Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Will Trump Back Any Gun Reform Legislation?; Iran Tensions; Trump Attacks Fed Chair Again; Mechanic Accused of Sabotage Had ISIS Video on Phone. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired September 18, 2019 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:21]

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Just in, General Motors is temporarily laying off 1, 200 workers in Canada, GM citing the massive strike here in the U.S., that strike now in its third day. Nearly 50,000 workers are protesting health benefits and pay. This is the biggest labor strike in more than a decade.

I'm Erica Hill, in for Brooke Baldwin today.

We begin this hour with breaking news. Federal prosecutors now say an American Airlines mechanic who's accused of trying to sabotage a commercial airliner in Florida had an ISIS video on his phone, and prosecutors say his brother was a member of ISIS in Iraq.

In July, investigators say the mechanic attempted to disable part of the plane's navigation system shortly before it was scheduled to take off from Miami International Airport with 150 people aboard.

He later told investigators he was upset over a contract dispute between union workers and the airlines and that he tampered with the plane so he could work more hours.

CNN's Rene Marsh is following these new developments. Also with us, CNN aviation analyst and aviation attorney Justin Green.

So, Rene, I want to start with you.

Bring us up to speed. Prosecutors also now alleging this mechanic had some more information his phone. What was that?

RENE MARSH, CNN GOVERNMENT REGULATION CORRESPONDENT: Right, so a lot of allegations coming out in federal court today, where he was for a bond hearing.

So we're talking about Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani. As you mentioned, he is that American Airlines mechanic accused of sabotaging that commercial jetliner.

What was on his phone, according to prosecutors, is this ISIS propaganda video. They say that he distributed that video to individuals. So he is -- and they are accusing him essentially of having ties to ISIS. But there's more. During this bond hearing, prosecutors also said

that he told fellow employees that he traveled to Iraq to visit his brother, who was a member of ISIS, and that the defendant's roommate said that the defendant traveled to Iraq because his brother had been kidnapped.

Prosecutors also told the court that he had a news article on his phone concerning the Lion Air crash. You remember that? That was the Boeing 737 MAX that crashed. That article made specific references to the role of the plane's air data module system.

And that happened to be the same system that Alani is accused of dismantling on that American Airlines flight. So all of these allegations coming out from the federal prosecutors in court, but it is important for us to point out a couple of things.

Number one, this was happening in the context of a bond hearing. Usually, prosecutors want to throw as much allegations out there to get either a higher bond or no bond. And we do know, in this case, the judge did deny him bond.

Also want to note, Erica, he is not facing any charges related to terrorism. It is strictly related to tampering with that commercial jetliner.

HILL: Yes, very important to point out, but certainly gives you pause.

MARSH: Yes.

HILL: So, as you look at all this, Justin, give us a sense for an airline mechanic specifically. What is the vetting process for that employee?

JUSTIN GREEN, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: The one thing I would say, in addition to what Rene said, is they can add the terrorism charges later on, and they may very well.

HILL: OK.

GREEN: But in terms of vetting, every mechanic has to have a clean criminal background. So they do criminal search, and they also do drug testing.

But once you're behind the lines, once you're in the business, unless you show signs of something going wrong, you're kind of trusted. And I think the whole operation, aviation safety, relies a lot on trust of the people, the pilots, the flight crew, and the mechanics that are working on the airplanes.

HILL: Speaking of that trust, if a mechanic is called in to fix this system, for example, right before a flight is taking off, is that something that a mechanic would do solo? Is there someone else who's there, sort of a buddy system, a system of checks and balances? How does that work? GREEN: So, usually, you will have more than one eyes on a particular issue. So you have a mechanic and then you might have someone who does quality assurance also look at the same thing and sign off on it.

However, that -- if you're a mechanic, you're going to have access and you're going to be able to do something like this gentleman did without necessarily being caught.

So the system really is checks and balances. But if you have a bad actor, that bad actor is likely to get away with sabotage.

HILL: It gives us a lot to think about. Justin, thank you.

GREEN: Thank you, Erica.

HILL: We will continue to follow any of those developments.

Rene, thank you.

[15:05:00]

Meantime, the nation's top intelligence chief, Joseph Maguire, refusing now to comply with a deadline to hand over a whistle-blower complaint to the House Intelligence Committee, this despite the fact that the inspector general deemed that complaint credible and of urgent concern.

So, the big alarm? The complaint involves the executive branch, according to a letter from Maguire's office. That letter was sent to House Intel committee leaders, noting the complaint does not meet the definition of urgent concern because it doesn't relate to intelligence activity.

The letter does confirm the complaint involves confidential and potentially privileged matters relating to the interests of other stakeholders within the executive branch.

House Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff says he expects Maguire Maguire to show up to tomorrow's hearing, under subpoena, if necessary.

Margaret Taylor is senior editor of the Lawfare blog and a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Thanks for joining us today.

So just remind us how this law works for whistle-blower complaints, because it sounds like there's a very clear procedure that is followed that is being ignored by Maguire.

MARGARET TAYLOR, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: You're right.

This statute that sets up specifically the process for how people in the intelligence community can submit whistle-blower complaints is very clear. And, essentially, what it says is that, if someone in the intelligence community has a whistle-blower complaint that he or she wants to transmit to Congress, the specific way for that person to do that is to notify the inspector general of the intelligence community about those issues.

Thereafter, it's up to the inspector general of the intelligence community to make the determination about whether the information is credible and whether it is of urgent concern. And if the inspector general does make that determination, he is then required to provide it to the director of national intelligence, and, seven days thereafter, the director of national intelligence is required by the statute to turn over that information to the Intelligence Committees of the Congress.

And that seems to be not to have happened here.

HILL: Right.

And, also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's the independent inspector general who is the one who determines whether it is both credible and of urgent concern. Those are the terms that are used. It is not the DNI who makes that determination, correct?

TAYLOR: That is correct. And that's what is causing this conflict between House Committee Chairman Schiff and the director of national intelligence -- the acting director of national intelligence.

Chairman Schiff is basically saying, no, the statute lays out a very specific process. The inspector general has told the committee that he made that determination that it is credible and an urgent concern, and you didn't send it to us, and that's a problem.

HILL: Is it -- so, in the letter, the DNI argues the law doesn't apply because the complaint involves someone outside the Intelligence Committee. Does that stand?

I mean, what is the -- does that stand in terms of a legal rationale here?

TAYLOR: Well, it's very unclear, because we do not know what the content of the whistle-blower complaint is.

And, as far as I understand, Chairman Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee also doesn't know what is the content or the substance of the complaint. And without knowing that, it seems like Congress can't really do its job, the intelligence communities -- committees can't really do their job of providing oversight.

And it seems like what the administration is asking here is for the congressional committees to just trust them that it doesn't -- that the law is not applicable here.

And given that the inspector general has made his independent determination, it just does not seem like this is going to go away and there will continue to be a fight on these issues until it is resolved.

HILL: Certainly raises a lot more questions than it does provide answers.

Margaret, thank you.

TAYLOR: Thank you.

HILL: Just a short time ago, the Federal Reserve cut the benchmark interest rate by a quarter-point, this happening for the second time in less than two months.

That, though, apparently not pleasing the president, who tweeted within 30 minutes of the news, saying: "Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve fail again. No guts, no sense, no vision. A terrible communicator."

Let's get to CNN economics commentator Kevin Hassett, who once served as President Trump's top economist.

And, Kevin, I just want to remind, of course, the president that -- we know that he picked Jerome Powell. We have talked about that a lot. And he also just cut the rate, which is something that the president has been calling for, which is interesting, because you yourself have said that you wouldn't have voted for this rate cut.

Why is it that you think, based on your experience, that the president is so unhappy at this point?

KEVIN HASSETT, CNN ECONOMICS COMMENTATOR: Right.

Well, I think that the president was very upset with the rate hike last year. And don't forget that there were barely any rate hikes until he was elected. And then all of a sudden, there were seven in a row.

And I think he was pretty agitated by that. And I think that the Fed now kind of agrees with him on interest rates, that they shouldn't have done the rate hike at the end of last year, and they have kind of rolled that back.

But he was in a pretty bad mood about it. The thing, though, about the president, I think that, as you said, this is a rate cut that I wouldn't have voted for -- that he's OK with that kind of dissent in the Oval.

[15:10:09]

Like, so you can go into the Oval. And he would say, Kevin, what do you think about interest rates? And I say, well, I actually think on this one I wouldn't cut it right now. And I think the inflation risk or something I'm concerned about.

He clearly disagrees with me on that one. And he probably wanted the Fed to move 50 basis points today.

HILL: But -- so you can say that privately, but it's publicly, it sounds like, that it doesn't work for the president. And so are you saying that he would have been happier if the Fed just somehow erased all of the hikes that we had seen? Would that work?

HASSETT: Yes, I don't know exactly what his target interest rate is, but he thinks that the economy slowed from maybe the 3 percent pace to about a 2.5 percent pace.

It slowed because in part Fed policy was too aggressive. And I think that's something that he's very willing to put his opinion out there on Twitter about just about anything. And I think that's what the people that support him expect of him.

But on this one, I actually think that if you look at it, industrial production just came out. It was like massively up. And so we have got strong consumption, strong industrial production. If I was writing an economics exam back at Columbia, when I was a professor there, I might have said, hey, you have got really low unemployment, accelerating inflation, things are looking a lot better than you thought two years ago. What do you do with interest rates?

And they would say hike, right? And so to cut in this circumstance is something that's pretty unprecedented.

HILL: So it's unprecedented. To your point, though, you see a strong economy. You would not have cut interest rates. Are you concerned then about the impact this could have? It sounds like you are.

HASSETT: Yes, that's right, because what can happen is that -- so think about it. The last time, the Fed talked about the trade tensions -- and those trade tensions have really abated quite a bit.

And so if we really do go back to growing north of 3, then wage growth is really, really high already. And that's the kind of thing that can start to kick off an inflationary spiral. So if you go back, I think that the time period that's most like today was the late 1960s, where you had -- you had President Kennedy cut taxes, just like President Trump did.

You had this sustained boom, and then all of a sudden you go into the '70s with really, really high inflation, like up 7 percent, all of a sudden. And I think that you have got to worry about that. And so most recessions start because the Fed lets inflation get out of control, and then has to really whack the economy.

And so that's why I would be more cautious than they seem to be.

HILL: Does the president listen to that? I mean, just take me back into that Oval Office, right? Take me into these conversations that you're having with the president.

When you say to him, sir, these are all the reasons that I'm concerned, and this is the data that I'm looking at, does he hear that?

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: But he does hear that?

HASSETT: Absolutely.

HILL: Because we hear a lot that people say things, but we know the president does what the president wants.

HASSETT: No.

No, but that's actually -- I think that he listens to lots of different points of view. And I think I was probably one of the lone points of view that would be on that side when we were talking about those things. And I think that he tends to make considered judgments based on all the arguments that he sees.

And, for sure, there are other people that agreed with him in the room when we were there. And, again, that that's something that I think that people don't really understand about this president, which is that he really, really does love to have debate.

And when the chief of staff is setting up meetings, he very often makes sure that there's somebody who thinks that we should do something and we shouldn't do something, and then the president likes to watch them have at it.

And I think that's a pretty healthy way for him to learn what's going on.

HILL: It sounds like, though, in a lot of these meetings, his mind is made up ahead of time.

(CROSSTALK)

HASSETT: I don't think so.

HILL: No? OK.

HASSETT: No, I really don't think so. Yes.

HILL: Well, that's good to know, because you have been in the room. I certainly haven't.

(CROSSTALK)

HASSETT: And we go in with charts. He looks at the charts. He marks them. Yes, so absolutely he looks at facts and figures out what he thinks, after watching the debate as well, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: But let's talk quickly about Jerome Powell, because I know you support Jerome Powell.

HASSETT: Yes.

HILL: How do you think he takes these tweets? The president saying he's got no guts, that he's a failed communicator.

The president's pretty clear how he feels about him. HASSETT: Right.

But that's the thing about the president that I think so many of his supporters really like is that you never have to wonder what he thinks, right? And so he's very upset with what the Fed did last year. He's making that clear.

He's got a clear difference of opinion with Jay, but Jay's job at the Fed is to just sort of focus on the facts, focus on the data, and do what he thinks is right. And so I kind of disagree with what's right, right now. I may have been on the other side from the president.

But I think that Jay is doing his job based on the facts and the analysis and the staff analysis. And that's what he should do. He should tune this out. And I can just say that it's very, very, very common, going back throughout history, for Federal Reserve chairs to take heat from Congress, from the president, from everybody, and to tune it out.

And that's what Jay Powell is doing, and it's right for him to do that too.

HILL: Kevin Hassett, appreciate the insight. Thank you.

HASSETT: Thank you. Great to be here.

HILL: We're also following some breaking news in the Middle East at this hour, the Saudis laying out what they say is undeniable evidence that Iran was behind the attack on their oil fields, yet not directly pointing the finger. And now President Trump is weighing in on possible military action.

Also ahead, CNN, just obtaining a copy of the document that outlines how lawmakers could move forward on background checks for gun purchases. We're live on Capitol Hill with details on that proposal.

[15:15:03]

Plus, a bit later, a top Democratic donor is arrested, accused of running a drug den inside his Hollywood home, the same place where two other men were found dead in recent years.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:07]

HILL: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sitting down with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia today, as that nation determines what the response should be to recent attacks on its valuable oil fields.

Secretary Pompeo is sharpening the blame against Iran, calling the attack -- quote -- "an act of war." President Trump also announcing new sanctions against Iran today, this as Saudi military officials called a news conference to show off drones and weaponry they say they recovered from the oil fields.

And while a Saudi official said that equipment had Iranian origins, he stopped short of blaming Iran outright. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COL. TURKI AL-MALIKI, SAUDI-LED COALITION SPOKESPERSON: This UAV is Iranian, UAV delta wing on all the components that we have recovered, and we have our allies, through our experts. It shows the capability of the Iranian regime.

Some of the components here. The Iranian regime and the IRGC, they are trying to erase the information. However, we have collected the information for information and to know what's behind it.

Thank you.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: So, is it Iran?

AL-MALIKI: Thank you.

ROBERTSON: Is it Iran?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Our own Nic Robertson there asking more than once, is it Iran? No answer, as you heard.

Steven Cook is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Good to have you with us.

The Saudis...

STEVEN COOK, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Pleasure to be here.

HILL: Thank you.

The Saudis, of course, didn't answer that question. They really did stop short of saying the strikes were ordered by Iran. That's an important omission. What do you make of that?

COOK: Well, I think it's an important omission.

And I think the Saudis are hedging here because it's become clear that the United States isn't prepared to do much more than apply more sanctions on Iran. If the United States was willing to take the lead, maintain its commitments to Saudi Arabia and to the free flow of oil out of the region, you would see the Saudis not hedging by dissimulating in the question -- in the answer to Nic Robertson.

I think, regardless of whether the Iranians did this themselves, I think their culpability here is clear, by dint of the fact that all that equipment can be traced back to Iran.

HILL: We have seen very clear language from Secretary Pompeo as recently as today, those words an act of war. He's meeting with MBS, as we know. And yet, back home, very different reactions from President Trump and

Senator Lindsey Graham. I just want to play a little bit of what we have heard.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I'm looking for a response that would be unequivocal. If they don't pay a price for bombing a neighbor's oil fields, then all hell is going to break out in the Mideast.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's very easy to attack. But if you ask Lindsey, ask him, how did going into the Middle East, how did that work out, and how did going into Iraq work out?

So we have a disagreement on that. And there's plenty of time to do some dastardly things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: I mean, in some ways, it sounded like Lindsey Graham was almost daring the president to take action. To your point, we hear a lot of words, but there's not necessarily a lot of action.

Do you think that could change in this particular instance?

COOK: Well, it certainly could change.

But, of course, President Trump ran for office in part by saying that he's going to get the United States out of military conflicts in the Middle East. And, of course, he was articulating what I think is an important point and important response to Senator Graham, which is, it is easy to pull the trigger, but how do you control the potential cascade of events that happen afterwards?

I think Senator Graham was pointing out the fact -- and I think equally valid -- is that the United States has sanctioned the Iranians, has warned the Iranians, has sanctioned the Iranians again, yet Washington's inaction in the face of Iranian provocation since at least May have signaled to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that they can take -- undertake dramatic actions, like the direct attack on Saudi Arabia that has halved Saudi Arabia's oil production.

HILL: Steven Cook, always appreciate the insight. Thank you.

COOK: Thank you very much.

HILL: President Trump blaming 2020 candidate Beto O'Rourke and his promise to take your AR-15s, blaming O'Rourke for now slowing down the progress of gun control talks.

We're live on Capitol Hill with new details about the proposals the White House may be willing to back.

Plus, the liars club. President Trump's former campaign manager admitting the Trump team felt no obligation to tell the truth. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:29:25]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETO O'ROURKE (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

O'ROURKE: We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Tough to forget those words from last week's Democratic debate.

And they were immediately followed by concerns from Beto O'Rourke's own party about Republican backlash.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): I, frankly, think that that clip will be played for years at Second Amendment rallies with organizations that try to scare people by saying Democrats are coming for your guns.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Did Beto O'Rourke say something that's playing into the hands of Republicans?

PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes.

Look, right now, we have an amazing moment on our hands. When even this president and even Mitch McConnell are at least pretending to be open to reforms, we know

[15:30:00]