Return to Transcripts main page


Boeing Now Admits Its Equipment Played Role in Crashes; May and Corbyn Fail to Make Progress in Talks; Merkel: We'll Do Everything to Prevent "No-Deal"; Water Leak Forces House Of Commons To Close; Some Mueller Team Members Frustrated With Barr Memo; Wash Post: Team Members Had Prepared Summaries That I Could Have Been Made Public Immediately; Accused Mosque Gunman Charged with 50 Murder Counts; Marijuana May Be Decisive Factor in Israeli Election; Trump's Relationship with Truth. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired April 5, 2019 - 01:00   ET


[01:00:00] JOHN VAUSE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Meantime, on planet Brexit, everything goes wrong, on Thursday, in rained in parliament, delaying a major vote for at least today.

After two plane crashes just months apart, 346 dead passengers and crew, and a fleet of planes grounded worldwide, Boeing has made a rare admission of fault, a preliminary report into what caused the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, has found stark similarities to an earlier tragedy involving a Lion Air jet, which went down off Indonesia.

And CNN's Senior Investigative Correspondent Drew Griffin reports, cost saving by Boeing may have played a significant role.


DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: The CEO of Boeing, making a rare admission, accepting blame for two of its airliners that crashed.

DENNIS MUILENBURG, CEO, BOEING: It's apparent that in both flights, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS, activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information. It's our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it, and we know how to do it.

GRIFFIN: The video message from Boeing comes after a devastating preliminary report released today, laying out that a software issue apparently caused the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines flight last month. The report also suggesting the same issue may have caused a Lion Air flight to go down last year.

The preliminary report finds the pilots did everything required to try to bring the plane back safely, but ultimately couldn't control it. Former Boeing Operations Analyst Rick Ludtke, says during development of the 737 Max, Boeing had a mandate, make sure any changes to the plane would not require additional pilot training in a simulator. RICK LUDTKE, FORMER OPERATIONS ANALYST, BOEING: Unprecedented, never happened in the past, that I'm aware of. We were very uncomfortable with this.

GRIFFIN: Ludtke says Boeing managers told him they even sold the plane to Southwest Airlines with a guarantee, a rebate of a million dollars per plane, if simulator training was required. The flight control analyst says the demand to avoid simulator training, known as level D, took over design of the aircraft.

LUDTKE: Throughout the design iteration, all the status meetings with managers, that was something that was always asked, you know, are we threatened, are we risking level D? And if you are, you've got to change it.

I think, philosophically, it was the wrong thing for the company to do, to mandate such a limitation. To strongly avoid it, makes sense. But to prevent it, I think you can see the line from that to these accidents.

GRIFFIN: Federal investigators are now trying to determine if Boeing's cost-saving moves could somehow lead to criminal charges.

Both Boeing and Southwest Airline refused to comment on their business deal, that was referred to in this piece, but in the meantime, we are learning what is causing the delay in getting Boeing software fix to the FAA.

It was supposed to be sent last week, but CNN has learned there was a glitch in integrating the software with other Boeing programs, which has now caused the delay. Drew Griffin, CNN, outside Boeing's Renton Facility, in Renton, Washington.


VAUSE: For more, joining me now is CNN's Transportation Analyst Mary Schiavo, she is a former Inspector General with the U.S. Transportation Department, she's now practicing law and represents crash victims, and currently as litigation, pending, against Boeing.

OK, legal stuff out the way, Mary. I want to focus, for a moment, on that statement from Boeing CEO, specifically referencing the MCAS. He said it's our responsibility to eliminate this risk, we own it. We know how to do it. But what precisely does that mean, and what does it mean in terms of the company's legal liability in both accidents?

MARY SCHIAVO, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, owning the risk doesn't have any legal terminology in the American Court System, but it certainly indicates that Boeing realizes they are responsible, they will be liable, they will be held accountable, certainly in the courts of law, for the problems, the crashes and all of the difficulties with this new aircraft and with the MCAS system.

So, it's finally very tardy, but finally they're coming to the realization that they are going to be held accountable. VAUSE: OK. Well, part of the fix from Boeing is a software patch for the anti-stall system in the Max. Once installed, the flight control system will compare imports from both AOA, the Angle of Attack sensors. If the sensors disagree, MCAS will not activate. An indicator on the flight deck display will alert the pilots.

So that then just leaves the problem that one faulty sensor will deactivate the entire flight control system, which was designed to fix a major problem with the 737 Max, which the FAA said was so serious and meant the plane was unstable and not safe to fly.

SCHIAVO: That's right. And I think that's part of the reason we also heard from a very tardy to respond or react FAA, that not so fast.

[01:05:08] Maybe the software patch is not going to be ready in a few weeks. And once, by the way, Boeing, you are finished with it, the FAA is now, this time, really going to review it. So, it looks like it's going to take not a few weeks, but certainly stretch into months to get this prepared.

But, I think, also, that the FAA, and certainly, the other aviation authorities around the world, will be looking to see if a software patch is really effective in what we're clearly dealing with, is a controlled surface of the aircraft. These are critical flight controls and it's a single point of failure.

So, should we have the flight dependent upon the software patch to keep the nose up or down, depending upon what this angle of attack indicator, now two of them sensed. I think it's a very serious point of risk, and after all, Boeing says it is their job to eliminate the risk.

VAUSE: So, with that in mind, like, here's the warning indicator, this is what it'll look like on the AOA display, you can see it, sort of, on the bottom right there, AOA disagreed. On Boeing's website, they claim all primary flight information required to safely and efficiently operate the 737 Max is included on the baseline primary flight display. Boeing does not put a price on required safety features.

But they did put a price on safety, because that warning light it's an optional extra light, you know, leather-trimmed seats, you know, $80,000 according to an industry newsletter.

SCHIAVO: Well, absolutely, they put a price on safety because after all, remember this whole software system, was a patch, it was designed to make the plane fly like the older 737s, without requiring additional pilot training. And that was the order that went throughout Boeing when they were developing it. We don't want any new pilot training because it costs money.

VAUSE: And so, with that in mind, you've heard about the Aviation Safety Reporting System, there's an honest database for people in the industry for pilots, engineers, flight attendants that can post about safety information. And one pilot wrote this. It's unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying 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.

You know, if this was a whole brand-new plane that has been hours and hours and hours in a flight simulator, the 737 Max, they could train on by using iPad. You know, and that's the point, you know, there are billions of dollars involved here compared to certifying a redesign as opposed to a whole brand new plane.

SCHIAVO: Right. And of course, as we find out, it really is a whole brand new plane, because the software patch did not work, and now the system has gone off twice, claimed almost 350 people, when in fact, what they probably needed to do from the get-go is provide this additional training, and say look, pilots, airlines, this does not fly exactly like the old 737.

But going along with that, in addition to the expense of more training would mean, as you mentioned, a full certification process, which is much more expensive and much more time consuming.

VAUSE: Yes, and it seems the 737 Max will not be flying anytime soon. Some industry experts say it will take a minimum of 6 weeks up to 12 weeks before the grounded jets are airborne again. And we should know China has suspended the 737's Airworthiness Certification, a whole lot of other problems out there.

So, given all of this, should the question here be not when will the 737 Max be flying again, but should it be flying again?

SCHIAVO: Well, I think that's a fair question, I think what's undoubtedly the expected result that you ask Federal Aviation Administration will get it back in the air as soon as they can reasonably do it without causing a great amount of suspicion on the government.

I think that the aviation authorities around the world will take a second look and may -- some of them may want to recertify, and that's perfectly within their power. Usually, every nation respects the other nation's certification, but in this case, it proves that wasn't -- that wasn't bonafide and it wasn't deserved.

VAUSE: Yes. There are still so many unanswered questions in all of this, but it just seems to get worse by the day for Boeing. Mary, thank you so much, it's good to see you.

SCHIAVO: Thank you.

VAUSE: So, if you've heard it before, it's because we've said it before, and we'll say it again. We are now one week away from Brexit, and the U.K. is set to crash out of the European Union without a deal. Prime Minister Theresa May and the opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, met for more than four hours on Thursday, without announcing any progress. Labour says Mrs. May's unwillingness to compromise, during these talks, have now put them on hold, at least, for now. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel was in Dublin, talking Brexit with the Irish prime minister. She remains hopeful the British government will avoid a no-deal crash-out, and says Germany will do all it can to help.


ANGELA MERKEL, CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY: We want to stand together as 27, until the very last hour. I can say this from the German side, we will do everything in order to prevent a no-deal Brexit -- Britain crashing out of the European Union, but we have to do this together, with Britain, and with their position that they will present to us.


[01:10:08] VAUSE: Joining me now from Los Angeles, CNN European Affairs Commentator and our very own Brexpert, see what I did there? Dominic Thomas, OK.

So, with the eyes of an anxious nation watching number 10, with all hopes and dreams (INAUDIBLE) outcome of this cross-party talks, all desperate for any hint of (INAUDIBLE) clue, as to the possibility of avoiding a self-inflicted Armageddon, we have this statement, on progress, from Labour's Brexit spokesman.


KEIR STARMER, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, BRITISH LABOUR PARTY: We've had further discussions and we will be having further discussions with the government.


VAUSE: Yes, we've had discussions, will have more discussions. But are there any talks, just hopes of more talks. How bad is it when your hope is resting on Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn getting together for another round of talks, you know, that means putting the rock-in the rock bottom, right?

DOMINIC THOMAS, CNN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: It's just incredible. I mean, look, John, and the irony of it all, of course, is that there is a possibility here, let's just say that they do come up with a deal, right, of some kind, that they then go back to parliament.

And from everything that's been going on in the last two days, it's a sort of deal in which they think they will make the majority happy, but in which, ultimately, they are upsetting just about everybody that currently sits in parliament. And there's a likelihood that it would never make its way through.

The folks sitting in parliament are worried about this whole process imploding, a general election and being accountable to their constituents. And what they see here is Theresa May going on and on about how wonderful the withdrawal agreement is. Jeremy Corbyn, reiterating their five binding commitment. That includes a Customs Union and alignment with a single market. These are just deep, deep, deep red lines. And what they seem to have just completely misunderstood in this process.

That the whole definition of the word, consensus, implies trying to reach an agreement and making concessions in order to get there. And neither side is really willing to do that.

VAUSE: In particular, it seems the prime minister is refusing any ground on her red lines. Listen to this.


NICOLA STURGEON, FIRST MINISTER OF SCOTLAND: To be frank, not entirely clear to me where the Prime Minister is prepared to compromise. She's keen to know where others might want to compromise, but is not being particularly open about where her red lines might be removed and where she sees the room for compromise on her part is.

As suppose, overall, my concern, is that in the rush to reach some compromise with the clock ticking, what will happen over the next few days, if anything happens over the next few days, is that a bad compromise will be reached.


VAUSE: I can't believe I'm about to say this, so forgive me in advance, is a bad compromise better than no compromise?

THOMAS: Oh my goodness, John, I mean, I think you are there. I mean, the whole idea that you are trying to, sort of, build numbers by abandoning the Brexiteers and moving towards the center to try to get this deal through.

That when you look at withdrawal agreement through, you have five -- three -- you have five Labour MPs that voted for it, nobody from the Scottish National Party, the Northern Irish DUP, or the -- or the LibDems. It seems that even, you know, in terms of doing the math that the numbers are not there. But what is, you could argue -- you know, genius about the hold of the whole strategy is.

There's no way the deal withdrawal agreement gets through, let's say, so at least, you can share the blame now with the Labour Party, right, by enlisting them in this process, and ultimately saying that it is both the Conservatives and let's not forget it, the main opposition party, the Labour Party, that together, have been unable to come up with a deal here.

VAUSE: So, along with Brexit, we now have Brexpert, Brexregrets, and we now have Flextension. Let me use it in a sentence. The British Prime Minister after months of humiliation and a series of bad choices, must now go to Brussels on bended knee, begging and pleading for a Flextension, which would allow her to continue to keep the care down the road. Flextenstion is defined as a long extension that could be cut short if parliament finally approves an exit deal. Actually, it's not a bad idea in the sense of, actually, reassures those hard-core Brexiteers within the Conservative, because, you know, there's fear that any long term delay, which is what she's going to ask for, could mean the death of Brexit.

The question, though, is will the Europeans go for it?

THOMAS: Well, your opinion was very clear, you come back to us, next week, at the latest, by April 12th, either with the withdrawal agreement or some kind of cross-party agreement. If you don't, then it's quite clear. You have a choice between a no deal or you have a choice between revoking Article 50, unless you can come up with a compelling alternative, which clearly, they will not be able to do.

So, by asking for a Flextension, the advantage to that has, of course is A, they're being proactive, by coming to the European Union with some kind of solution, and B, it takes off the table, potentially Article 50 being revoked.

And if it is revoked, the big concern would be whether or not it would ever, in the history of the U.K., get a positive vote again to be re- announced or re-declared at some later point down the road. So, the Flextension offers some kind of hope you could argue for everybody.

[01:14:59] VAUSE: Well, for now, the earliest that parliament would be able to vote on a unity Brexit deal, if they can make one, is Tuesday, because on Thursday, it rained in parliament.



JUSTIN MADDERS, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, UNITED KINGDOM: Deputy Speaker, I hope I can complete my speech before rain stops play. The -- I think there's probably some kind of symbol about how many people view broke -- how broken Parliament is going on there. But let's return to the matter in hand.

LINDSAY HOYLE, DEPUTY SPEAKER, HOUSE OF COMMONS: I'm going to suspend the sittings, and when there -- when we come back, the bells will ring, two minutes before we restart. So, the sitting is now suspended and no photographs, please.


VAUSE: You know, the roof is leaking oddly enough because lawmakers keep delaying a major renovation. It now means, Parliament actually finished two hours early on Thursday, so the government can't table a motion to hold a vote until lawmakers return on Monday, which means, as soon as they can have a vote on anything, it's Tuesday, which is the same day Britain must formally tell the E.U. once an extension of Article 50.

You know, European leaders as you say, they've made it clear that Britain needs -- yes, a really good reason for an extension. In a dirty big hole in the roof of Parliament, that's as good as any reason, isn't it?

THOMAS: Well, a big hole in there. I mean if there was a big hole in the Titanic too, I think, John, from what I remember, you know. So, I mean, this is we know -- where we know where this is going. It's quite clear that -- you know, at this particular stage, I mean it's the -- you know, the element of risk is it's obviously heightened. And unpredictability which can potentially lead to all sorts of dangerous -- you know, uncalculated -- you know, outcomes and so on.

So, now, I think the writing is on the wall where we end up. And in terms of the European Union, it's an -- you know, you either leave or you're part of the -- you must take part in the elections. And those are understandable red lines, there's a whole process that must move forward here.

And so, you know, we can see where, where this is going. And perhaps, they were saved by the leak, you know.

VAUSE: I wonder what's going to happen tomorrow. And I guess, which we have to wait on Friday, or should I say today until Wednesday.

THOMAS: A new word, John, your new word.

VAUSE: A new word to cut away. Thanks, Dominic.

THOMAS: Cheers, John.

VAUSE: Next up here on CNN NEWSROOM. Just when you thought ding dong the witch is dead, though which hunt is back. We'll explain the reasons for the White House whiplash over the model report.

Also, a dozens of new charges for the man accused of committing mass murder at two mosques in New Zealand.


[01:19:52] VAUSE: It's about 10 days or so, the U.S. president, Republicans, conservative media, they celebrated euphorically. Those very few words quoted from the Mueller report by the Attorney General. You know, the ones about no collusion.

But now, the investigation it's again a witch-hunt and there's talk of rabid Democrats, its sneaky unethical leakers. This after reports from the inside what really is in the report. Several investigators from the Mueller team say they're frustrated, but the summary of the report released by the Attorney General.

The Bar memo they say does not accurately describe the evidence of obstruction of justice, and key paragraphs which were reportedly written by the Mueller team, specifically to be made public have not been released.

Jessica Levinson joins us now in Los Angeles. She's a professor of law at the Loyola Law School. OK. So, Jessica, it seems the witch hunt is back, the president tweeting on Thursday, "According to polling, few people seem to care about the Russian collusion hoax, but some Democrats are fighting hard to keep the witch hunt alive. They should focus on legislation or, even better. An investigation of how the ridiculous collusion delusion got started. So illegal."

Just for the record, a majority Americans, you know, according to an old CNN poll, overwhelmingly say President Clinton should not be impeached and removed from office. But that did not stop House Republicans of trying.

OK. But the point here is that the witch hunt never actually really went away. And this administration has been cell rated, they forgot that all saying. And that's it so evidence is not evidence of absence.

JESSICA LEVINSON, LAW PROFESSOR, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, LOS ANGELES: Exactly. I mean, this is fascinating how the narrative has changed so many times. So, it started with Mueller's not to be trusted. And he's very biased. And Mueller and his gang of angry Democrats. And then, when Attorney General Barr came out with his cliff note version apparently of some of the conclusions from the report, it was Mueller's an honorable man, we think he acted very well.

And now, apparently, there's leaks that say, "Look there were summary sections which frankly everyone expected. This was over 300-page report. There were summary sections to that report. And, in fact, we maybe member -- we being members of the Mueller team thought that they would be used and they don't necessarily like the way that Attorneys General Barr has characterized the Mueller report.

And all of a sudden, the witch hunt is back, and everything is biased and it's just -- it's disheartening, frankly to see how, you know, we like the investigation, we hate the investigation, and we hate the investigation again.

VAUSE: Yes, it's just like James Comey, you know. The Democrats loved him, Republicans hated him, Republican's loved him, American (INAUDIBLE), you know, back and forth.

Here is part of a statement from the Justice Department defending the Attorney General. "Given the extraordinary public interest in the matter, the Attorney General decided to release the report's bottom line findings and his conclusions immediately, without attempting to summarize the report, with the understanding that the report itself would be released after the reduction process."

But as you mentioned, the report had these summaries of each section. And they were written -- you know, according to the reporting out there, specifically to be made public and yet they weren't. Here is Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.


REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I think that these questions just show again why we need the full Mueller report without being -- you know, underlying documents released.

We need -- we need to see all of that, and that would answer all of these -- that would answer all of these questions.


VAUSE: We also have for the fifth time, Senate Republicans have blocked this resolution calling for the report to be released. It's a strange argument here that -- you know, you made that the report is so incredibly exonerating or the president, he's been found pure of heart, innocent, as a newborn angel delivered on the driven snow, but you just have to trust us on that.

LEVINSON: Well, it -- I mean, it is troubling. So, clearly, it's not a move this in favor of transparency. With respect to the Barr memo, I would say, you know, something I tell my students is there's two different ways to frame the exact same set of facts. And they might both be accurate.

So, Attorney General Barr clearly gave what he viewed as the quote- unquote principal findings. I think, and you and I have talked about this, specifically, with respect to the claims of obstruction of justice. Let's say at best, it seems that he glossed over the evidence on the other side. That he just said, there's some evidence on one side, there's some evidence on the other. Basically, let's call the whole thing off.

And what's -- you know, on the other side, you can paint a picture of here's all of this evidence that we have against the president. It may not rise to the level of being prosecutable, but we think that you should know about it.

Now, I think that what is really interesting with respect to the principal findings is one that were even hearing about these potential weeks that the Mueller investigation apparently is upset with the Attorney General.

And also that I think, what the Attorney General was able to do was basically control the first bit of information. And likely the most important bit of information. He was able to frame what we all initially thought of.

And so, even if the Mueller report comes out, I think for some people, frankly, it will feel like too little too late what were Democrats complaining about. And I think that my guess is we'll actually will never see the full Mueller report. What we'll see is a heavily redacted version.

VAUSE: Right.

LEVINSON: Even if their summaries.

[01:25:04] VAUSE: You know, what's interesting though, is that for two years, or so, there wasn't so much of a hint of a whiff of a leak from -- you know, Mueller and his team. Now, we have two major leaks clearly, this goes beyond the level of concern or unhappiness. I'm just worried, are they trying to send a message to the Attorney General?

LEVINSON: Well, I think that they have. I mean, I think that maybe they haven't even not just tried, but they've done so effectively. I would also say that -- you know, I -- obviously, when you work for over two years and you feel that maybe your work has been mischaracterized, that must be enormously frustrating.

And I think that the Mueller investigation in terms of the parts that were potentially the most sensitive, obviously have wound down. We have the report. And so, the fears about the leaks I think have really changed at this point.

It will be really interesting to see again what happens, particularly, with that -- the claims of obstruction of justice. Because when it comes to this Attorney General, I think really the way he auditioned for the job of Attorney General was to write that 19-page memo which I think put forward a really bizarre legal theory for why the president could not be guilty of obstruction of justice.

And here he's kind of made it -- he was -- he's used that memo, and now repackaged it and telling us about the Mueller report.

VAUSE: Yes, and if this was a message from the prosecutors to the Attorney General, for the administration, at least, message not received listened to the White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, hitting back at Democrats demanding for the report to be released. Here's is what she said.


SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: They've wasted two years of their life, and they need to find a way to validate it. They've lost in 2016, they lost on the collusion battle, and now they're looking for any and everything they can to continue to attack this president because they have no message.


VAUSE: And so, that inline now, here is a headline from POLITICO, "Reports the special counsel's investigators disliked Trump's victory lap seem intended to force their work into the open."

OK, you mentioned this is the strategy of controlling or setting the narrative. But there's also a lot we said for -- you know, setting expectations low. So, whatever comes out of the report, it looks like good or maybe not such bad news, right?

LEVINSON: Yes, I think the -- what's really interesting is this Sarah Sanders' comment that essentially collusion was almost like election contest. Like it was something that you win or lose on. Like you needed to prove in, and that's somehow -- you know, a political gain just like passing legislation.

And I think it really misses the point of an investigation. Point of investigation is just what it sounds like it's to look into whether there's potential wrongdoing. And so, the idea that we framed and frankly I mean Democrats have been slightly guilty of this as well, as Republicans that we framed this as something where we're going to win if Mueller found it evidence of collusion or more accurately, conspiracy. And we're going to lose if he didn't. I think is really troubling.

VAUSE: Yes, absolutely. It's a good point to finish. Well, Jessica, thank you.

LEVINSON: Thank you.

VAUSE: Well, it seems to be a break in what has been almost unbreakable support from the U.S. is Saudi Arabia. Congress has passed a resolution ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. But it faces a White House veto.

The bill is also intended to show frustration with the president's support for Saudi Arabia's crown prince.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE: President Trump has said, appropriately enough that he wants the United States to get out of endless wars. Well, this war in Yemen has gone on long enough. And if the president wants to keep faith with what he has talked about, I hope very much that he will sign this historic on legislation and work with us to make sure that the United States does not continue to be involved in endless and destructive wars.


VAUSE: According to the U.N., more than 7,000 civilians have been killed in the past four years in a war which has been called the world's worst man-made humanitarian disaster.

Well, after the Christchurch, government streamed its rampage live on social media. Australia is working to stop the spread of violent content online.

After the break, why not everyone thinks the new law is actually a good idea?


[01:31:33] JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back, everybody. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM.

I'm John Vause with a check of the headlines this hour.

For the first time, Boeing says the anti-stall system on its 737 Max passenger jet played a role in both the Ethiopian and Lion Air crashes. This admission comes after a preliminary report found the automated system repeatedly forced the plane into a dive and the pilots could not regain control.

An effort to break the deadlock seems to have hit an impasse of its own. Prime Minister Theresa May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn met for more than four hours on Thursday. A Labour spokesman says Mrs. May's unwillingness to move away from her red lines means these talks over a unity Brexit deal are now on hold.

U.S. President Donald Trump back on the attack after some of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team have said their report is more damaging to the President than the Barr memo would have you believe. The President again repeating cries of hoax and witch hunt. His attorney Rudy Giuliani calling Mueller's team rabbit Democrats.

The man accused of committing New Zealand worst mass shooting in modern history was formally charged in court on Friday. The 28-year- old suspect now faces 50 counts of murder, 39 counts of attempted murder. He's accused of killing Muslim worshippers in two Christchurch mosques last month. New Zealand has no death penalty but if convicted, he could be sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Journalist Blis Savidge is live in Christchurch once again. So Blis -- New Zealand has some very tight legal restrictions when it comes to what can and cannot be reported about an ongoing court case. So with that in mind, you know, you were in the courts today, so what actually happened? What can you tell us?

BLIS SAVIDGE, JOURNALIST: Yes, so the alleged shooter did have an appearance in court on Friday. He appeared via an audio visual link. His audio was muted but the only time that he appeared to talk was just to acknowledge that he could in fact hear the judge.

He was handcuffed, but other than that he seemed relatively relaxed throughout the entire hearing.

The small courtroom was filled with family members, members of the media, and there was a large security presence, both inside and outside of the courthouse.

Now, this was relatively a procedural hearing but they did, as you mention, added another 49 counts of murder, and 39 counts of attempted murder, making it a total of 50 murder charges, and 39 attempted murder charges.

So with such an unprecedented case in New Zealand people want to know what's the maximum sentence. So we talked to the attorney general's office, and while they didn't give any specific comment, they did confirm to us that under New Zealand legislation, the maximum that anyone can serve is life in prison without parole.

Now that's still a while off, but as for what's next, the court did order a mental evaluation which the judge wanted to stress is normal in a case like this. The defendant was remanded back into custody and is expected back in court on June 14th -- John.

VAUSE: Blis -- thank you. We appreciate the live update.

Well, the decision by the accused gunman to live stream the mass shooting in Christchurch seemed to have a disturbing (INAUDIBLE) to an already violent, senseless act. Now Australia's parliament has passed two new criminal laws specifically aimed at preventing the spread of violent content live online by placing the burden on Internet providers and tech companies to find and stop those offensive images and take them down in what's called a reasonable amount of time.


MITCH FIFELD, AUSTRALIAN MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS: It's important that we make a very clear statement to the social media organizations that we expect their behavior to change.


[01:35:01] VAUSE: Yes, their behavior change the (INAUDIBLE) will continue until morale improves.

Hemu Nigam is back with us -- it's been a while -- Internet and security analyst and founder and CEO of SSP Blue.

Good to have you with us, mate. It's been a while.

HEMU NIGAM, FOUNDER & CEO, SSP BLUE: It's great to see you again -- John.

VAUSE: Ok. Well, let's get -- because on the one hand, there's clearly a need for regulation. This might not be the right way to do it though.

In a statement, the Australian Law Council said "It's disappointed and concerned this world-first laws, which were rammed through in 24 hours without scrutiny and consultation will have negative unintended consequences.

And one of the unintended consequences might be that we can see these tech companies, these giants end up collecting a lot more private data from users, there's going to be a lot more surveillance than we already have.

NIGAM: Well, that's one way to look at it. Because the other way to look at it is this. I think what the government is saying is fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me; fool me three times, you could go to jail.

And why they're saying that because what they're focusing on is the fact that tech companies have a lot of technical resources to implement on identifying these types of videos, and then reporting them or taking them down.

So what they're saying is, use those resources, take those $55 billion in revenue you have every year and do something with it, like solving this problem. I think that's really what this is.

It's a message to stand up and do something, as opposed to this is the correct law that we need as a society. That you can debate all night long.

VAUSE: But the methods that the tech companies actually use, because now the responsibility it's not on the terrorist, and the onus you know, is essentially on the tech companies to prevent the Internet from being used to glorify acts of violence, what happened at the mosque.

And if they are going to go to jail for all this, then there are pretty high stakes here. And the concern is actually what will be that data that they'll collect sort of to preempt them having to, you know, face some kind of accusation or legal trouble from the Australian government?

NIGAM: Well, you know what's interesting here is you can collect data, that's one way to do it. In other words, start analyzing the kind of person who is signing up. start analyzing their prior behavior before they go live on something and look at things like that. But at the end of the day, you are already collecting all of that data.

I think what the government is saying is there's got to be solutions here. For example when -- and I always as you know, John -- I always look at what happens in the physical world. In the physical world when there is a horrible situation going on, people are running to it. In that situation there's a lot of screaming, there's babies crying, there's gunshots happening.

Well if it's live, and if it's on Facebook, you could run filters that are listening, algorithms listening for that kind of situation. And saying wait a minute, somebody needs to look at that quickly. And in the meantime, maybe I have to take it down, or delay the visuals of it, or delayed the number of people seeing it.


VAUSE: sorry -- I didn't mean to interrupt. We'll get to the delaying in a moment. I want you to listen to the attorney general who sort of talks about that. This is Australia's attorney general, here he is.


CHRISTIAN PORTER, AUSTRALIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL: I can't precisely say what would've been the point in time at which it would have been reasonable for them to understand that this was live streaming on their cyber platform, on their site and they should have removed it.

But what I can say and I think every Australian would agree, it was totally unreasonable that it should exist on their site for well over an hour without them taking any action whatsoever.


VAUSE: And you know, that's fair enough, but it means a criminal element in this law, the fault is not that the service provider deliberately makes material available but rather they are reckless in not moving fast enough and to be able to identify that content and then informing the police.

NIGAM: Right. And that's the key here is like when they say this to be criminal, what they're really saying is you are not doing things you know you can do --

VAUSE: Right.

NIGAM: -- you are choosing not to do them. And even things like velocity filters, when all of a sudden in the real world, people go to a location and see something, in the online world they start watching. All of a sudden you're number goes from zero to say 6,000 in what I would put in a velocity filter that looks for that and stops the video or shuts it down.

Because remember this is an online, live environment. This is not like being confused, and saying well, that's a scripted movie. I don't know what's in that movie. This is live. If it's live and you're hearing things like that, there is awfully something wrong here or something awfully wrong here.

VAUSE: Ok. You talked about this -- why can't they delay it. Like can they delay these live stream? Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was specifically asked about that on "Good Morning America."


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would a delay help any delay of live streaming?

MARK ZUCKERBERG, FOUNDER AND CEO, FACEBOOK: It might in this case but it would also fundamentally break what live streaming is for people, not just broadcasting, you are communicating and people are commenting back.


VAUSE: You know, he went on and gave the example of a birthday party, you know. The whole point of streaming is you want to be part of the action. These are privileges, and privileges come responsibility. It seems hard to argue the need of live streaming a birthday party is on a par with trying to stop the glorification of a terrorist attack.

[01:40:04] NIGAM: Make it even simpler. We are right now live streaming. This is live. We are not broken, there is a delay in case I use the effort or something like that. I know will get beeped out because there is a delay. Those delays are in there for a reason.

And you are absolutely right. Whether it is a birthday party or terrorist act, that three second, that five second, that 15 second doesn't changed the life of this world in any way other than possibly saving lives.

VAUSE: And you know what was interesting is the Australian attorney general specifically called out Facebook during the discussions they've been having. Here's part of a statement.

"It was clear from our discussions last week with social media companies, particularly Facebook that there was no recognition of the need for them to act urgently to protect their own users from the horror of live streaming of the Christchurch massacre and other violent crimes. And so the government has taken action with this legislation. "

And you know, maybe that's his version but you know, do you explain why Facebook in particular is taking out such opposing position on this?

NIGAM: I'm actually a little bit surprised here to tell you the truth because I have watched Facebook over the last ten years and they do take steps when they choose to take them. I'm surprised they haven't.

Live streaming has been around for over five years. Facebook has been dealing with these types of issues for plenty of years now. They have tested in other environment. There's all sorts of things that can be done.

And yet, even since the day of this incident to know, Facebook actually admitted that no changes at all have been made in the system. Now they may be working behind the scenes, so the real question becomes, what happened in those previous four or five years when you know this is a possibility.

This was raised as a possibility the moment live streaming started. And I think that's what the government is wrestling with, which is you've had all this time, you have geniuses working in the company, you have resources beyond anybody in the world, and you are telling us that you have not solved this problem to a reasonable degree. Not to a perfect degree, but simply to a reasonable degree.

VAUSE: Right.

Last question. Because if there wasn't an audience, they would not do it. So what do you know about the people who sit down and watch this sick material?

NIGAM: Well, one thing you can do about people like that if you give them the ability to respond at the moment they see something. There is always going to be -- let's say something happens in the real world. Everyone runs to the scene, there's always a few who will pick up the phone and start calling 911.

You have to have that button available easily accessible on the side. If you try to do right now, you won't be able to figure it out. It will take you about a few minutes.


VAUSE: -- eagerly watch this stuff. They want to consume. They want to see it. You know, there are sickos out there. What about those people?

NIGAM: Well, the responsibility becomes, the person who created a platform who has to say, is that an environment that I want? Do I want those kinds of people on my side. It's my moral compass aligned to give them that privilege, or is it aligned to take away a privilege?

VAUSE: Moral compass -- gosh we're lacking a few of those at the moment it seems.

Hey, Hemu -- you're looking very good. You look healthy and well. And it's great to see you.

NIGAM: Thanks a lot -- John.

VAUSE: Cheers.

Next up on CNN NEWSROOM, the Israeli election too close to call just days before voters actually go to the polls. Legalizing marijuana, Mary Jane could become a deciding factor.


VAUSE: Israelis are set to elect a new government on Tuesday, and the spoiler might just be marijuana. Recent polls show neither major party has a commanding lead, so the outcome might just rest on a small fringe party which want to legalize pot.

But it's a small party with a leader who also wants to redraw Israel's borders to include the West Bank and Gaza or they want to see Palestinians just go away.

Here's Oren Liebermann.


OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is what Israel's anti establishment vote looks like. A diverse mix of young pot-smoking renegades and older religious voters.

The followers of the Zehut Party led by Moshe Feiglin are the surprise story of the 2019 election. And they have one big demand -- legalizing marijuana. They see weed as the tip of a libertarian platform.

But beyond the bong, is a very different agenda. Moshe Feiglin entered politics as a religious Zionist firebrand. He's called for building a third Jewish temple on Temple Mount, a site holy to Jews and Muslims where even a slight change to the status quo can spark tensions.

He says Palestinians and non Jews should have a choice, declare allegiance to Israel or the country will help you leave.

MOSHE FEIGLIN, LEADER, ZEHUT PARTY: There are plenty of Palestinians either in Gaza or the West Bank who don't want to declare loyalty and don't want to leave. So now you're touching a different point. That single point or justice -- who this land belongs to.

And we know from history, from the basic history of Israel that the land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel.

LIEBERMANN: And what do plan to do with those who don't declare allegiance --

FEIGLIN: They will have to decide.

LIEBERMANN: Feiglin is unafraid to lecture those who don't share his world view or his interpretation of history.

FEIGLIN: It's not a question of security. It's a question of justice. Who, the land of Israel belongs to.

LIEBERMANN: Knowing the international committee has accepted Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank.

FEIGLIN: That's nonsense. That's nonsense.

LIEBERMANN: It's a statement of fact. Knowing the international community has accepted Israeli's sovereignty in the West Bank.

FEIGLIN: I'm telling you again. That is nonsense. You should go back to your history lessons.

LIEBERMANN: The party's platform spans the political spectrum. On the right, they favor a one-state solution, a Jewish Israel from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, including the Palestinian territories. On the left, they advocate a separation of religion and state. Those different positions could make them equally unpalatable on a coalition to either of the two biggest political parties.

Barely a blip on the political radar two months ago, Zehut has forced itself into the political conversation. They are now polling around five or six seats and it could decide the next prime minister.

Gantz or Netanyahu?

FEIGLIN: Whoever will give us more --- that's what it's about. With him we'll go.

LIEBERMANN: Feiglin seems to relish the role. But for now he's focused on Election Day and making sure his upstart campaign doesn't go up in smoke.

Oren Liebermann, CNN -- Tel Aviv.


VAUSE: Well from false claims about where his father was born to a series about windmills, Donald Trump has continued that very fraught relationship with the truth for the entire week. Ahead we'll take a deeper look at his history of falsehoods.


VAUSE: How do you become one of the richest women in the world? One way is to divorce the world's richest man. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has agreed that his wife McKenzie will keep 25 percent of stock in their company. That's worth about $35 billion. McKenzie Bezos says she will give her husband voting control of her shares along with her interest in the "Washington Post" and the space firm Blue Origin. The couple announced they were splitting back in January. According to last count mad by the "Washington Post" since becoming president, Donald Trump has made more than 9,000 false or misleading claims -- what normal people call lies.

Saying Donald Trump has an uneasy relationship with the truth is like saying the notorious L.A. Biker Gangs and Blood and Crypt had a few amicable disagreements. And as CNN's Gloria Borger reports, his history of falsehoods stretches back decades.


GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: One day, three whoppers. Even for Donald Trump -- impressive.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My father is, German? Right was German and born in a very wonderful place in Germany.

BORGER: Fred Trump was born in New York City. And then there's his latest suggestion of election fraud -- all but saying the 2018 midterms were rigged by the Democrats.

There were a lot of close elections that were -- they seem that every single one of them went Democrat. If it was close, they say the Democrat. Well, there's something going on -- hey, we have to be a little bit careful. Because I don't like the way the votes are being tallied. don't like it.

BORGER: Doesn't like winter turbines either.

TRUMP: And they say the noise causes cancer, you tell me that one, ok.

BORGER: Even his staff couldn't figure that one out now.

MERCEDES SCHLAPP, WHITE HOUSE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I don't have an answer on that. I don't have an answer for that

BORGER: All just the latest additions to more than 9,000 false or misleading claims mad by this President according to the "Washington Post" fact checkers. As Donald Trump himself said last year --

TRUMP: What you're seeing and what you are reading is not what is happening.

BORGER: Donald Trump has had a fraught relationship with the truth. One that goes back decades. To the building and selling of Trump Tower, where Barbara Res managed the construction.

BARBARA RES, FORMER TRUMP ORGANIZATION: He planted that Princess Diana was looking for an apartment in Trump Tower.

BORGER: And that didn't happen?

RES: No, but it made the paper. There was nothing so terrible at it. I mean, you know, it was kind of like puffing, you know. It's like exaggerating.

BORGER: Tony Schwartz, co-author of Trump's Art of the Deal has a name for this.

TONY SCHWARTZ, AUTHOR: I came up with this phrase "truthful hyperbole" which is, you know, I called it an innocent form of exaggeration. Now I can call it something that I actually sold for $2 million. I can say $10 million and that becomes truthful hyperbole.

The problem is that there is no such thing as truthful hyperbole. The truth is the truth. Hyperbole is a lie. They don't go together.

BORGER: And they didn't go together during the troubled opening of Trump's Atlantic City Taj Mahal Casino in 1990, when some of the slots didn't work.

ALAN LAPIDUS, ARCHITECT FOR DONALD TRUMP: When the Casino Control Commission went down there on opening day to check out that all the things had been done, many things had not been done. They shut down a third of the slots.

BORGER: Slots that were critical to the casinos success. The

LAPIDUS: The slot are the prime revenue producer of the casino. To shut down a third on opening day was both humiliating and financially disastrous. And it was only done because he doesn't have you know an organization in-depth.

BORGER: But that wasn't the story Trump told.

JACK O'DONNELL, MANAGER TRUMP PLAZA CASINO: Something could go bad, like the opening of the Taj, and he would say it's because we had so much business here that this happened, not that the systems broke down. Not that we didn't know what we were doing. We had so much business that it broke down. Truly, he just would just lie about everything.

[01:55:07]BORGER: And he did.

LARRY KING, FORMER CNN HOST: What about the slot machine thing, when they were down for a while?

TRUMP: Let's lots were still hot. Nobody -- again, nobody has seen people play that hard and that fast.

KING: They blew out the slots, literally?

TRUMP: They blew apart. We had machines that --


TRUMP: They were virtually (INAUDIBLE).

O'DONNELL: Donald is so wrapped up in hyperbole that it's almost constant lies. You know, whether it's the littlest things, where, you know, if you had 2,000 people at an event, he would say there were 5,000 people at an event.

BORGER: Lying when there seems to be no reason to lie. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's no belief system.

SCHWARTZ: If it will work, I will say it. If it stops working, I will say its opposite, and I will not feel any compunction about saying it's opposite that, because I don't believe anything in the first place.

BORGER: Lying when in it's his political interest, as he did last July after his disastrous press conference with Vladimir Putin, trying to walk back this remark on election interference.

TRUMP: My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me, and some others. And they said I think it's Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I will say this, I don't say any reason why it would be.

In a key statement in my remark -- I said the word "would" instead of "wouldn't". The sentence should have been "I don't see any reason why I wouldn't, or why it wouldn't be Russia."

SCHWARTZ: Seeing it from his perspective, it doesn't make a distinction between what is true and what is false. His only distinction is what will work, and what will not work.

BORGER: And what happens when he is challenged with facts? What does he do?

SCHWARTZ: He has a genius, you know, perverse genius for turning any situation into something that is evidence of his brilliance. Even if it is not true.


VAUSE: That report from CNN's chief political analyst. Honestly, it was Gloria Borger.

Thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm John Vause.

Please stay with us. The news continues on CNN right after a break.


[02:00:07] GEORGE HOWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Boeing promises it is committed to fixing.