Return to Transcripts main page


U.S., Britain Announce New Travel Restrictions; New Rules Ban Most Electronics From Aircraft Cabins; Trump Lobbies Republicans To Repeal And Replace Obamacare; White House On Defensive Amid FBI Trump-Russia Probe; MP: Document May Show Manafort Hid Payments; Northern Ireland's Martin McGuinness Dies at 56; U.S. Intel on AQAP Behind New Travel Restrictions; Surviving Belgium's Deadliest Act of Terrorism; Trump Voters Show Their Support at Kentucky Rally. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired March 21, 2017 - 16:00   ET





HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Hala Gorani. We are live from CNN London. Thanks for being with us this hour. This is


Well, if you have a plane ticket in the Middle East and you're planning to travel soon to the United States and towards the United Kingdom, new

restrictions could affect what you carry onboard and how you pack your bags.

The United States and Britain have announced these new security measures from a total of ten countries. Their rules are slightly different, but

both governments share the concern that terrorists in some parts of the world in these Muslim majority countries could be planning a new type of

attack. Here's what you need to know.


GORANI (voice-over): The U.K. have announced new rules for carrying electronics onboard planes traveling from the Middle East. Passengers on

certain flights will now have to check in items like laptops and tablets, rather than carry them as hand luggage.

The new rules apply only to flights direct to the United States and United Kingdom, and only from select Middle East airports. Countries affected by

the U.S. directive include Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

The list published by the U.K. government is different. Flights from Lebanon and Tunisia will be affected while the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and

Morocco will not.

U.S. officials are worried about explosive devices being smuggled inside consumer electronics on to commercial flights, but there is no specific

threat. The new rules apply to range of gadgets, as CNN's Samuel Burke explains.

SAMUEL BURKE, CNN MONEY BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Anything bigger than a smartphone has to be checked in your bag to go in the belly

of an airplane. So that means your smartphone can go with you in the cabin, but that does mean that big devices like electronic cameras,

certainly this one is bigger than a smartphone, have to be put in your bag. That include tablets and video game devices and laptops.

GORANI: Passengers of all nationalities will have to obey the new rules, but not all airlines are included. Nine Middle Eastern airlines are

affected by the U.S. ban, including big international carriers, like Emirates and Turkish airlines.

The U.K. rules affects many of the same ones, but are also being introduced on British carriers, including British Airways and Easy Jet. Airlines on

the U.S. list have been given 96 hours to comply, meaning by Saturday, all passengers will be feeling the effect.


GORANI: We're covering this story from three continents tonight. You just heard Samuel Burke in our report. He's now live for us at Heathrow Airport

in London. Mohammad Lila is at the International Airport in Dubai, another key transit point for travelers, a huge hub. Our Pentagon correspondent,

Barbara Starr, is following develops from Washington.

Barbara, I want to start with you. Is this based on new intelligence? Is this a long-standing concern? Why the specific list of airports and not


BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we're hearing from sources here in Washington, Hala, is they had been worried for some time

about terrorists being able to smuggle low metal content or no metal content bombs inside consumer electronics on to airplanes and this of

course is an expertise that al Qaeda in Yemen has struggled to perfect for many years.

But apparently there have been some fresh indications that it's something they really did need to be much more worried about. So what officials are

describing is an evolving threat where the threat evolved to the point they became concerned that airport screening equipment could not keep up and in

these locations, ground crews might be vulnerable to being penetrated by terrorists.

That there might not be sufficient security measures that terrorists could sneak something into luggage, onto -- into a cabin area. So a combination

of all these things, we're told, leading them to take this step.

[16:05:02]GORANI: And we'll get to Mohammad and Samuel in a moment, but it is a head scratcher. I mean, first of all, the U.K. and the U.S. are

sharing intelligence, why are there lists of countries and airports different? This is just asking passengers to pack them. It will be on the

plane just in the hold.

STARR: The general thinking is, when they go into the baggage hold, they would not have the same risk if they were to detonate. And of course, some

of these require manual detonation so the passenger would not be with the device, but it wouldn't necessarily punch a hole in the plane, leading to

some catastrophic result.

But, you know, look, there is risk in all of this and I think it's a question of what aviation authorities in these two countries and around the

world, what kind of risk they are willing to accept.

We have seen this before. It is up to individual governments to say what they will allow to come into their air space and that's where the

restrictions come in. The U.S. has one view, the U.K. another.

GORANI: And Mohammad Lila, you're at the airport in Dubai. Presumably the reaction there is negative because this could really hurt business for some

of these big carriers like Emirates, (inaudible) and others.

MOHAMMAD LILA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, absolutely. Hala, look, a lot of these are high-volume routes with heavy flight loads and these are revenue

generators for these airlines. So surely, there is going to be a negative reaction. The other thing you have to remember is that it's still pretty


The airlines were just given this notice in the afternoon here, local time and with 96 hours to implement it, we know, for example, that Emirates

Airlines and Royal Jordanian have already come out and said that they will implement it.

It's hard to imagine the other airlines not following suit. Like you said, by this weekend, it could be a very different flight experience. But Hala,

I mean, in your career, you've taken hundreds of flights, maybe more than that. I take a lot of flights.

We have all been to the airport, when you're standing in line and there's that one guy in line. You know the guy I'm talking about, the guy that's

really angry, the one that's missed his flight or his connection, maybe he's packed too many things and has been given some news that he doesn't

want to hear and he's very upset.

Now imagine overnight telling thousands of people at those airports with all of that stress already on their shoulders that they can't take their

laptops with them onboard. You know, it's more than just not being able to watch your downloaded movies on a plane or do some work while you're on the


There's a security concern here, as well, because unfortunately, a lot of us live our lives on our smart devices or our laptops and now we're being

told we have to put those laptops if we want to fly direct to the United States into checked luggage and we know that aviation security officials

have the ability to open that luggage.

So the question is, will they also have the ability to search through those electronic devices? That's something that we haven't really gotten a firm

answer to just yet. But of course, you know, this has been part of the response that we're about to see in this region.

GORANI: Absolutely, Mohammad, and that's been one of the issues journalists have raised, as well, they have sensitive information on their

laptop, will they have to wipe their laptop clean before they fly out.

Samuel, you're at Heathrow. We learned just a few hours after it was announced that this electronics ban would apply to some of these airlines

flying direct to the United States from some Middle Eastern airports.

That the U.K. would also implement its own version of this, but why is the list different? I mean, how did they -- are we hearing that this is based

on new intelligence or this is a long-standing concern? What do we know?

BURKE: Well, it really is quite interesting, because a Downing Street source does tell CNN that Theresa May, the prime minister, has been seeing

the same information, the same intelligence as the U.S., but has come to a very different conclusion and hasn't said why.

And indeed, it's even left some of the airlines confused. Though, interesting to note, some of them are trying to market off of this. Qatar

airways putting out a tweet saying, "Let us entertain you. We can have the 270 channels on the seat back in front of instead of your laptop."

So they're starting to make the best of what is probably a very difficult and bad situation, at least for their customers when it comes to ease but

not necessarily security.

GORANI: But Samuel, you've spoken to security experts, is it safer to put a laptop in the hold or iPads or Fablets or whatever in the hold rather

than in the cabin? And why not just -- sorry, let me just part two to the question, why not do what so many of these Middle Eastern airports do that

we have to go every time, and ask people to turn on your laptop? It's a way of checking if your laptop is safe.

BURKE: These tech experts that I've been talking to all day, Hala, are really scratching their heads. Keep in mind, that tech companies behind

these devices, but they have to deal with lithium batteries all the time, which are part of what are in question here.

And they're saying they feel like this is really just a small Band-Aid for what could be a much bigger problem. In fact, the CEO of one Israeli

company, which makes batteries, Jordot told me, quite frankly, batteries in the belly of the airplane could pose a greater threat.

[16:10:10]Because if there is an explosive in them, you might prefer to have it in the cabin, in that unfortunate situation, because if a fire

starts, at least the cabin crew can try to put it out. And he told me exactly what you are saying.

Do what El Al Airlines has done for so long, make people turn on their devices to make sure it's working and there are not explosives stuffed in

there or increase these (inaudible) machines.

When you go to the airport now, they have those sticks with the little cloth on them. What they're doing is actually trying to have the machines

smell those to see if there's explosives in them. He said that is the much surer way to do this.

GORANI: And Mohammad, to you the last question here, because we've seen online a lot of negative reaction, especially coming from the Middle East

saying, this is the United States just trying to impose an indirect tariff on some of these Middle East airlines, they don't like, because they get

all of these government subsidies. Is this something you're hearing people say in your part of the world? Is this something believing where you are?

LILA: Well, I can tell you anecdotally that I've heard this, you know, the previous travel ban that the Trump administration tried to out into effect,

it was reversed by the courts. They call that travel ban 1.0, the second time they called it 2.0.

I'm hearing this referred to as travel ban 2.5. That perhaps they knew they couldn't go all the way and ban people from entering the United

States, so now they're focusing on those electronic devices.

But again, a lot of this is going to depend on how this rolls out, how it's going to play out at the airports. I mean, obviously, the airline staff

will have a difficult time explaining to people over the next few days that they can't take their laptops onboard.

So we'll start seeing a lot of that anger come out over the next few days, possibly in full force, and the question is, will this start delaying

people's flights. That will make people even more upset. So again, like all the other ones, like Barbara and Samuel have been saying, this is a bit

of a head scratcher.

GORANI: All right, Mohammad Lila in Dubai, Samuel Burke at Heathrow, and thanks to Barbara Starr who joined us from the Pentagon.

The American president, Donald Trump's, ambitious agenda faces some critical tests this week. He's lobbying to repeal and replace the

Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

What he's doing is he's pressuring Republicans who may be on the fence to vote yes during Thursday's House vote. But all his cajoling may not be

enough to close the vote gap.

Then there's the confirmation hearing for his Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, who's facing a sharp drilling by Democrats in attack mode. And

meanwhile, the White House is trying to distance itself from a new bombshell from FBI Director James Comey who says the bureau is now

investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. We have a lot to talk about.

The FBI director also shut the door firmly on the president's claim that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Our

senior political analyst, David Gergen joins us. He's advised Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton.

David, let's start a little bit with the president's push to lobby his own party, saying to some of them, if you don't support this health care bill,

you'll suffer in the midterm elections in 2018. You better get onboard. But a lot of them see this potentially as hurting them if they support it,


DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It could cut both ways. If you don't vote for it, you'll pay a price because you campaigned that

you're going to replace Obamacare.

And if you vote for it, it may be a bill or a new system that doesn't work as well as Obamacare, and then you'll really be in the soup. It's a hard

vote for a lot of people.

The likelihood is that the president and the speaker of the House, Republican speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, will prevail in this early vote

in the House of Representatives, which is scheduled Thursday.

If they pull the -- if it looks like they don't have the votes, they'll probably pull the bill, never bring to it a vote. But that means it will

have to go back to the drawing board. Likely they'll prevail in the House, but they'll have a tough time in the United States Senate.

The road gets tougher and the way they are changing the bill in the House in order to make it palatable to conservatives also will mean that the

number of people who go without insurance in coming years will go up. And that's going to make the bill that much more problematic in the politics of

the country.

GORANI: I wonder now, Donald Trump is, after signing a bunch of executive orders and you know, fulfilling some of the campaign promises in a way that

he could with executive orders from the oval office is now having to really confront his first real presidential challenge, which is getting Congress

on his side to push an important piece of legislation and maybe it's harder than he thought it would be.

GERGEN: I think that's absolutely right. You know, seven presidents in the United States have tried to provide a national coverage and health

insurance for all Americans. Barack Obama was the first one to succeed. That just shows you, it's very tough to find a magic solution that you can

get everybody onboard with.

[16:15:03]But I must tell you, this is one of several tests where the president, it's health care this week, as you pointed out. It's also his

first nominee to the Supreme Court. And the first day of interrogation of that individual has gone very well.

Judge Gorsuch, he's performed smoothly. The opposition has had a hard time finding a way to attack him successfully. He's very likely to sail

through. Maybe -- it will be a partisan vote, but he's very, very likely to become the next Supreme Court justice and that will be a victory for the

president. So, it's a mixed week. I think his real blow, most significant blows came in the FBI testimony yesterday.


GERGEN: In which the president took two hits below the water line. The most immediate is his credibility was directly on the line and it was

devastated by the testimony saying, there is no evidence that the previous president, Obama, wiretapped this president. So the charge --

GORANI: I mean, and David, you had this extraordinary situation where the FBI director is basically testifying on Capitol Hill, saying the president

is not telling the truth about this. I have no evidence that what he's saying is true. I mean, that is remarkable.

GERGEN: Absolutely remarkable. And they also said, very importantly for international purposes, the FBI director also said that this whole charge

that the White House has made and the fact that British intelligence was used by Obama to spy on Trump is just wrong, too. It's nonsense. That

hurt his credibility I think overseas. So this is a tough week for the president on that --

GORANI: I can tell you, here in Britain, David, they did not take kindly to that. They really wanted an apology and didn't get and Boris Johnson is

right now in Washington, and I don't know if he'll get any kind of apology, but it doesn't seem like that's going to happen.

GERGEN: But if anybody can do it, it's probably Boris Johnson, right?

GORANI: He's been asked to apologize as much as he's asking others to apologize.

GERGEN: There's no way Donald Trump is going to apologize. This whole FBI investigation, the fact that they now have an ongoing investigation, which

could lead to criminal charges, and has also left a gray cloud over the administration.

I've been in administrations when questions of criminality or violations of the law come up, and I can just tell you, it becomes very difficult, it

becomes more difficult to govern. You don't quite know where you are or how it's all going to come out.

People are scrambling to get lawyers and one thing and another. It's distracting, and it's a -- it tugs you down. So, this has not been --

GORANI: But I wonder if the rules --

GERGEN: Yes, please.

GORANI: I wonder if those rules apply to the Trump administration, because they're not, they're not doing business the same way. I mean, in a way,

his supporters love it, but in some other ways, perhaps then this isn't something that's too worrying to them.

GERGEN: Well, here's what I -- I think the president is going to be able to move ahead with pieces of his agenda. I think he's going to -- such as

the Gorsuch appointment. He is like -- I think it's still uphill to get a final bill on health care.

I do think eventually he'll get something done on taxes and maybe something done on infrastructure. So he's not crippled, but he's not as strong as he

might be. His base has holding, but his overall numbers have been coming down.

His popularity -- the Gallup poll, which is regarded as a pretty popular, reliable poll has him down to 37 percent. We've never seen a first-year

president that low. And that means that -- I'll tell you what a lot of people in Washington talk about, that is, we can get by, but what if

there's a crisis?

What if there's something -- he's got an inexperienced team, the president flies off the handle easily, and the president's credibility has been badly

hurt, even shredded in some quarters. And that's when a president has to come before the people and ask them to do tough things or say, we need to

do this because of the following.

And if you don't have a good reputation for truth, if you're not trusted, it makes it a lot harder. When we had a president, years ago, we had

Dwight Eisenhower was president, came out of this World War II, a great hero of Britain as well as here.

And when he went on television and made a statement about international affairs, the number of people believed that proposition went up 25 percent

just because Eisenhower said it, just because he was Ike and you could trust him. Trust is an old-fashioned idea, but still very, very important

in modern governance.

GORANI: Right. A very interesting perspective there. Ike didn't have Twitter, though, so --

GERGEN: Thank goodness.

GORANI: David Gergen, thanks very much for joining us. We always appreciate your time.

Still to come tonight, a former Trump campaign chair, Paul Manafort back in the headlines. New evidence emerging that shows he may have made some

illegal payments from a Ukrainian political party. We have a CNN report coming to us from Ukraine, next.



GORANI: Paul Manafort stepped down as Donald Trump's campaign chairman way back in August, but he's never been far from the headlines since. Manafort

is now facing fresh allegations over his links to Ukraine's former president, the pro-Russian, Victor Yanukovych.

Officials in Ukraine are looking into whether Manafort received illegal payments from Yanukovych's party. Now, one Ukrainian lawmaker says he has

the paperwork that might prove Manafort tried to hide those very payments.

CNN's Atika Shubert joins us live with that story. She is in Ukraine. Atika, tell us about your reporting -- in Berlin, I apologize. Tell us

about your reporting.

ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, actually, we just got back from Kiev, Ukraine, and this was a document that

was actually found last year and we were able to sit down with Sergei Lashchenko before he made the documents public today to kind of walk

through the investigation that he was doing, but also to take a closer look and scrutinize those documents. Take a look.


SHUBERT (voice-over): Sergei Lashchenko is a Ukrainian journalist turned lawmaker, who staked his career on fighting corruption. He takes us for a

quick drive through Kiev to show us where this man used to work, Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign manager, now under scrutiny.

This, he says, is where a potentially crucial bit of evidence was found, a suspicious invoice that appears to be personally signed by Paul Manafort.

Paul Manafort worked in Ukraine for years, mostly advising former president, Victor Yanukovych, a leader, backed by Russian President

Vladimir Putin.

And so deeply unpopular for his rampant corruption that he was chased out of his multi-billion-dollar palace and into exile in Russia. Angry

protesters set fire to his party headquarters in 2014, but not before a group of citizens saved some documents inside, including a hand-written

list of cash payments, that's known in Ukraine as the black ledger.

Manafort's name is scrawled 22 times, for a total of $12.7 million. When the ledger surfaced in the midst of the Trump campaign last year, Manafort

told CNN allegations of corruption, were, quote, "unfounded, silly and nonsensical."

He said, quote, "I have never received a single off the books cash payment." But Sergei Lashchenko now has this, an invoice that appears to

be personally signed by Paul Manafort, stamped with the Ukrainian company registration number.

The date, 14th of October, 2009, and the amount, $750,000 are an exact match to a Manafort entry on the black ledger. CNN has not been able to

verify the authenticity of the document. We asked Paul Manafort to verify the document and his signature.

[16:25:04]His spokesman told us the allegations were, quote, "baseless" and sent this response, "Paul Manafort does not recognize those documents and

that is not his signature."

We compared Lashchenko's scanned signature pages to Department of Justice documents filed and signed by Manafort, now available online.

SERGEI LASHCHENKO, UKRAINIAN LAWMAKER: This is the first time we see Manafort signature in this Ukrainian side of his story.

SHUBERT: The invoice shows 501 units of assorted computer equipment sold by Manafort to Neocom Systems, a Belize registered Shell Company with a

bank account listed in Kyrgyzstan. Lashchenko says the document was found last year in a locked safe by a cleaning crew inside the former office was

of Davis Manafort.

LASHCHENCKO: Looks like Manafort was (inaudible) computer processors. I'm sure that it's fake invoice, fake contract, just to establish legal basis

for transaction.

SHUBERT (on camera): Do you think this is money laundering?

LASHCHENKO: I believe it has to be investigated and this issue has to be investigated. In my experience, it looks like money laundering and money


SHUBERT: Has the FBI contacted you about this information?

LASHCHENKO: I cannot tell you about this. Let's just say this, no comment.

SHUBERT: We asked Lashchenko if the FBI now has a copy of this document, and he would not comment. But for Lashchenko, a paper trail provides

evidence that must be investigated.


SHUBERT: Now clearly this document still opens up even more questions, but it basically adds more scrutiny and also shed some light on exactly what

Manafort was doing while he was in Ukraine and possibly how he was also paid for his political lobbying there -- Hala.

GORANI: All right. Thanks so much, Atika Shubert in Berlin with that report from Ukraine.

Still ahead, will today's new security measures really make travelers safer? I'll ask a former U.K. security minister.

And also coming up, this, from a violent past to a peaceful politics, tributes to the passing of Northern Ireland's Martin McGuinness, stay with



GORANI: The U.K. is now following the U.S. and banning larger electronic devices from the passenger cabins on flights from some Middle Eastern and

North African countries. The U.K. and U.S. rules are slightly different, though, but both governments share a concern that terrorists might be

planning to smuggle explosives into cabins in some of these devices.

[16:30:04] The French interior minister has resigned over allegations he hired his daughters as aides when they were just teenagers. Bruno Le Roux

says the duties his daughters performed complied with French law. Media report says Le Roux paid the girls almost $60,000 over a seven-year period.

The French financial prosecutor is now investigating.

E.U. leaders will hold their first Brexit summit one month after U.K. starts the ball rolling by triggering Article 50. The President of the

European Council, Donald Tusk, said the talk will take place on April 29th. Britain will be the only E.U. member not attending.

He was a violent commander who turned into a pivotal peacemaker. Friends and old foes, as well, are offering tributes to Northern Ireland's Martin

McGuinness, who has died at the age of 66. The former British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted that McGuinness was a divisive figure but said

he played a key role in bringing peace.


TONY BLAIR, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: I completely understand that there will be many people who, for them, the name of Martin

McGuinness is synonymous with the terrorism of the past. But for those of us who dealt with him in his later incarnation as a peacemaker, the fact

is, he was instrumental in bringing peace, and he showed in that enormous courage and dedication and leadership.


GORANI: Now, our Nic Robertson looks at how Martin McGuinness moved from IRA commander to politician.


NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): Martin McGuinness was never in any doubt about what he wanted, an end to British

rule in Northern Ireland.

MARTIN MCGUINNESS, FORMER DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER OF NORTHERN IRELAND: I am an Irish republican. In an Irish context, the republican is someone who

believes that the British government should have no part to play in the life of this island, that we believe that this island should be free.

ROBERTSON (voice-over): McGuinness was born into poverty in the Bogside slums of Londonderry, a city that would become the cradle of the republican

movement in the province.

In the late 1960s, Londonderry's Catholics took to the streets demanding civil rights and end to Protestant dominance of Northern Ireland.

McGuinness joined the IRA, the Irish Republican Army to fight.

MCGUINNESS: The first time I picked up a stone was during the Battle of the Bogside, which was in 1969, whenever the barricades have been erected.

ROBERSON (voice-over): By 1972, on Bloody Sunday, when British paratroopers fired on angry demonstrators, killing 13 unarmed civilians,

McGuinness had risen to be an IRA commander.

In the early '80s, McGuinness became an elected politician for the Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA. But even as the IRA launched bombing

attacks in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, McGuinness was talking with British officials, a risky initiative.

MCGUINNESS: We were dealing with very devious people who had the capability, as always, effectively to destroy me as a republican and to

effectively bring about a set of circumstances where I could lose my life as a result of my participation in these talks.

ROBERTSON (voice-over): His risk eventually paid off. The 1998 Good Friday Peace Agreement called for power sharing between Catholic and

Protestants. Vindication came at the ballot box. Sinn Fein's popularity soared, the most powerful Catholic party in Northern Ireland.

In a new power sharing government, McGuinness rose to be Deputy First Minister, the first in his party to shake hands with Britain's Queen

Elizabeth, a testament to how far this one-time republican terrorist had come.

But after 10 years of power sharing with Protestants, McGuinness abruptly resigned.

MCGUINNESS: So believe today is the right time to call a halt to the DUP's arrogance.

ROBERTSON (voice-over): It was all the more shocking because he appeared so visibly weak. He was ill. It was the last roll of the political dice,

a republican through and through.

MCGUINNESS: Well, I've always believed in myself. From the day that I stood with the young people and the old people of Derry and threw stones

during the Battle of the Bogside. It was from that moment on that I believed in myself, that I believed that we could achieve important things.

ROBERTSON (voice-over): A belief he never let go.


GORANI: And Nic Robertson there reporting on the life of Martin McGuinness. Returning now to our top story this hour, the airline security

measures announced today by the United States and Britain.

[16:35:01] We've just learned that recent intelligence on al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is behind the new restrictions. Now, a U.S. official is

telling CNN this, saying that the group was perfecting techniques for hiding explosives in batteries and battery compartments of laptops and

other large devices.

This is why, according to this official, at least, laptops wouldn't be allowed, bigger phablets, you know, those big phones, iPads, et cetera.

Passengers on certain flights will no longer be able to take some of these personal electronics into the cabins. So that means they'll have to check

all of that into their luggage.

The U.S. restrictions apply to direct flights from eight Muslim-majority countries, including Egypt, Turkey, and the UAE. Britain's rules are a bit

different, which has some people wondering why. They affect six countries, dropping several on the U.S. list but adding Lebanon and Tunisia.

Will the new measures make air travel safer? Also, what kind of intelligence could lead to this? What sharing of intelligence could have

happened between the U.S. and U.K.?

Let's bring in Pauline Neville-Jones. She's a former U.K. Security Minister, the former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

Thanks so much for joining us. So one of the questions people had was, if the U.S. and the U.K. are sharing this very, very crucial, sensitive

intelligence they gathered somehow from AQAP in Yemen, for instance, why are the lists different? Why are they not on the same page?


is common, obviously, is a preoccupation, which both governments have had for a very long time, about airport security and aviation security.


NEVILLE-JONES: And A.Q. is known to want to bring down an aircraft. I take seriously and, you know, without being concerned about whether this is

sort of real, the anxiety that both governments have.

I agree, though -- and I've been listening to the commentators -- what is puzzling is two things. One, the difference in the two lists and the two

destinations. And secondly, which I find even more puzzling, I have to confess, is that you can't have it in the cabin but it can go in the hold.

GORANI: Right.

NEVILLE-JONES: Now then, I mean, the --

GORANI: And some security experts have told us, if you find a way to detonate one of those devices, it's actually more dangerous to do that in

the hold than in the cabin.

NEVILLE-JONES: Well, I've also heard that too. So I mean, I think it may be a question of having more confidence in the kind of screening that goes

on for hold luggage than, in some airports, actually takes place for hand luggage.

GORANI: That's interesting. That would be interesting. But if you look at sort of the list itself --


GORANI: -- and what countries are excluded. So Lebanon and Tunisia were added by the U.K., but the UAE -- I mean, I get that there's a concern.

AQAP, A.Q., has, certainly, in their plans, something like this, some --

NEVILLE-JONES: I think what it does tell you is that the two governments have assessed whatever common information they've had.

GORANI: Right.

NEVILLE-JONES: They have assessed it slightly differently, that's first thing. The second thing is, it may reflect, you know, information about

the attack patterns in relation to the U.K. on the one hand and the U.S. on the other. And they may be slightly different.


NEVILLE-JONES: So I think that I wouldn't conclude that somehow this is just odd and not based on any real info. I think it is possibly, you know,

that the two countries do face slightly different threats from different destinations.

GORANI: Yes. Well, and in other countries. For instance, if you look at France, Germany, none of those have announced any kind of bans.

NEVILLE-JONES: I think it's not to be construed that they won't follow.

GORANI: That they won't follow.


GORANI: We'll definitely see.


GORANI: Let's talk a little bit about that --


GORANI: -- awkward, awkward situation between your country and the United States --


GORANI: -- between the government of Theresa May and the White House of President Donald Trump, when his own Press Secretary read out a report he'd

heard on Fox News that GCHQ, the surveillance agency here in Britain, had helped President Obama wiretap Trump Tower.

Every single intelligence official in the United States has said, no, no evidence of that, yet the president and none of his aides have apologized

to Britain.

NEVILLE-JONES: Right. But my reaction, I have to say, was utter amazement. I couldn't credit it. I think there was a certain amount of

real irritation.

Now, you don't quarrel with your allies, but it was notable and it is unusual in the U.K. that there was, first of all, an absolutely immediate

reaction, and it was from GCHQ. Now, GCHQ does not go into the headlines.

GORANI: Right.

NEVILLE-JONES: So I think you know you were seeing something there, which is, you know, pretty unusual. The second, I suppose, thing is that, it was

very categoric no. And that's the kind of confrontation between two very close allies that you try actually to avoid.

GORANI: Yes. In you're a very long and distinguished career, you were a diplomat for decades, you were chairman -- I should say chairwoman -- of

the Joint Intelligence Committee and also the Security Minister just a few years ago under Prime Minister David Cameron, what -- and Boris Johnson is

in Washington today.

What should he expect? What should he ask for? Should he bring it up?

[16:40:08] NEVILLE-JONES: If I were him, I wouldn't.

GORANI: Why not?

NEVILLE-JONES: Well, I think, you know, that it's --

GORANI: It's offensive!

NEVILLE-JONES: No, I think that's chapter closed. Really. Oh, no, I think --


NEVILLE-JONES: No, you don't go on begging for apologies. I don't think it's going to be forthcoming. I think you'd say chapter closed. What is

important --

GORANI: Is it not damaging?

NEVILLE-JONES: -- is the relationship is not done. But I don't think the relationship, at the professional level, is going to be damaged. But --

GORANI: OK. Why not?

NEVILLE-JONES: Well, because I think the people who operate it trust each other. They defended each other. Mike Rogers was very, very clear, the

head of the NSA, that there was no substance in this. And I think that relationship will continue.

Where the damage is, potentially, is actually at the political level. You know, agencies do need to have their governments support them. And

secondly, I do think that if you actually purvey information which turns out to be wholly without foundation, it does damage your own credibility.

And the U.K. has a very strong interest in the credibility of the U.S. administration.

GORANI: Lastly, the GCHQ, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, I mean, does this affect their relationship? They're very tight, they're very close, they

cooperate closely. We're even seeing it potentially with this electronics ban.


GORANI: Do you think that's going to cause a problem?

NEVILLE-JONES: No, I don't. I don't.


NEVILLE-JONES: I think it's been going on so long.


NEVILLE-JONES: I think it has no real resilience over time. So, I mean, if we had lots and lots of this, which I trust not, then you might see some

damage. But I think, you know, we would go over this.

GORANI: We're only 60 days in.


GORANI: We still have many more years.

NEVILLE-JONES: Well, I know. Yes. Well, I hope it's a learning process.

GORANI: Pauline Neville-Jones, thanks so much for dropping by. We really appreciate your time this evening.

Let's get more perspective now on those travel restrictions. We're joined by Michael Adams, a former national security advisor for the U.S. Navy.

And, in fact, he specializes in cybersecurity threats.

When you heard this ban or this ban that would require passengers to check some of these electronic devices into the hold and not take them into the

cabin, what was your initial reaction?

MICHAEL ADAMS, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, UNITED STATES NAVY: Well, I think my initial reaction was that there had to be some very specific

intelligence to require these sorts of decisions. You know, there aren't a lot of decisions made lightly in this space about particular threats

emanating from a variety of countries that would require the United States and the United Kingdom to both come out with these sorts of decisions. So

it was quite intriguing to see this.

GORANI: I guess, some people will be asking, those especially who are concerned that specific intelligence is motivating this move, is, A, why

are the list in both countries different? So in other words, the U.K. believes flights coming from the UAE are fine. The U.S. don't believe


And also, B, what about other countries where potentially you have ill- intentioned people who might want to cause problems with a plane flying to the U.S.? What about those areas? Why not just blanket issue this

directive to all flights going to America?

ADAMS: Well, I think when the United States government seeks to mitigate the risk of attacks, particularly on airliners, particularly with

transnational movement, you really want to minimize the impact to the number of affected states. You really want to minimize the impact to both

U.S. and non-U.S. citizens. And as a consequence of that, what you would look to do is you would look to assess the intelligence that you have for

its credibility, its reliability, and then you look to see where you really need to emphasize the decisions.

And I think it's also important to note that it's not uncommon for the United States, the United Kingdom, and other states, to ultimately draw

different conclusions about the reliability of intelligence or the significance of a threat and to focus their efforts and some of these

policies in particular locales.

GORANI: But here's my -- can I? Here's the issue that people bring up most often, every layer of extra security that is imposed on passengers,

you know, with every layer that's added, you never have another one that's removed.

At some point, it's going to become so incredibly difficult to travel by air, get there four hours ahead of time, check everything in your -- you

know what I mean? Like, at what point do you start making decisions that go in the opposite direction of making travel easier rather than more


ADAMS: Well, as someone who travels, quote, big, and has over the last 25 years, I would love to see travel made much easier and much safer. But the

reality is that, sometimes, when you have particular threats, you have to take reasonable measures to combat those threats.

GORANI: Right.

ADAMS: We've also seen several instances over the last 15, 16 years, where there have been certain measures implemented for a period of time. We

develop technologies and means to identify those threats in a more efficient manner, in a less intrusive manner, and the bans ultimately went


Now, I can't speak to whether that will or will not happen in this case, but these are very difficult decisions, to balance security and

convenience, to balance security and privacy. And I --

[16:45:04] GORANI: Yes. I just like to get my lip gloss through security without having to put it in a baggy. And I think a lot of people wonder

how many of these, you know, security measures that are 10, 15 years old, that maybe, in some cases, you could find a way to check some of this

luggage without -- but, I mean, I take your point regarding the laptops. This is new. But the older ones.

ADAMS: Right. Well, hopefully, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is not designing lip gloss that blows up on aircraft, right? But in the meantime,

to the extent that there is credible intelligence about devices that are larger than an iPhone, you know, laptops and tablets, I think it's prudent

to take those threats seriously.

GORANI: Michael Adams, thanks very much. We appreciate your time on the program this evening.

ADAMS: My pleasure.

GORANI: This is THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. And one year on, it's already been that long from Belgium's deadliest terrorist attack. We hear from a

survivor whose image became a symbol of the terror. We'll be right back.


GORANI: News just into CNN from the Pentagon. The U.S. military has now launched a formal investigation into a deadly air strike in northern Syria

conducted by the United States that locals are saying, and some of the observatory groups as well on the ground saying, hit a crowded mosque and

killed civilians.

Local reports say that more than 40 people were killed in that March 16th strike. The United States had confirmed at the time that there had been

air strikes in the region, but that they had not hit the mosque. And now we're hearing from the Pentagon that they are launching an investigation

into that bombing.

Speaking of Syria, now to a plea from a Syrian defector known for his shocking photographs of detainees. Now, a warning that we're going to show

you some of those graphic images, including pictures of dead bodies. So if you'd prefer to look away, now would be the time.

The man is nicknamed Caesar. He documented those allegedly tortured and killed in Syrian regime prisons. And Caesar, in fact -- there he is --

testified on Capitol Hill today, his identity obscured to protect him. He worked as a forensic photographer for the Syrian military police. And he

smuggled these images out of the country to show what's going on in there.

Today, he spoke to CNN exclusively. Here is his message to the U.S. President.


CAESAR, SYRIAN MILITARY POLICE DEFECTOR: We are asking to all the officials, to all the policy makers, to President Trump's White House,

which we are hoping will do the right thing. We beg you to stop the machinery of death in Syria.

You are America and the United States Congress and the American people. You always stand next to justice, and you stand with democracy. And

America is the light of democracy and justice. We ask you to stand with the Syrian people, those that are oppressed, to stop the machinery of



[16:50:07] GORANI: Now, it was the deadliest act of terrorism in Belgium's history. Three coordinated suicide bombings in the country's capital

killed 32 civilians. In the middle of it was Nidhi Chaphekar. You might remember this picture of her at Brussels airport with blood running down

her face and her shirt ripped open. It was seen around the world.

She's a flight attendant. She spoke to CNN's Erin McLaughlin about her ordeal and returning to the city to mark the anniversary of the attack.


NIDHI CHAPHEKAR, BRUSSELS ATTACK VICTIM: The crowd started running towards all directions, especially the exit was on the right side there. And those

who couldn't find the exit in that kiosk, they were coming, rushing towards us. The cries, though. The people started screaming.

ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): You may not know her voice, but you'll remember her face. Flight attendant Nidhi Chaphekar,

clothes torn, stunned, sitting on a bench. Her picture one of the lasting images of the Brussels airport attack.

CHAPHEKAR: With the help of a person, you know, I sat on that chair. And then I was finding it very difficult because I wanted to stop the bleeding

of my left leg because, seeing so many casualties around, you knew it's going to be a tough task for everyone, and I don't know how long it would

take me to reach the hospital.

MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): Nidhi's injuries, so extensive, she was placed in a medically induced coma. She learned of the image a month later.

MCLAUGHLIN (on camera): That photograph has become an iconic image, a defining image of this attack. How does that make you feel, that pretty

much everyone has seen that and your vulnerability in that moment?

CHAPHEKAR: It was a very awful scenario to accept. It was a very horrible moment. And it shows the pain you have, you know, everything. And that

was the picture which gave hope, not only to my family, not only to my colleagues, not only to my organization, my friends and everybody, that I'm


MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): Though she's still recovering, Nidhi says she feels reborn. Brussels is still one of her favorite places, and she can't

wait to get back to work.

MCLAUGHLIN (on camera): What do you want the world to know about being a victim of terror?

CHAPHEKAR: I want to tell people that, alone, you cannot survive. You need a person. So our survival depends upon each other's survival.

We need to plant the seeds of love and compassion. We need to water them with faith and relationship, and reap the beautiful fruits of peace and

prosperity. Because peace, prosperity, faith, relationship, love, compassion, they're not the luxuries of life, but they are the necessities

of being human. And that's what I want to tell.


GORANI: Some wise words there from one of the many victims of the Brussels bombings. We'll have more news after this.


GORANI: Well, President Trump's eldest daughter, Ivanka, is establishing herself more and more in Washington and in the White House. She'll get a

West Wing office, according to an official. She's expected to get security clearance and use government-provided communications devices. And that is

despite not holding an official government role.

Speaking of Mr. Trump, he held a rally in Kentucky, Monday. He didn't mention the ongoing FBI investigation into his campaign team's links with

Russia. As Gary Tuchman discovered, that was totally fine with his supporters.


GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Trump wasn't set to arrive until the evening, but that didn't stop these ardent

supporters from arriving very early in the morning. And Mike Carol (ph) was near the front of the line.

[16:55:07] MARK CAROL (PH), TRUMP SUPPORTER: I've got a copy of Mark's 1990 "Playboy" interview with Donald Trump.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Carol (ph) waited in line for hours in hopes of getting a Trump autograph on that magazine. And while he was waiting, the

FBI Director was testifying on Capitol Hill.

TUCHMAN (on camera): The FBI is investigating whether there's alleged links between Russia and the Trump campaign and whether any crimes were

committed. Does that trouble you?

CAROL (PH): It really doesn't. It doesn't.

TUCHMAN (on camera): It doesn't?

CAROL (PH): I look at it as just a minor issue that I think is just perpetuated by the media.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Also thinking it's minor, this miner.

PAUL MIRACLE (PH), TRUMP SUPPORTER: I'm a third generation. My pop was a miner too since the '30s.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Paul Miracle (ph) says many of the accusations he's heard about President Trump are unfair.

MIRACLE (PH): I think he's doing a great job.

TUCHMAN (on camera): So you don't think he's getting distracted from all these other things going on?

MIRACLE (PH): No, I don't think so.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Many here think any possible Russia links aren't such a big deal.


TUCHMAN (voice-over): And have no problem with Donald Trump once asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing e-mails.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that all of our superpowers in the world interfere with everybody's elections. And if by bringing out e-mails for

somebody as evil as Hillary not being president, by all means, please bring it out because --

TUCHMAN (on camera): It was OK that Donald Trump said that?


TUCHMAN (on camera): That he wanted Russia to release those e-mails?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely, because it's the truth. And I feel like our media is so liberal in the United States, why not let -- if our people

aren't going to do it, let's let Russia do it for us.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Meanwhile, Donald Trump's claim that Barack Obama had his phone wiretapped is still widely believed here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I know he's got proof.

TUCHMAN (on camera): But the FBI Director says they haven't seen any of that. Even his Vice President Pence. No one is saying it. Donald Trump

is saying it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Well, when the truth comes out, then what is everybody going to say?

TUCHMAN (on camera): So why isn't he presenting that evidence now?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think there's more to it than the public can know. And they've got to get everything altogether, you know.

TUCHMAN (on camera): You think Donald Trump is involved in preparation to present this at some point?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I do believe that.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): One of the few Trump supporters we found here who is fine with the disclosure of the investigation is Robert Barry (ph).

ROBERT BARRY (PH), TRUMP SUPPORTER: Otherwise, there's no legitimacy. Unless he lets himself be investigated fairly, then everyone is going to

keep on saying that it's true. And if it turns out to be true, that would be bad and I would be very disappointed.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): What people are not disappointed with, two months into his presidency, is Donald Trump's tenacity.

TUCHMAN (on camera): What do you think is Donald Trump's greatest accomplishment has been so far in his presidency?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think just standing up to the pressure that he's received, probably, so far. I mean, he's gotten a tremendous headwind.

TUCHMAN (on camera): So you think that's his greatest accomplishment, though, dealing with the pressure as opposed something more specific?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he's delivered on a lot of his campaign promises already. I mean, he's already in office --

TUCHMAN (on camera): Well, what's the main one?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- for about 50 days.

TUCHMAN (on camera): What's the main one?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think immigration. The movements he's made on immigration is important.

TUCHMAN (on camera): But the travel ban has been turned down by courts so far.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, some of that stuff's out of his hands.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Gary Tuchman, CNN, Louisville, Kentucky.


GORANI: His supporters still support him.

This has been THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. I'm Hala Gorani. I'll see you same time, same place, tomorrow.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next. Stay with CNN.