaller penitentiary that isn't known to be as secure?

SYLVIA LONGMIRE, FORMER SPECIAL AGENT, U.S. AIR FORCE, OFFICE OF SOCIAL IMMIGRATION: Well, hopefully they're not going to keep him there for very long. And of course that raises some questions what are the Mexican government's intentions? Are they getting ready to hand him over to the U.S. government? How long is he going to be there? And of course, what story are they going to tell to keep it as undercover, under-wraps as possible in the meantime.

WHITFIELD: And, could they potentially hold him in Juarez, Ciudad Juarez for a matter of days or weeks or even months before extradition?

LONGMIRE: And of course, very good question. The main concern, is this an opportunity for someone to break him out. Is there enough time, if they hold him for long enough, for him to come up with a plan to get out of any less secure facility. And that's, of course, the concern for both law enforcement and the U.S. government on the U.S. side of the border, and of course, the Mexican government. So unknown to be determined how long he is actually going to be there.

WHITFIELD: Yes. Because anyone can be bought. I mean, we saw that based on lots of conversations about how people may have been, you know, working on the inside to help him, help his people, you know, build that tunnel. Help make sure that he would escape. And there are, I guess there are lots of worries as to whether that same scenario could play out for him in this smaller facility.

LONGMIRE: Sure, we want to know, who knew about the transfer? How many people knew about the transfer, and of course, what is the ultimate purpose. The more people that were aware that this was going to go on and the more people that currently know how long he's going to be there, where he's going to be in the facility, that obviously makes him a larger liability, the more information that is out there, about his whereabouts and what the protocol is for the new facilities. So that's a big concern for both governments right now.

WHITFIELD: Yes. And had anyone ever been busted in a very large way for his escape? Was his escape pinned on any particular people who had to pay the price for allowing him to escape?

LONGMIRE: Sure. From what I recall from the last escape, I believe it was something like 20 or 21 guards that were being investigated, as far as what came out of those investigations, you have to remember that transparency is not the Mexican government's strongest suit. So, it would be very difficult to find an open source in the media, what happened to any of those guards, if any of them were successfully prosecuted, and if any of them were serving any jail time.

[13:45:07] WHITFIELD: Interesting. All right, Sylvia Longmire, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

All right. Poll after poll showing the economy is the number one concern for American voters. Donald Trump wants to rip up trade deals. Hillary Clinton wants to raise the minimum wage. How their economic plans stack up, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:48:58] WHITFIELD: All right. Turning now to presidential politics and a key issue to voters. Just this week, Indiana primary voters from both parties told CNN the economy was their top issue. But as far as how the economy is faring, that depends on who you ask. President Obama says it's in good shape and points to 74 straight months of job growth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Over that record streak of job growth, our businesses have created 14.6 million new jobs in all. Wages have been rising at an annual rate of more than three percent this year. So, the unemployment rate has been growing. Unemployment has been falling and wages have been rising.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Sixty six percent of Democrats share that sentiment agreeing that economy is on sturdy ground. Meantime, Republicans are less optimistic. The same poll reveals 69 percent believe we still have a long way to go. When you lay out the economic blue prints from presidential front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, you find two very different strategies. So how do they stack up?

Art Laffer is founder of Laffer associates and is probably best known for his role as economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan. And Alan Krueger, teaches economics at Princeton and is a former economic adviser to President Barack Obama. Good to see both of you gentlemen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Good to see you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nice to be with you.

WHITFIELD: All right. So let's begin with Hillary Clinton. She wants to ease taxes for the middle class and close tax loopholes so that big corporations pay a bigger share of taxes. That's also something President Obama has been pushing for.

Alan, what do you believe is, I guess, of that plan, is that convincing voters?

[13:50:41] ALAN KRUEGER, FORMER ECONOMIC ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think the economy does best when we grow it from the middle out. And that's what happened in the 1990s under president Clinton and that's what President Obama has been doing and that's very much what secretary Clinton has proposed, raising the minimum wage, cutting taxes for middle class workers, making sure others don't get away with unjustified tax loopholes, investing more in infrastructure. I think those are the kinds of policies that will build On the Record we've seen under President Obama digging us out of the deep mess left behind by his predecessor and leading to the kind of economic growth president Obama mentioned in that clip you showed, 14.5 million jobs created over the last 74 months, under Bill Clinton it was over 23 million jobs created. Those are the kinds of policies that grow the economy, not the kind of trickle down failed policies that we have seen in the past.

WHITFIELD: And Art, Donald Trump as focus a lot on his rhetoric on trade, he wants to rip up trade deals, he says are hurting the U.S. economy and impose tariffs on countries that he claims aren't dealing fairly with the U.S. So how realistic are those ideas and will that help the economy, the promise that he is making to American voters?

ART LAFFER, FOUNDER, LAFFER ASSOCIATES: Well, I think freer trade is the answer, not more restrictive trade. I think Alan and I agree on that. What I do think also, though, is Alan is wrong on the recovery. We have the single worst recovery in U.S. history. And I believe it's because of spending money and also taxation. You can't tax an economy into prosperity. Fredericka, if I may say, you tax people who work and pay people who don't work, don't be surprised if a lot of people choose not to work. And while we have had a sharp drop in the unemployment rate, that's very true but these people haven't found jobs. They have is left the labor force. And you know, that's not a recovery. That's not a plan for growth. That's a plan for really sitting in the middle and taking sort of the bad times as they are and letting them stay that way.

WHITFIELD: So Alan, how do you respond to that? This is the worst recovery. I mean, this White House will tell you they've reduced the unemployment rate significantly in the last eight years.

KRUEGER: Well, it's simply not true that it's the worst recovery if you look at job growth, even at GDP growth. Compare it to the last recovery, the one under President Bush. And by now we were already in a recession. So I don't think this is the worst recovery. And I think there was an awfully deep hole to dig our way out of because of the recklessness in the financial sector and that's taken some time. But we are clearly making much progress and we need to build on that process, not go back to the policies that created the mess in the first place.

LAFFER: If I can, when we came in in 1980, we had as deeper downturn as did Barack Obama and these are huge downturn. And yet of you look at the Reagan recovery versus this recovery, we're 25 percent GDP ahead of where he is right now. I mean, it's literally the worst recovery in U.S. history, whether you look at GDP, employment or new housing starts.

(CROSSTALK)

KRUEGER: That's just not simply not true. If you look at job growth, we're doing quite a bit better. The economic environment was very different in the 1980s. If you look at the 1990s under President Clinton, the economy did much better than it did under President Reagan in terms of job growth and GDP growth.

LAFFER: It did.

KRUEGER: But I think what's important, is we keep focused on the issues that are being debated today. And the policies that Donald Trump has been proposing going back to this massive kind of 10 trillion tax cut, blowing up the deficit and then just on Thursday, he said that he doesn't want to pay off the debt that we owe, that he would pay less than dollar for dollar, which is putting the full faith and credit of the U.S. dollar in jeopardy. No president has ever done that. And that just shows to me he wants to pursue a risky strategy that would put this recovery very much in doubt.

WHITFIELD: And even today, the president was delivering the commencement address at Howard University in Washington, D.C. And it's an inspiration to the class of 2016. He also had a message on the economy and this is what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Yes, our economy has recovered from crisis stronger than almost any other in the world. But there are folks of all races who are still hurting. We still can't find work that pays enough to keep the lights on. We still can't save for retirement. We still got a big racial gap of economic opportunity. The overall unemployment rate is five percent but the black unemployment rate is almost nine percent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:55:13] WHITFIELD: All right. So Art, I saw you shaking your head as you were listening to this. Feel that's in sync with what you were saying.

LAFFER: Exactly.

WHITFIELD: But does it mean recovery means erasing? I mean, he, the president was saying there is recovery, there is still work to be done, but it's an improvement. You're disagreeing with that?

LAFFER: It is an improvement, surely the employment growth is better than employment decline. That's very true. But it's not grown much more than population has green to be honest with you, employment hasn't. What has happened is the poor, the minorities, the disenfranchised have been knocked out of the park in this stuff.

I wrote many years ago called "Enterprise Zones" where we have tax- free zones in the inner cities, driven jobs out for employment in the dealers cities and let economic growth. The biggest, biggest damage done in this economy is literally to the poor minorities, the minimum wage workers, those people who can't find a chance to get improvement. And we'd be in much more rapid growth to get them.

WHITFIELD: -- say the minimum wage needs to go up 14, 15.

LAFFER: Legal minimum wage, no, it shouldn't go up. The minimum wage should go way up because we create jobs, output employment because they're bid into the marketplace. That's what should happen.

WHITFIELD: All right, Art Laffer, Alan Krueger, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

KRUEGER: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right, next. Breaking news on the Mexican drug lord and his possible extradition to the U.S., right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)