Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

GOP Debate Revolt Fizzling Out; Could Incident 14 Years Ago Be Responsible for Russian Airline Crash?; Ohio Voters Take on Marijuana Legalization Today; The New Apple TV. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired November 03, 2015 - 09:30   ET

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

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Oh politics. Seriously though, the candidates intended to send a letter to the debate moderators like CNN demanding no gotcha question, opening and closing statements, and even a say in who asks them questions.

[09:30:09] But it is now likely that that letter will never be sent since Trump, Fiorina, Kasich, and other candidates have refused to sign it. With me now CNN senior political correspondent Stephen Collinson and media guru and host of "RELIABLE SOURCES" Brian Stelter. Welcome both of you.

OK, so Stephen, this whole debate debacle is supposedly about better informing the American voter. But is that really what it's about?

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS, SENIOR REPORTER: Not really. What's happening here and the reason why this revolt has fizzled is that each candidate, there are 13 of these candidates in these debates, have their own political agenda, and they can't come up with a common position on the debates because they're competing against each other and they're trying to take any advantage.

So if you are Donald Trump, you're the hottest media property in the nation, you're going to want to negotiate with CNN and Fox and NBC on debates by yourself. If you're Chris Christie you'd probably show up at a debate any day, answer any question, no matter who's asking, because that's what you need do to showcase your, you know, straight- shooter personality and rescue your campaign. Take someone like Lindsey Graham; he's been stuck in the purgatory of the second tier debates. He wants to get on with the big boys.

So there is no common goal for what a debate could look like, and that's why we've seen this chaos over the last week or so.

COSTELLO: So OK -- so my question to you, Brian Stelter, CNN's debate is after the Fox Business Channel's debate. And the Republicans sort of skipped over that and they were going to send this letter to all the debate moderators after the Fox Business People, right?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they were saying it is too late to talk about the Fox debate next week. We're going to target the CNN debate, the NBC, others. You know, we know the NBC debate in February has been suspended by the RNC. They say they're going to have to have a long talk with NBC because they're so outraged about how CNBC's debate went last week.

But all of this, as Stephan is saying, is about leverage. It's about power dynamics. Some of these candidates have a lot of power because of the high ratings, the high interest in their candidacies. On the other hand the networks have a lot of power here, I think that's been overlooked. The networks, like CNN And others, give these candidates a lot of free air time, a lot of free publicity. They spend millions of dollars to put these debates on. And --

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: Let's pause there because Donald Trump was on "GMA" this morning, and he again said, you know, they charge $250,000 for a spot and why shouldn't that money be donated to the veterans. Now it's the veterans, right? So -- but you're right. Broadcast outlets spend millions of dollars to put on these debates. And what is the right answer here?

STELTER: Yes, he's made this point in the past about donating some of the revenues from these debates. But I think what he misses when he makes that point is that they do cost money. Debates do cost a lot of money. If a candidate doesn't want to come, maybe the broadcast network will put an empty podium on the stage and let people look at that instead. It might actually make a little more drama.

COSTELLO: So, Stephen, can you ever envision a network actually doing that? Saying, OK, if you don't like our rules, don't come?

COLLINSON: I suppose it's possible. For example, if you're a candidate like Marco Rubio who did very well in the last debate, you have incentive both to criticize the media and the conduct of debates because it's an article of faith among conservatives that the media is liberal and biased against them. But you wouldn't want to be in the position where you wouldn't show up to a debate because you didn't like the conditions. Because Rubio, for example, is thinking of himself as the potential general election candidate. He can get in front of 18 million people, most of whom probably aren't base conservative voters and introduce himself and almost begin an almost general election strategy. So there is a lot of backwards and forwards here. As Brian said, each candidate has his own leverage and his own reasons for taking --

COSTELLO: So just to be clear about Marco Rubio. What you're saying is an attack on the liberal media is good for the base, and so Marco Rubio would want to be on the stage and he would welcome a gotcha question.

COLLINSON: Right. Look at the questions he got. He turned them into very good answers. He accused the media of being one big Democratic super-PAC. That was very -- enabled him to connect with conservative base voters. And he was also showcasing his skills. In the showdown with Jeb Bush he showed he was a good debater. He showed he was a in nimble politician. And he showed candidates looking for a possible candidate to go up against the Democrat likely nominee Hillary Clinton that he has the skills to do so. So he can have his cake and eat it in these debates I think. STELTER: The bottom line is these debate moderators need to respect

the candidates. Right? Treat them -- the deserve respect. But debate is good for the viewers at home. Debate is good for the voters. And the candidates that want to downplay debate, limit debate, I think whether it's Democrats or Republicans, either party, I think journalists have to look at that very skeptically.

COSTELLO: All right, Brian Stelter, Stephen Collinson, thanks both of you.

So what do you think? Has the gotcha question debate gone too far? Check out my op-ed on CNN.com. Join the conversation. Make sure to follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

[09:35:02] Ad please share your thoughts as you've been doing, and I appreciate it. Because frankly they helped me write that op-ed. Thank you.

Still to come in the NEWSROOM, that Russian airliner that broke up in the midair has a maintenance issue in the past. We'll tell you what it was and whether it could have played a role in the crash.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: We are learning more about some of the passengers who were aboard that crashed Russian airliner. A Russian mother posting this photo of her husband and toddler as they boarded that plane. The couple had been in Egypt to celebrate their tenth anniversary. She posted the picture with the caption, "We're going home."

[09:40:00] The cause of the Russian airliner crash in Egypt is still under investigation, of course, but an incident 14 years ago could hold important clues. Repairs for made to the tail section of the plane after it struck the runway during a landing in November of 2001. As CNN's Miguel Marquez explains, other plane crashes have shown that it's that kind of damage that can cause catastrophic failure.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The A321, the newest, biggest, and most advanced in Airbus's most popular line of A320 planes. More than 1,1000 A321s are now flying somewhere in the world. According to Airbus, about 200 of them flown by U.S. carriers.

The 18-year-old Flight 9268 had some 56,000 flight hours in nearly 21,000 flights. Could a rough landing in 2001 have been its undoing?

JUSTIN GREEN, AVIATION ATTORNEY/KREINDLER & KREINDLER: The flying public, in order to be safe, we need to know what caused this plane crash.

MARQUEZ: The A321, with its longer body, stands a higher chance of its tail striking the runway on landing. Too sharp a descent or takeoff, the tail can hit. In November 2001, then flying for Middle East Airlines, that's just what happened to this A321. Despite the damage, the plane was repaired. LES ABEND, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: If it is done properly and done by a

mechanic that is experienced and the procedures followed, it shouldn't be an issue.

MARQUEZ: Airbus rigorously tests for just such a possibility.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We go beyond the limit that with use in service by really putting the tail on the ground and we just slowly accelerate.

MARQUEZ: For the tests, the planes are equipped with a special skid to prevent damage shown in this Airbus test flight material.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If it's too harsh, we cannot stress enough, then you can have repairs.

MARQUEZ: But tail strikes can be deadly even years after the incident.

August 1985 in Japan, the deadliest single crash ever. A packed 747 slams into the side of a mountain, leaving 520 people dead.

GREEN: It was a similar type circumstance. They had a tail strike. The repair was made and then after a number of years, you know, there was a failure.

MARQUEZ: The cause traced back more than seven years when the plane's tail scraped the ground on landing. The repairs were not done properly, the plane's tail eventually ripping away from the plane mid flight.

Then there was this doomed China Airline 747. The plane broke apart in the air. Investigators say metal around the repair work weakened and eventually caused a catastrophic structural failure.

Since 1982, 31 planes operated by U.S. carriers have had tail strikes, according to the NTSB, but none have crashed.

GREEN: A tail strike or any sort of damage to the aircraft can cause a problem. And it may not be immediate problem. It may take years for the problem to develop.

MARQUEZ: From the mangled debris field of Metrojet Flight 9268, investigators will have to piece together whether an incident 14 years ago brought down this plane, something more sinister, or a problem with the plane or pilot previously unknown.

Miguel Marquez, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO: Still do come in the NEWSROOM, right now Ohio voters are deciding whether or not to legalize weed for recreational and medical use. But the initiative is more controversial than you think.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [09:48:03] COSTELLO: You remember Nick Lachey. You know, Nick Lachey, 98 Degrees, Jessica Simpson's former husband. Well, believe it or not, the former 98 Degrees singer and "The Newlywed" star could be the next weed kingpin of Ohio. Well, only if today's controversial vote passes, which is why he's starring in ads for Ohio's Issue 3.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICK LACHEY, FORMER 98 DEGREES SINGER: I'm Nick Lachey. Ohio is my home and I care very deeply about the people here. Which is why I'm proud to be part of a moment that's going to create jobs, reinvigorate our economy, and improve the safety of our communities.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It'll give me a chance to open a business or a job --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: All right, as we speak, voters in Ohio are at the polls deciding whether or not they want medical and recreational marijuana in their state to be legal. It's the first time ever voters have decided on both at the same time.

Ian James joins me now. He's the executive director of ResponsibleOhio, the group behind that Nick Lachey ad. Welcome, Ian.

IAN JAMES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESPONSIBLEOHIO: Thanks, Carol, for having me. I appreciate it.

COSTELLO: Thanks for being here. So what do you suppose will happen?

JAMES: Well, I actually feel very confident that we're going to pass the adult personal use of marijuana and allow the compassionate care of the chronically ill with the a vote on -- yes on Three and we're going to stop Issue 2 with a no on Two.

COSTELLO: OK, so before we get into Issue 3 and 2 and how confusing that is, let's get to the controversial part of this. If people vote yes on Issue 3, that would legalize and create ten facilities that would have exclusive commercial growing farm rights. Just ten farms would be able to grow marijuana, right? And they are already very wealthy investors in those ten forms, including Nick Lachey, former NFL player Frostee Rucker, fashion designer Nanette Lepore, and also Woody Taft and Dudley Taft, Jr., who are the great-great-grandnephews of former President Taft.

So some people, many people, I may say, think that if this Issue 3 passes, it would create a monopoly and it would allow these wealthy people to become even wealthier.

[09:50:07] JAMES: Well, most states actually that have legalized marijuana start with a limited number of grow facilities and they allow more to be brought online. They do that so that government can properly regulate this industry.

Look, New York State has 20 million people in it and they have five, five licenses. We have ten and then Year Four, the State of Ohio can add licensing every year thereafter. So we actually look at this as a way to regulate the industry, provide testing and taxing. We're finally going to be able to fill potholes with pot money, and that never has happened here in Ohio. And the only reason we're doing this is because the legislature, frankly, has failed for 19 years to deal with any of this. They've abdicated their responsibility to the voters. And then 10 days this summer, after 19 years of failure, they put Issue 2 on to try to stop the legalization of marijuana. It was a very shameful political ploy.

COSTELLO: OK, so just going back to these ten commercial firms, why just ten? And why are there already investors before the issue's been passed?

JAMES: Right, well, Ohio's a battleground state, so the only way you can get, A, get on the ballot, but B, then pass an issue, is to spend a lot of money. Because it is a battleground state, it's very expensive. National groups have passed on Ohio because it is so expensive.

So in order for us to get this issue passed, we brought in people that the ability, groups of investors who have the ability to fund the campaign, spend about $23 to $25 million, and then spend another $10 to $40 million each to grow -- to build these grow facilities. And this is an industry that's going to create 30,000 jobs and generate $554 million a year for Ohio.

You can't pass it with nickels and dimes and you can't pass it by wishful thinking. We brought the funders together to fund this campaign. They then have to compete against each other and the state has the ability to continue to add licenses after Year Four forever.

COSTELLO: OK, so just briefly about Issue 3 and Issue 2. So, Issue 3 would legalize marijuana. And issue 2 would effectively cancel out Issue 3, so you want people to vote yes on Issue 3 and no on Issue 2.

JAMES: That's right. So no on 2 and yes on 3. Because with Issue 2, you're essentially as a voter in Ohio, you're giving over more rights to the politicians, the same politicians that refuse to deal with marijuana for 19 years and spent 10 days this summer to put the issue on the ballot to stop it.

Yes, we need to have a no on 2 and a yes on 3 to legalize marijuana in Ohio.

COSTELLO: All right, Ian James, thanks for joining me.

JAMES: Thanks for having me, Carol.

COSTELLO: You're welcome.

Checking some other top stories for you at 52 minutes past. A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman tells state-run media the Syrian people need to decide the fate of President Assad, and Russia has never said whether he should stay or go. She says keeping Assad in power is not a fundamental issue. The Kremlin last month said it wanted Syria to prepare for a presidential election.

Controversial Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi has reportedly died of a heart attack at his home in Baghdad. The 71-year-old fed information to the Bush administration and helped convince the United States decide to invade Iraq back in 2003.

Did you catch this last night on Monday Night Football? There it is. A pair of protesters rappelling from the Panthers' press box. The duo dropped a black banner at the Bank of America Stadium. Their message, you'll see it there. "Dump Dominion." The protesters say Bank of America is allowing a natural gas company, Dominion North Carolina Power, to operate without checks and balances. They claim the company's new building poses health and safety risks to surrounding communities. Now you know.

Still to come in the NEWSROOM, we're taking a bite out of Apple's latest tech offering. Wait until you see it next.

[09:54:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Tech lovers listen up. That Apple TV you bought last year is so 2014. The company's latest version is now offering some pretty impressive upgrades. Here's Samuel Burke.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMUEL BURKE, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Siri, is it really worth $149 for the new Apple TV?

SIRI: If you think you're so smart, Sam, you will try it out for yourself.

BURKE: One thing about the new Apple TV versus the old Apple TV is that you have Siri. So instead of having to search for things letter by letter, arrow key by arrow key, now you can just speak your searches or questions right to the TV.

Siri, I want to watch a comedy movie.

Hm, and you can even be more specific. I want to play that episode of "How I Met Your Mother" with Jennifer Lopez on Netflix.

JENNIFER LOPEZ, SINGER AND ACTRESS: Nothing sexier than a man in a fine cravat.

BURKE: A major change on the new Apple TV is this touchpad on the remote. And one of the places it's most useful is replacing the rewind and fast forward button. You can just slide your thumb across the remote and it will show you thumbnails going forward and backward on whatever TV show or movie you're watching.

Apps are crucial to every streaming device because that's how you watch TV shows and movies. And now Apple has a new TV App store, which is going to make it easier to bring in new apps, particularly games.

Of course, my swing is just as bad on Apple TV as it is in real life. You've been able to get your iTunes library on the old Apple TV. On the new one, you can stream the new Apple TV music service, which is $10 a month.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

BURKE: The new Apple TV is definitely an improvement over the old Apple TV. But at either $149 or $199, it's definitely one of the most expensive streaming devices out there. If you're on a budget or just looking to stream the basics like Netflix or HBO, you might want to consider the older, cheaper Apple TV for $69, or a competitor like Chromecast for $35.