Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Princess Of Wales Catherine To Make First Public Appearance Since Cancer Diagnosis; Supreme Court Strikes Down Donald Trump-Era Ban On Bump Stocks For Guns; FAA Investigates How Titanium Sold With Fake Documents Got Into Jets, Raising Structural Integrity Concerns. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 14, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:29]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Breaking news into CNN, Catherine, the Princess of Wales says she is, "Not out of the woods yet," as the palace releases a new photo of her while we're learning about how her cancer treatment is going and when she set to make her first public appearance since Christmas.

Plus, the Supreme Court striking down a ban on bump stocks. A ban that was originally approved by former President Trump in the wake of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. One liberal Justice warning this ruling will have deadly consequences.

We're going to be joined by the Democratic senator who's spearheading the bipartisan bill to permanently ban bump stocks.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And troubling new details about counterfeit titanium used in Boeing and Airbus airliners. The FAA investigating how it got there, and if it makes the planes unsafe.

Hello, I'm Brianna Keilar alongside Boris Sanchez in Washington. And we're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

We begin with news about the Princess of Wales. Tomorrow, Catherine will be making her return to public life as a working royal after months away from the cameras to recover from cancer.

Now, the palace just made the announcement releasing this photo of the 42-year-old mother of three. The Princess of Wales has said that she's making, "Good progress."

We want to get right to our royal correspondent Max Foster live outside Buckingham Palace. Max, and tell us more about the announcement and how Princess Catherine is doing.

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: That photo was taken earlier this week, I'm told it was on the Windsor estate and she looks pretty well in it. And they've also said to us that she will be appearing here, first

public engagement tomorrow. So, as you say, for the first time since Christmas, she has been out of the limelight since Christmas day. I'm making good progress, she says.

But as anyone going through chemotherapy will know there are good days and there are bad days. On those bad days, you feel weak, tired and have to give into your body resting.

But on the good days, when you feel stronger, you want to make the most of feeling well. And my treatment is ongoing. And will be going on for a few months as well.

So, she's undergoing chemotherapy, her treatment continues. So, it's going on longer than many people expected. But at the same time, we just didn't know when she was going to appear.

So, they're taking each day as it comes. If she's not well enough tomorrow, she won't appear. We shouldn't read too much into that, I'm told. She's just going on the advice of the doctors.

But she does want to get going again because she feels that's part of her treatment, to get back into normal life.

KEILAR: And tell us more, Max, about what Catherine will be doing in her duties tomorrow?

FOSTER: So, she started working from home, we're told. That's going to build up if she can do it. Tomorrow is the King's Birthday Parade, which is quite a spectacular event with a full cavalry going down The Mall behind me to a big military parade just of the other end of the road.

So, we will see her in a carriage procession with her children in the carriage with her. She'll come out of the palace, a huge amount of media already gathering for this event now. She will go up The Mall in front of all the crowds. And we are expecting a much bigger crowds now as a result, their first chance to see the princess in such a long time.

And then she will watch the parade from a balcony with her family. She'll come back down The Mall. And then she'll go into the palace. And then she will appear with the wider family up there on the balcony, which is a scene that I know you know pretty well.

Everyone will be pouring over how well she looks, hopefully. And the palace is really keen that we shouldn't speculate too much about how well she looks or exactly what type of cancer this is.

She wants to keep that private, she feels she has a right to keep that private. And she said don't expect to see that much of her but she is going to try to come out over the summer.

But as I say, they're going to take each event as it comes.

KEILAR: All right, Max, thank you so much for that update. We appreciate it.

And joining us now, let's bring in Dr. Elizabeth Coleman. She is an oncologist at NYU Langone. Doctor, thanks for being with us.

We know that Catherine started what she called preventative chemotherapy back in February, she revealed today her treatment is going to continue actually for a few more months. That was a bit of a headline.

[14:05:00]

Is that typical for preventative chemotherapy and exactly what is preventative chemo?

DR. ELIZABETH COLEMAN, MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST, NYU LANGONE: Well, we don't know what she's been diagnosed with. And of course we don't want to speculate as we know this is a very private and personal journey.

In general, preventative chemotherapy is a type of treatment that we give after surgery to prevent any rogue cells that could have escaped a primary site of cancer. And that's to try to prevent any recurrence.

And that can vary the timing and how long that takes and what type of chemotherapy and treatment is very specific in individual both to the person and the type of diagnosis.

SANCHEZ: Doctor, in her statement, the Duchess says, "I am not out of the woods yet," she describes having good days and bad days. In cases where some of your patients or patients that you're familiar with have had this kind of treatment, what exactly does that entail? What are some of the things that they deal with day to day?

COLEMAN: Well, it really depends on, again, the type of cancer and the type of chemotherapy, but patients can feel fatigue, there is a psychological component to even just showing up to get chemotherapy, they can have different body changes, there can be hair loss.

Again, it really depends on the type of treatment. But what's most important here, I think, is the message of compassion.

She has chosen to be private about her diagnosis. But in all of this, there's a recognition that you never know what somebody is going through. They may be having the hardest day of their life and still showing up maybe even for a public appearance.

KEILAR: And you know, also, when people are having chemo and I think, you correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's almost uniformly, they're immunosuppressed, so they're very susceptible to germs, they might otherwise not be susceptible to, they have to be careful. Can you speak a little bit about that?

COLEMAN: Well, the great thing about modern medicine today is that depending on the chemotherapy and the treatment, many patients are not immunosuppressed as they used to be.

KEILAR: Wow. COLEMAN: So, we used to tell patients, you know, you might not be able to take the subway or go to a restaurant or be in a crowd. But we have newer medications that not only prevent some of the side effects that you might be imagine for movies like vomiting or whatnot. And that also includes the prevention in some instances of extreme immunosuppression.

So, again, it depends on the diagnosis, but not often the case that patients are as immunosuppressed as they used to be. So, that's a really good advance in modern medicine.

SANCHEZ: Yes, that's a wonderful development. Most patients, of course, are not members of the royal family. I'm wondering how patients in general try to balance the desire of their loved ones who want to know how they're doing with what's obviously a natural desire to maintain privacy.

COLEMAN: Yes, you know, I treat patients from all walks of life and all backgrounds and all socio economic experiences. And I will tell you, it is a very individual experience. There may be some celebrities that are very vocal about what they've been through, and some that you would never know.

I think the key is letting the patient drive what feels comfortable for them and never putting them in a position where they feel like they are forced to express something that they may not be ready to ever tell the world and that's OK too.

SANCHEZ: Absolutely. Dr. Elizabeth Coleman, thanks so much for that perspective.

COLEMAN: Thank you for having me.

SANCHEZ: We're also tracking breaking news out of Washington D.C. because a controversial gun accessory that was used in America's deadliest mass shooting is now legal once again. Today, the Supreme Court ruling that a government agency overstepped its bounds when it banned rapid fire gun accessories.

KEILAR: 12 bump stocks were used by a gunman who killed 60 people at a Las Vegas music concert back in 2017. He sprayed the crowd with more than a thousand bullets from a hotel room window. He killed 60 people and he hurt hundreds more.

We have CNN's Paula Reid joining us now on this. Paula, what can you tell us about this ruling? Because it's not just -- it's not about the Second Amendment even though that's what people will associate it with.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, just a few moments before I joined you here on air, we got a statement from the ATF, as you noted, right, this case is really about whether they overstepped their bounds and classified bump stocks as machine guns.

And they wrote, "As the 2017 massacre of nearly 60 people at a concert in Las Vegas made clear, weapons equipped with bump stocks pose an unacceptable level of risk to public safety. In light of today's decision, the president has called on Congress to take action on bump stocks and the ATF stands ready to work with Congress to ensure that these devices no longer pose a threat to American law enforcement and the people they protect."

And let's be real, in an election year, it is highly unlikely that Congress is going to legislate on something as controversial as guns. This is the first time we have heard them weigh in on this major decision.

Now, here, the decision was 6-3 with the liberal justices dissenting. And in his decision, Justice Thomas really focused on the mechanisms of bump stocks, right? Because bumps stocks are, of course, something that allow a shooter to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire at a rate of hundreds of rounds a minute.

[14:10:17]

And Justice Thomas wrote, "Firing multiple shots using a semi- automatic rifle with a bump stock requires more than a single function of the trigger."

Now, he's very much focused on the mechanics of the gun and making this decision. This was a fiery dissent from the liberal justices. Justice Sotomayor writing for her two colleagues, wrote, a bump stock equipped semi-automatic rifle fires automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, because I, like Congress call that a machine gun. I respectfully dissent.

Because that was the question before then, right? Had they been improperly classified as machine guns, and she wrote that, today's majority opinion will have "deadly consequences."

SANCHEZ: Paula, it is that time of year --

REID: It is.

SANCHEZ: -- where the Supreme Court is issuing --

REID: My Christmas, yes.

SANCHEZ: -- is issuing decisions at a rapid rate. There are still a few cases out there, one of them looming over potentially a presidential election.

REID: Yes, absolutely. There are 20 opinions outstanding. We have another big gun case, a question about if you have, for example, a restraining order related to domestic violence, can you own a gun? That's another big gun question ahead of the -- in front of the Supreme Court.

We also have the one you're referencing is, of course, this question about whether former President Trump has immunity in the federal January 6th case. And some people even were a little surprised that the Supreme Court took that up in oral argument, it suggested that they might find that maybe he has some immunity, and that would send that case back down. Guarantee, it won't go before November.

So, another big outstanding abortion case that I repeatedly say the outcome of that case a question about what do you do if you have restricted state laws related to abortion, and they came -- come up against more expensive federal laws, right? We thought, oh, we'll toss it back down to the states.

Well, this is now what you need to hash out. Whatever they decide there, I would argue might even have a bigger decision odd impact on the election, then whatever they decide with Trump and the related January 6th case.

KEILAR: Such an important thing to remember. This court should make us all feel better, all of us about procrastinating. I will say -- I will say, June with the Supreme Court.

Paula Reid, thank you so much. We appreciate it.

And joining us now for more reaction to this Supreme Court ruling is Senator Martin Heinrich, he's a Democrat from New Mexico. Senator, how are you reacting to the ruling?

SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH (D-NM): I find this ruling to be incredibly offensive as somebody whose own guns my entire life. These things function as machine guns. And this ruling will undoubtedly cost innocent American lives. There's just no legitimate use for bump stocks.

KEILAR: I want to explore that a little more, because I think part of what you're pointing to is what Justice Clarence Thomas said in his majority opinion, where he wrote a bump stock does not convert a semi- automatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a lightning fast trigger finger does.

So, I want to take a look at the difference between an automatic rifle with and without a bump stock. So, I'm going to play two quick videos here. This is Zack Nelson of the Jerry Rig Everything YouTube channel. He's a self-described gun enthusiast who, you know, this is something he's done with his family for years, he's using an AR-15 that he says he purchased the day before this video was shot without a bump stock, here it is.

And here is the part of the video where he is using the AR-15 with the bump stock and for the first time that he's ever used it.

He was very surprised in the video by how many bullets he could shoot, how many rounds would go off there. It's an undeniable difference. I mean, what do you save that sentence from Justice Thomas?

HEINRICH: It's just not honest. Like, I know these mechanisms. I've seen not just the videos, but I've used some of these weapons. He's not being honest about what this does.

And it is incredibly dangerous. There's no legitimate use for these. Who's going to use these bump stocks? It's going to be street gangs and cartels and mass shooters. And, you know, innocent Americans are going to die because of this

decision. I find it incredibly troubling.

KEILAR: The Supreme Court is pointing to Congress in this ruling to legislate here. You actually first introduced bipartisan legislation to ban bump stocks in 2018.

And this ban, which is president -- former President Trump's ban, he -- his campaign now today signaling support for this move by the court saying that it should be respected.

[14:15:11]

So, I mean, what do you think of the chances for legislation like yours in the future? You know, if for instance, Trump is elected, even if he isn't, and Republicans in the House and the Senate just want to follow his lead?

HEINRICH: Well, what I found is that oftentimes things are impossible in Congress until the moment that they're not.

And unfortunately, oftentimes that moment is some incredible tragedy. I was very involved in negotiating the bipartisan gun safety bill that we passed a couple of years ago, that was completely impossible until the Uvalde shooting happened.

I'm worried that it's going to take some moment like Las Vegas, where so many people were gunned down by those -- by those assault rifles with bump stocks attached to create some sobriety in Congress and say that we have to do something about this.

KEILAR: I think some folks might be surprised to learn that according to ATF data, Americans bought more than half a million bump stocks when they were legal in the course of just a little over 10 years between 2008 and 2017. Previously, well, legal right now, we have this decision.

Do you know how many of those people actually turned in or destroyed their bumped stocks in 2019 when this now overturned rule officially went into effect?

HEINRICH: I don't think we have any good data on that. And it would -- I would be concerned that many, many of these devices are still out there. I'm also worried that the Supreme Court basically wrote a roadmap for how to get around gun law that we've all accepted for a hundred years around machine guns, or is the industry going to figure -- take this decision and figure out how to apply the same sort of logic to block switches, which we're seeing more and more in street crimes now?

There's nothing good that comes out of this decision. And I just -- I don't understand when you weigh the equities, this is really troubling.

KEILAR: It sounds like you're saying, because this is a ruling that is really about ATF rulemaking authority. It sounds like you're saying that you do have a lot of worry this is going to impact ATF rules when it comes to other machine gun conversion devices. And there are a lot.

HEINRICH: Exactly right. And, you know, I was talking to my attorney general the other day, he's saying he's seen these devices used more and more often in street crimes and by gangs.

This is a huge problem. And it's a -- it's a criminal justice problem. Like we're going to see these devices used in ways that harm the public materially versus what the argument is on the other side, it's really hard to imagine.

KEILAR: Senator Martin Heinrich, we appreciate your time this afternoon. Thank you so much for being with us.

HEINRICH: Thanks for covering this.

KEILAR: Still ahead, questionable titanium on Boeing and Airbus planes, what we know about how the metal the -- about how the metal was used and if it's safe.

And Alex Jones admits the end of Infowars is likely. A judge now approving liquidation of his personal assets and his media company could be next, what this means for the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:23:29]

SANCHEZ: The FAA is investigating how possibly fake titanium may have been used to manufacture Boeing and Airbus planes. The titanium was sold using falsified documents about its authenticity.

The New York Times first reported that officials raised questions after small corrosive holes were discovered in the material.

KEILAR: We have CNN's Gabe Cohen who is joining us now with these new developments. This is really the latest black eye for the aerospace industry when it comes to quality and safety issues. What are you learning?

GABE COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, so remember, there's a compact -- complex supply chain to build the plane. Suppliers are buying materials from all over the world that get built into these parts and sent along to Boeing and Airbus to be put together into an aircraft.

In this case, Boeing reported to the FAA that a company at the front of that supply chain was selling titanium. Titanium that would be used not just in Boeing planes, but in Airbus planes as well. Selling it using fake documents to verify the authenticity of that titanium.

That of course raises questions that potentially they were selling counterfeit titanium that didn't meet safety standards, they shouldn't be used on planes for parts like doors or the component that attaches the engine to the aircraft. These are serious parts that we're talking about, critical components. It was caught by a supplier who noticed little holes in the titanium.

It was an immediate red flag but since then, there has been a lot of testing on that material. And so far, it is indicated that it does seem to have been the correct type of titanium alloy.

[14:25:02]

So, there's no clear safety threat at this point. Boeing put out a statement saying, to ensure compliance, we are removing any affected parts on airplanes prior to delivery. Those are the planes still being built.

For the ones that are already flying, they say, our analysis shows the in-service fleet can continue to fly safely.

Airbus put out their own statement, very similar, saying, numerous tests have been performed on parts coming from the same source of supply. They showed that the A220's airworthiness remains intact.

So, clearly, the companies don't think there's any sort of imminent safety threat for the planes that are already flying with this titanium but we know that the FAA is now investigating, they want to make sure there's no safety hazard because of those titanium parts.

SANCHEZ: Yes, and Gabe, the FAA is also investigating this incident with a Boeing 737 Max that rolled back and forth. Tell us about that.

COHEN: Yes, so this is a really rare movement. It's called a Dutch roll.

So, imagine when a car skids and fishtails, essentially, the rear tires lose traction, the front ends up overcorrecting, wobbling back and forth. Same concept, but this time, 30,000 feet in the air, so you can imagine how frightening that would be.

But it's essentially the tail of the plane is wobbling back and forth, the wings moving up and down as the front of the plane, the nose of the plane is making this little figure out -- a figure eight, I should say.

And this was happening on this flight to Oakland from Phoenix last month. Fortunately, the pilots of the Southwest flight were able to get it under control, no injuries on board, and they were able to land safely in Oakland.

But once they got there, they figured out that there was damage to a power system onboard, a power system that is used to control the rudder.

We don't know, did the Dutch roll caused the power system issue? Did the power system issue caused the Dutch roll? That's something that's under investigation right now.

But this is a 737 Max 8 we're talking about and it really thrust that Boeing plane right back into the spotlight because back in February, the FAA told all airlines they need to inspect the rudders of these aircraft, looking for missing nuts and bolts because they feared that that rudder assembly issue could make it harder for pilots to control the rudder with their pedals.

We don't know if that's what happened here. The NTSB is now investigating. They say they've downloaded the flight data from that plane. So, hopefully, we'll know more in the coming weeks but lot of quality control issues for Boeing.

KEILAR: Yes, there really are. I mean, it makes passengers uncomfortable. These are such important questions to ask and to have confidence in the answers.

Gabe, thank you for that report. We appreciate it.

Still ahead, a historic moment in Italy, Pope Francis becoming the first pontiff to attend and speak at the G7 summit, what he warned about, next

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)