Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Pilots Flying Over U.S. Raised Concerns about Boeing 737 Max 8; Trump Administration's Ties to Boeing Under Scrutiny; Manafort to Be Sentenced in D.C. Federal Court; Critical Week in Mueller Probe; Feds Charge 50 in Nationwide College Admissions Scandal. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired March 13, 2019 - 06:00   ET

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


ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

[05:59:27] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So welcome to our viewers in the United States and all around the world. This is NEW DAY. It's Wednesday, March 13, 6 a.m. in New York. And we do have breaking news on a major story.

We learned overnight there have been at least five complaints from pilots in the United States in recent months about the Boeing 737 Max 8 jets during critical moments of flight.

The Max 8 is the aircraft involved in two crashes in the last five months, including the Ethiopia Airlines crash that killed 157 people this weekend. Countries around the world are grounding the 737 Max 8: Europe, Asia, South America, but not the United States. Why?

The FAA is facing a booming chorus of criticism and questions about why the plane is still flying in the U.S., and that chorus may grow with the breaking news that pilots filed at least five complaints before Sunday's crash. They filed those complaints to a federal database. In one incident, the pilot reported the aircraft pitching nose down with autopilot engaged, and that triggered a warning of "Don't sink, don't sink."

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: So we'll get to all of that.

But our other top story, in just hours, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort will be sentenced again, this time on conspiracy and witness tampering charges.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson could give him the maximum of ten years. Manafort was sentenced last week to the surprisingly short sentence of 47 months in Virginia.

This is a big week for the Robert Mueller investigation, so we will bring you all of the updates.

But first, let's begin with the breaking airline news. CNN'S Martin Savidge is live at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. What is the latest, Martin?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Morning, Alisyn. More passengers continue now to wake up to the news that more countries have banned this aircraft, at least temporarily, and also now, as you just reported, that information that five pilots in this country have reported that they've had control issues with this brand- new aircraft.

Many people may not be aware that there is this system in place for commercial airline pilots to self-report any issues that they might have with their plane; and they've done that in at least five instances.

And so what I want to bring up for you is one of the comments that was made by one of the pilots. And it reads like this. He says, quote, "I think it's unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, the airlines would have pilots fly an airplane without adequately training or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models. The flight manual is inadequate, almost criminally insufficient. All airlines that operate the Max must insist that Boeing incorporate all systems in their manuals."

Now, that's dated November 2018. That's one month after the Indonesian crash. Boeing has said since that time, it has updated its manuals and that there's been additional training that's been given to pilots.

But it still shows that pilots in this country have reported control issues similar to the ones that seem to be coming out of the investigations both with the Indonesia crash and then the one over the weekend with Ethiopian Airlines.

There are now 40 countries, including the European Union, China, and Australia, that have banned this aircraft not only in their airspace but from flying over their airspace. Yet in this country, despite the complaints of lawmakers, despite the concerns of aviation unions, and despite also the fears of the flying public, the plane continues to fly here.

At least 70 aircraft of that model variant are flying in the United States by United Airlines, by American Airlines, Southwest Airlines. That means thousands of passengers, including today, are getting on board that plane, despite the fact that the FAA is getting this mounting pressure.

They have put out a new statement that says they continue to stand firm. They say they are reviewing extensively all the available information they have. But thus far, quote, "Our review shows no systemic performance issues and provides no basis to order the grounding of the aircraft," flying directly in the face of what the rest of the world fears about this plane -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Martin, this is really valuable new information that CNN has obtained for passengers to hear this morning. Thank you very much for the report.

Joining us now is CNN transportation analyst Mary Schiavo. She is the inspector general for the U.S. Transportation Department, and she is also an attorney representing families of plane crash victims. She has current litigation pending against Boeing.

Mary, so it's not just, as it turns out, these two crashes that may or may not be linked. It's also these very alarming complaints that CNN has now gotten their hands on from pilots. Why is this model aircraft still in the air?

MARY SCHIAVO, CNN TRANSPORTATION ANALYST: Well, the model of this aircraft is still in the air, because the FAA is engaging in a very clever use of words. They're down to wordsmithing.

So what they have said is, look, you know, "The aircraft was certified as airworthy, and until we have evidence that it's not airworthy, we're not going to go back and mess with that airworthy certificate."

But this revelation of these five pilot reports, in addition to the fact that two airplanes, brand-new airplanes have fallen from the sky, and we don't know -- I mean, it makes the FAA statement look completely ridiculous and a shirking of their responsibility.

So what they're saying is "Until we're presented with clear evidence, we won't go back and change our previous statement that the plane was airworthy."

And these pilot reports are highly significant, because this is a government reporting hotline where pilots can report things and know that they won't be retaliated against and the airlines won't be retaliated against. But these do count, in my book, as an incident.

[06:05:06] CAMEROTA: OK. So you think that these confidential reports are what you call incidents, because they're reporting these episodes, very alarming episodes that they say that they had mid- flight.

So let me just -- you know, Martin just read one, which was terribly alarming, because it said that one of the pilots felt that he was not sufficiently trained on the aircraft and that the flight manual was, quote, "criminally insufficient." Let me read you a couple of other chilling ones. OK?

Here's one. "The aircraft" -- this is a pilot explaining what happened during flight. "The aircraft accelerated normally, and then the captain engaged the 'A' autopilot after reaching set speed. Within two to three seconds, the aircraft -- aircraft pitched nose down. The captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pitched into a climb. We discussed the departure at length, and I reviewed in our mind our automation setup and flight profile but can't think of any reason the aircraft would pitch nose down so aggressively."

That was from just this past November.

Here's another one from this past November, a different pilot. "As I was returning to my primary flight display, the Pilot Monitoring called 'Descending,' followed by an almost immediate 'Don't sink, don't sink!' I immediately disconnected the autopilot and resumed climb. With the concerns about the Max 8 nose down stuff, we both thought it appropriate to bring it to your attention."

This -- can you imagine, I mean, pilots having to figure out what was happening mid-flight like this?

SCHIAVO: Well, and that's the problem with all of this. The fix after the Lion Air crash, they put a new page in the manual. They gave pilots an hour of training and said, "Now, if this happens to you, troubleshoot this." And there were several steps to troubleshooting this. And then go to another part of the manual and treat it as if it's a runaway trim.

By the way, I worked plane crashes with runaway trims, and the pilots were not able to pull those out. It was not on this kind of airplane, though.

So these reports are highly significant. And what's the irony of this hotline is the whole purpose of this reporting hotline is so the government can do trend analysis on disturbing reports. So if they get, you know, several reports on the same problem, then the government can say, "Oh, my, we have a problem here. We'd better address this."

And so they were apparently ignored, even after the FAA knew there was a problem. That's the whole point of this hotline: find the trends and analyze them.

CAMEROTA: As you know President Trump expressed some concerns about the sort of technology that's moving too fast, it sounded like he was saying, on planes. Does the president have the power to tell the FAA to ground the 737 Max 8?

SCHIAVO: Oh, absolutely. The president is in charge of all the executive branch. And he could tell them to act. And there's one other thing that could happen, of course, is that Congress could act.

Now, the FAA does respond to Congress. In fact, when the FAA gets a message from Congress, they label it as special. They call it a "congressional." And they actually have deadlines to respond to Congress. And Congress could always have a hearing if they get their act together and it just doesn't turn into a partisan bickering.

Because aviation, really, in the United States and even in Washington, D.C., if you can believe it, is not partisan with, you know, Republican/Democrat. It often breaks along economic lines: where the manufacturers are, where the airlines are. But a congressional hearing might help.

CAMEROTA: Well, maybe with these new revelations that are quite alarming from pilots that CNN is reporting this morning, maybe Congress and/or the president will. Mary Schiavo, thank you very much.

SCHIAVO: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: John. BERMAN: All right. The controversial decision to keep the Max 8

flying in the United States is leading to new questions about the Trump administration's connections to Boeing. Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, he was a top executive at Boeing during the rollout of this aircraft.

Our Barbara Starr is live at the Pentagon now with that -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John.

To be clear, there is no indication at all at this point that Patrick Shanahan was directly involved in the development of the 737 Max 8. That is what Pentagon officials who are familiar with his tenure at Boeing are telling us.

There's also no indication at this point that Shanahan is talking to the president or has been asked about this aircraft. Because his -- part of his employment here at the Pentagon, because he was so involved during his 30-year tenure at Boeing with their military and commercial programs, he is recused from any involvement in any Boeing matters. He's not supposed to be dealing with the company or even talking about it.

We, of course, don't know if the president is going to privately ask him his opinion, but no indication that he is involved in the situation at this time.

What we are told by officials familiar with his tenure is, while he was at Boeing working on commercial programs, he was involved in aircraft production of airplanes already in production, already being delivered to airlines. That the Super Max 8, at that time, was a derivative program. It was in development, and it was headed by someone else in the company.

[06:10:04] But, of course, there are going to be key questions about the executive suite and who exactly knew what about this program as it went into production -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Barbara. Thank you very much for that update from the Pentagon.

So now this. In just hours, President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, will be back in court to be sentenced in a second criminal case brought by the special counsel, Robert Mueller.

CNN's Kara Scannell is live at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

What do we expect, Kara?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alisyn, in just a couple of hours Paul Manafort is going to be sentenced. He faces up to ten years in prison on charges of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Now, this is expected to be a very different setting than just last week when Manafort was sentenced to 47 months in prison by a judge in Virginia. Today, in just over three hours, he will be before Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

Judge Jackson has a very different history with Paul Manafort. She's the judge that put him in jail after he was charged with witness tampering. She also is the one that said that he violated his cooperation agreement after he was found to have lied to the special counsel's office. And she also is aware of his communications with someone that the FBI has linked to Russian intelligence, while Paul Manafort was on the campaign.

So this is going to be a much different setting, a much different environment today. The judge is capped by a ten-year statutory maximum. And the big question that remains is will she decide to -- whatever sentence she decides for Paul Manafort, will she run them at the same time as the four-year sentence that Manafort received last week, or will she stack them? Which Paul Manafort turns 70 years old next month. He could look at a maximum of 14 years in prison today -- John.

BERMAN: Concurrent or consecutive? The big question in Washington today. Kara Scannell outside the courthouse for us.

Now, this Manafort sentencing is just one part of a critical week in the Mueller investigation, maybe the final week. Who knows? What we do know is that there are key pivot points for three central players: Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and Rick Gates.

Our Sara Murray is live in Washington with more on that -- Sara.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, John.

Obviously, Manafort is the big news today, and of course, we'll look for whether prosecutors decide to drop any final nuggets about this case.

But, you know, we already learned a lot more just last night about Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Mueller's team said they're not ready to set a sentencing date for him yet, but they said his cooperation, essentially, is complete, aside from needing his testimony at an upcoming trial against his former lobbying partner.

We're also going to be getting an update later this week on another important cooperator in Mueller's investigation, and that's Rick Gates, Manafort's former deputy. He's been cooperating with this team for quite some time.

It will be very telling if prosecutors either decide to set a sentencing date for him or if Mueller's team says something similar to what they said with Flynn: you know, the extent of his cooperation is essentially over, aside from one or two things. That could be another signal that Mueller really is winding down this investigation.

And, of course, we are going to see Roger Stone in D.C. this week, back in front of Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who has a very busy calendar. We might see the judge set a trial date for Roger Stone, or we might see him get a very vigorous reprimand. She has not been happy with the way he's been conducting himself, particularly when she put a gag order on his case. So many potential developments this week.

Back to you guys.

BERMAN: All right. Sara Murray, thank you very much.

I want to bring in Garrett Graff. He's a CNN contributor and author of "The Threat Matrix: Inside Robert Mueller's FBI and the War on Global Terror."

All eyes on Judge Amy Berman Jackson, no relation. She will deliver the sentence today for Paul Manafort in this second trial. It has legal significance. It has practical significance for Paul Manafort. But also political significance, Garrett, for the perception of the Mueller investigation. Explain.

GARRETT GRAFF, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. You know, this basically four- year sentence that he got last week from the case in the Eastern District of Virginia was seen, in some ways, as a blow to Mueller, something that I actually disagree with. I mean, a four-year sentence is a four-year sentence. Manafort was convicted on the charges in -- across the board in the way that Mueller brought them.

So this is -- it's not really a blow, I think, to Mueller but was seen politically as, certainly, less than Manafort could have gotten.

And I think sort of one of the things that we're really beginning to see as some of these cases play out is the extent to which judges matter in the judicial system; that we've seen sort of three different judges play a key role in this. The -- Judge Emmet Sullivan in the Michael Flynn case; the judge with Manafort last week; and then Judge Amy Jackson -- Amy Berman Jackson here in D.C. with both Roger Stone and Manafort. And that each of them has really shaped the outcome of those cases in a major way.

BERMAN: And you see Judge Berman Jackson as a bit more no nonsense and perhaps more likely to be harsh with Paul Manafort. Why?

[06:15:06] GRAFF: Yes, both the way that she has run her courtroom and run her cases has been much less tolerant of nonsense. She's had some sort of very sharp back-and-forths with some of the defendants before her in this Mueller probe.

And then also, you know, as Kara was just saying, she has access to some information that was not part of the record in the Virginia case. This case here in D.C. deals a little bit more with the core questions of Manafort's role in working with foreign agents overseas, potential ties to Russian intelligence, that she has access to some more redacted information that we publicly don't really understand.

BERMAN: Let me ask you this. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, suggested that Paul Manafort may have played the Mueller team here by splitting the cases and then also, you know, backing out of his honesty plea or pledge to prosecutors.

He said, "For Mueller, a less than five-year sentence from Berman Jackson would leave him in a position that no prosecutor relishes: he would look cuckolded and comical. In reducing the counts to two and bringing Manafort under his tent, he may have given the Trump team badly needed intelligence while limiting Manafort's exposure."

Is that possible?

GRAFF: It's possible. What we do know is that Paul Manafort -- that we sort of don't really understand why Paul Manafort made the decisions that he did.

We also don't know, remember, that Paul -- that Paul Manafort is necessarily at the end of his engagement with Mueller. You know, there's reason to believe that Paul Manafort is not done with his legal exposure in this case or potentially new cases. You know, sort of part of these plea agreements and the deals that he struck is that some of these charges were suspended and could be brought back. Or he could be subject to a new indictment.

You know, one of the really notable things is that, in that 800-page sentencing memo for Paul Manafort, Bob Mueller left out some of the information about Russian intelligence that we know Mueller knows. And, you know, it's an 800-page document. So it's not that Mueller ran out of space to squeeze in that stuff.

BERMAN: So Garrett, very last question, ten seconds or less. The big question here. Manafort's a small part of the larger issue here. Is the Mueller report coming? How far away do you think it is?

GRAFF: I can say with absolute certainty, John, that today we are a day closer to the end of the Mueller investigation.

BERMAN: It is the biggest question in Washington. People watching very closely. Garrett Graff, thank you so much for being with us.

CAMEROTA: He's really going out on a limb.

BERMAN: But that's all we know. I mean, really, it's all -- we know it's soonish.

CAMEROTA: All right.

Meanwhile, listen to this. Celebrities, wealthy parents, and coaches at elite universities now charged in the largest college admission scheme ever. We have all the details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:21:45] BERMAN: So, it is a crime that is audacious, breathtaking and infuriating. The largest college admissions cheating scheme ever prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Yes, actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin are among the 50 people indicted in the probe, where parents allegedly paid bribes of up to $6.5 million to get their children into some of the country's most elite colleges. It exposes so much about the admissions process. Yes, the alleged illegality is stunning, but what is also galling is what is perfectly legal.

CNN's Bryn Gingras is live in Boston with the latest here. And Bryn, you were there for that remarkable press conference when this was all laid out, and I think people across the country just shaking their heads.

BRYN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, it's just unbelievable the details in this case, John.

This was a year-long investigation by federal authorities. They have e-mails. They have audio recordings of the conversations setting up these arrangements. And, yes, according to authorities, included in those, Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin, her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli. Yea, and yesterday Huffman and Giannulli appeared in court on charges, but so did others, including CEOs of major companies, athletic coaches. Even a woman who cowrote an article about coddled children was charged in this case.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The FBI uncovered what we believe is a rigged system.

GINGRAS (voice-over): The Justice Department outlining a wide-ranging college admissions bribery scheme, charging at least 50 people, including 33 wealthy parents, with paying up to $6.5 million to help their children gain admission into some of the nation's most competitive universities, including Yale and Stanford.

ANDREW LELLING, U.S. ATTORNEY, MASSACHUSETTS: We're talking you about deception and fraud. Fake test scores, fake athletic credentials, fake photographs, bribed college officials.

GINGRAS: The fraud allegedly twofold. Parents paying to inflate their children's standardized test scores, or faking athletic records to get students recruited for sports they did not even play. In some cases going so far as to Photoshop kid's faces onto pictures of athletes.

The admitted mastermind behind the scam, William Singer, who set up a fraudulent charity used to launder the money parents gave him for bribes.

WILLIAM SINGER, PLEADED GUILTY IN COLLEGE BRIBERY SCANDAL: Getting into the right college will set the trajectory for the rest of your son or daughter's life. Don't leave it to chance.

GINGRAS: Singer pleading guilty to multiple charges, including racketeering, telling a Boston judge, quote, "I created a side door that would guarantee families would get in."

Among the parents listed in the complaint, actress Lori Loughlin, best known for her role as Aunt Becky on "Full House." LORI LOUGHLIN, ACTRESS: You know what? We should just back off, OK?

We are getting frustrated, and so are they.

GINGRAS: According to court documents, Loughlin, along with her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, paid $500,000 for their daughters to gain admission into USC as rowing recruits, despite not participating in the sport. They could not be reached for comment.

Loughlin's daughter, Olivia Jade, is a current freshman at USC who posted this video about college on her YouTube page.

OLIVIA JADE GIANNULLI, DAUGHTER OF LORI LOUGHLIN: I do want the experience of, like, game days, partying. I don't really care about school, as you guys all know.

[06:25:02] GINGRAS: Also charged, Felicity Huffman, who starred on "Desperate Housewives."

FELICITY HUFFMAN, ACTRESS: I can see why you're upset.

GINGRAS: Huffman is accused of using Singer's other admissions approach, allegedly paying $15,000, quote, "for a third party to purport to proctor their daughter's SAT and secretly correct her answers."

Huffman appearing in court Tuesday before posting a $250,000 bond. Her husband, actor William H. Macy, has not been charged in the scheme but was in court taking notes throughout the hearing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GINGRAS: Now Singer could face up to 65 years in prison for this. No students have been charged in this case, but authorities say they haven't ruled out arrest in the future. Universities haven't been charged either, many of them expressing major disappointment, saying they're victim. And USC actually opened its own internal investigation -- John and Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Bryn, thank you very much.

Let's bring in Frank Bruni, "The New York Times" op-ed columnist and CNN contributor. He also wrote the definitive book on college admissions, "Where You Go is Not Who You'll Be: An Antidote to The College Admissions Mania."

Frank, I'm glad you wrote "mania." It's official: parents have gone mad, as we now saw. I read your piece last night in "The New York Times." You're not surprised by this. However, are you surprised by the scope of just how many people -- parents, coaches, college entrance admissions consultants and things like that?

FRANK BRUNI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm surprised, for instance, that they got coaches who were willing to take bribes. I had never seen anything like that before.

I mean, this is egregious, and this is ugly. But I think the important thing, and this is why I'm not surprised, is money has long corrupted the college admissions process. And we're talking now about uses of money that actually happen to be illegal.

But how, morally, is it that much different from, say, Jared Kushner's father pledging a donation of $2.5 million, as Jared, who did not have good enough grades or test scores, is applying to Harvard, and lo and behold, gets in. That sort of thing among the wealthy has happened for decades. I think it's accelerated over recent years as the -- as the kind of shine of big colleges has meant more to parents. I mean, I think we need to talk about that big picture in addition to this criminality.

BERMAN: What's breathtaking is the payoffs to coaches and perhaps the ownership of proctors overseeing some of these exams. But clearly, the guy at the center of this, Singer, knew the soft underbelly of the admissions process.

BRUNI: Yes.

BERMAN: He knew, you know, testing, get your kid two extended days to take the test.

BRUNI: Right.

BERMAN: He knew crew, water polo --

BRUNI: Right.

BERMAN: -- some of these sports that aren't under the spotlight. And frankly, look, they're not playing, you know, or rowing crew, you know, in inner-city Harlem or something like that. They're just not.

BRUNI: That's a hugely important point. Because take this case and the criminality off the table. When we talk about whether the playing field is even for disadvantaged and advantaged kids when it comes to college admissions, if you go to a certain kind of school, you maybe play water polo, you maybe row crew, you maybe fence, all of which are sports they have at the school, and they'll recruit you for.

If you're coming from the inner city, you're not likely playing water polo, rowing crew; you're not likely fencing. And so there are so many ways in which this system privileges, favors kids who come from affluent families even before bribes are tendered, even before test results are faked.

CAMEROTA: But let's talk about that. Because the old-fashioned ways you just alluded to, I mean, I thought that wealthy, famous people could get their kids into basically whatever school they wanted by making a huge donation or just by dint of their fame. I mean, I really thought -- was that -- was that not true? Like, why did Felicity Huffman have to rely on bribing people?

BRUNI: Well, she only had to pay $15,000. So --

CAMEROTA: Right. Lori Loughlin paid half a million, they allege.

BERMAN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: Why did they have -- why did they go this route?

BRUNI: In today's college ecosystem, I'm not entirely sure a one-time half-a-million-dollar donation would get you a place at a school. Right? I mean, remember, we're talking other people buy buildings, pay millions.

But again, this is an illegal version of something that happens on a smaller scale. If you're a wealthy family, you likely pay 50, 60, $70,000 to someone who guides your kid from the seventh grade forward and helps them make every decision they make with an eye toward what will impress the admissions department at Princeton or at Duke or at Georgetown. That's -- that's an option that's not available to someone who comes from a less wealthy family.

BERMAN: Maybe writing the kid's college essays or editing them.

CAMEROTA: All the time. All the time.

BERMAN: We see it all the time.

And look, you were talking about the money here. The guy at the center of this, again, explained the front door to getting into college is getting in from your grades and everything else. The backdoor is a $10 million building donation.

CAMEROTA: Or 2.5 in Jared's case.

BERMAN: No, no, but what he's saying is that -- yes, or 2.5 in the backdoor. But the side door is the discounted $500,000, you know, I'll rig the testing.

BRUNI: And, you know, there's probably someone else out there who says, and the sun room to getting in and the screen door to getting in, because as long as we attribute this ridiculous magical power to going to a certain kind of school, there are going to be parents and there are going to be children who are going to move heaven and earth and do very, very shady things to get that for themselves.

CAMEROTA: Very quickly, and you're going to come back later in the program to talk about what the solution is to all this, but how could the colleges not have known? How could the colleges -- the suggestion is that the colleges didn't know that all of this was happening.

[06:30:00]