Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Majority of Oil Execs Say Profits, Not Regulations, to Blame for Not Ramping Up Domestic Production; Moody's Analytics Chief Economist: "At Least" 1 in 3 Chance of Recession in U.S. over Next 12 Months; 14-Year-Old Boy Dies after Fall From Amusement Park Ride in Orlando; Ukrainian Tries to Sink Oligarch's Mega-Yacht to Protest War; Texts Show Justice Thomas' Wife Pushed Meadows to Question Election. Aired 1:30-2p ET
Aired March 25, 2022 - 13:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:30:29]
ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: We're back with a new twist in the blame game over the soaring price of oil and gas.
According to AAA, here's where we are right now. National average for a gallon of regular unleaded is still painfully high, down from its high but still $4.24 a gallon.
Think about this. A month ago, we were sitting here at $3.57 a gallon. Now some conservative critics blame President Biden. They falsely claim he is standing in the way of more domestic drilling.
But a majority of American oil executives say there's one central thing stopping them from pumping more oil. And it's not politicians. It's not regulations. It's profits.
CNN's Matt Egan is with us now.
Matt, this is a pretty stunning admission. What are they -- what are these oil companies saying?
MATT EGAN, CNN BUSINESS REPORTER: Ana, the oil CEOs are pointing the finger at Wall Street, not Washington.
The Dallas Fed asked oil executives why publicly traded oil companies are restraining their growth.
And here's what they said. And 59 percent pointed to investor pressure to maintain capital discipline. That's code for, returning cash to shareholders through buybacks and dividends.
Essentially, instead of investing in growth, sitting on the profits.
Now here's why that really matters. Supply is not keeping up with demand.
We have oil output in the United States down 10 percent since the end of 2019. That's despite the fact that oil prices are up 85 percent over that time.
Other really startling figure here is that just 9 percent of the oil executives pointed to government regulations, despite all of the rhetoric here around government policies.
The problem is that, until supply catches up with demand, prices are going to stay high. That's going to be a negative for the economy.
CABRERA: They're being transparent about it, perhaps they'll face more pressure to do something and take action.
Meanwhile, we have a top economist you've been talking to warning about a recession potentially.
EGAN: Mark Zandi. He told me that he thinks that recession risks in the United States are uncomfortably high and going higher.
What does that mean? One in three chance, he says, of a recession in the United States. One in three. That's pretty high.
Especially considering that this recovery is only, not even two years old, and yet it's facing serious risk.
What are those risks? Three big things. One, the war in Ukraine, which is pushing up the price of energy and food and other commodities. That is making inflation, which was already hot, even hotter.
The other big concern is the Federal Reserve moving to rapid interest rate hikes.
Citigroup put out a report saying they think the Fed is going to go with a big interest rate hike, 50 basis point, a half a percentage point, not once, not twice but in the next four meetings in a row.
We haven't seen anything like that since 1994. The last time that happened, markets were very unsettled and the Fed set off all this turbulence in financial markets.
It makes sense that the Fed will be tapping the brakes on the economy because inflation is hot. The concern is, the harder they hit the brakes, the better the chances something goes wrong here.
CABRERA: That's when the recession could take place.
Thank you, Matt, as always for explaining it to us. We appreciate it.
Now to a tragic story. This is out of Orlando where we're learning a 14-year-old boy died after he fell from an amusement park ride.
Let's bring in Leyla Santiago.
Leyla, how did this happen?
LEYLA SANTIAGO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That is the big question in trying to understand this tragedy, Ana. But we've learned just in the last hour that that victim, a 14-year-old boy, was identified as 14-year- old Tyre Sampson.
He was from Missouri. Was here in Florida with a friend's family visiting Icon Park, which is a 20-acre amusement entertainment complex in Orlando.
And here's what we know about last night. We understand that Sampson fell from the Orlando free-fall ride last night.
This happened around 11:00. That's when deputies arrived. He was taken to the hospital and he died there from the injuries from that fall.
But that big question, what we first started off with, Ana, what led to this tragic teen's death? Still not a lot of details there.
The ride's operator, as well as the Orange County sheriff, has said, at this point, it appears that he was secured in the ride.
And both of them have said that their hearts are going out to this family, given the tragedy there. And both of them have also said that they are going to look into what happened here.
[13:35:00]
Now the sheriff in this press conference pointed out that their part of the investigation is to get to the bottom of, was this an accident or was this intentional?
At this point, he says it appears to be an accident. No criminal charges.
We should also mention that Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services will be looking into the safety portion of this. They will have someone on site to try to figure out what went wrong here -- Ana?
CABRERA: Such a shock, 14 years old.
Leyla Santiago, thank you.
It's probably a good idea to keep a close eye on your mega-yacht, especially if you are a Russian oligarch. Someone may try to sink it. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:33]
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: The unprecedented sanctions targeting Russian President Vladimir Putin and his ultra-wealthy associates are designed to pressure him into stopping the war.
Targets include luxury yachts owned by oligarchs loyal to Putin.
CNN's senior investigative correspondent, Drew Griffin, reports on one nautical engineer and his effort to sink the oligarchs and save Ukraine. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Taras Ostapchuk, a 55-year-old nautical engineer, says he spent the past 10 years serving on the "Lady Anastasia," an aging luxury yacht sailing the Mediterranean.
TARAS OSTAPCHUK, FORMER CHIEF ENGINEER, "LADY ANASTASIA" (through translation): We had a crew of nine people, including a chef and a waiter.
GRIFFIN: He says, the yacht current owner and only user is Aleksandr Mikheyev, a sanctioned Putin connected oligarch and the CEO of a major Russian state-run company that rakes in tens of billions of dollars selling munitions, everything from weapons to ammo to aircraft.
Yacht Engineer Ostapchuk went from cruising and oligarch luxury to a bunker in Ukraine.
OSTAPCHUK: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
GRIFFIN: Our interview, just began, stopped by an alert of an incoming Russian attack.
OSTAPCHUK: OK, sorry. See you next time. Bye-bye.
GRIFFIN: His life changed in late February when the yacht was docked in Spain and Russia invaded his home country.
(On camera): Welcome back. Thank you.
OSTAPCHUK: Nice to meet you again.
GRIFFIN: So good to see you, my friend.
OSTAPCHUK: Yes, I'm safe.
GRIFFIN (voice-over): Safe once again, Ostapchuk explain he was spurred to action when he saw this image of a Russian military strike in an apartment building in his hometown of Kyiv.
OSTAPCHUK: My role is started. Yes.
GRIFFIN: At that moment, he knew he had to do something to retaliate -- sink the "Lady Anastasia."
OSTAPCHUK (through translation): Water began to fill up the engine room and the crew space. After that, there were three crew members left on board. I announced that the boat was sinking and that they should leave the ship. I did this on my own.
GRIFFIN: The other crew members, also Ukrainian, didn't want to risk their own jobs, he said. Instead, they sounded the alarm, called authorities. He was arrested and the "Anastasia" saved, although damaged.
In court, Ostapchuk denied nothing. Instead, declaring he would return to Ukraine, where he picked up arms and joined the military.
OSTAPCHUK (through translation): Now a war has begun, a total war between Russia and Ukraine. And you have to choose, either you are with Ukraine or not.
You have to choose. Will there be Ukraine or will you have a job? I made a choice. I don't need a job if I don't have Ukraine.
GRIFFIN: Back in Spain, Spain's Ministry of Transport has agreed to the provisional detention of the yacht "Lady Anastasia" while it confirms its real ownership and determines if it falls under European Union sanctions and can be seized.
It's one of a long list of suspected Russian oligarch yachts now frozen in European ports in an effort to apply pressure on Putin through his inner circle of oligarchs to stop this war.
Taras Ostapchuk says others working for oligarchs around the world should expose them and their assets.
His effort to make the profiteers of Vladimir Putin's regime pay for what they are doing.
OSTAPCHUK (through translation): I think what I did is absolutely 100 percent correct. I tried to sink the boat as a political protest of Russian aggression because its owner is connected to the production of Russian weapons.
They should be held responsible because it's they, who with their behavior, with their lifestyle, with their unquenchable greed, they precisely led to this.
In order to distract the people from the real plunder of Russia by these rulers, they arrange divisionary wars with other countries that are innocent.
GRIFFIN (on camera): Is there any message that you would like the people of the United States to know right now?
OSTAPCHUK: Help us please. Send guns to Ukraine, please. We must stop it, this war. We must win.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GRIFFIN: Don, Taras Ostapchuk has no doubt that the military equipment made by the Russian defense firm linked to his former boss is right now killing civilians in Ukraine. It is why he did what he did.
As for that yacht and its likely owner, we got a cynical response from the Russian defense firm saying it never comments on the personal lives of its employees or their property -- Don?
[13:45:05]
LEMON: All right. Drew Griffin, thank you very much. Appreciate that.
And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CABRERA: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been released from the hospital one week after he was admitted with what were described as flu-like symptoMs.
But the 73-year-old is returning home to an absolute firestorm of controversy.
CNN learning the January 6th Select Committee has obtained dozens of texts between the justice's wife, Ginni Thomas, and former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
[13:50:01]
Texts in which Thomas repeatedly pleads with Meadows to fight to overturn the 2020 election.
Like this one sent in November of 2020:
Quote, "Sounds like Sidney Powell and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the kraken and save us from the left taking America down."
CNN's Ryan Nobles joins us live from the Hill.
Ryan, tell us more about these text messages and why they are so problematic in.
RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well the big problem could be for Clarence Thomas. There's no real evidence right now that these text messages are central part of January 6th investigation.
At this point, there's no signal that Ginni Thomas will be asked to testify through a voluntary means or through a subpoena.
But what we see in these text messages is Ginni Thomas, the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice, discussing legal theory with the most- important person in the White House outside of the president himself.
Take a look at what she said to Mark Meadows on November 10th.
Ginni: "Help this great president stand firm, Mark. The majority knows that Biden and the left is attempting the greatest heist of our history."
And Meadows responds, "I will stand firm. We will fight until there's no fight left. Our country is too precious to give up on. Thanks for all of do."
Now the text messages that we have seen are 29 in total that are in possession of the January 6th Select Committee.
This might not be the sum total of communication between Meadows and Thomas. This is just what Meadows himself turned over to the committee during the small period of time when he was voluntarily cooperating with the committee.
And there was even a conversation between the two of them after the events of January 6th. Remember, Thomas was at the Ellipse during the rally that took place outside of the White House but left early. She never came here to the capitol.
But she told Meadows this:
"We are living through what feels like the end of America. Most of us are disgusted by the V.P. And are in a listening mode to see where to fight with our teams."
"Those who attacked the capitol are not representing of our great teams of patriots for DJT. Amazing times. The end of liberty."
Ana, this leading to calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself for anything related to the January 6th committee -- Ana?
CABRERA: Ryan Nobles, thank you for your reporting.
Let's bring in CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.
Elie, a lot of layers here. We'll get to potential conflicts of interest and Justice Thomas.
But first, do you expect Ginni Thomas to be hearing from the January 6th committee? And could she be in any legal trouble?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, she absolutely should hear from the committee, Ana. And here is why. Because now we know that Ginni Thomas is a witness.
It has already been well-known publicly that Ginni Thomas has some extreme, maybe even extremist political views. That's fine.
But these texts show us that Ginni Thomas was urging a very powerful person, the former chief of staff, to take specific action in order to try to overturn this election.
So if I'm investigating this, I have plenty of questions for Ginni Thomas. Did you speak with Mark Meadows other than these texts? Did you communicate with other powerful officeholders about this?
So she should be hearing from investigators.
CABRERA: I want to know did she talk to her husband. The Thomas' refer to each other as best friends.
So could the committee seek to ask Justice Thomas if his wife discussed these conversations with him?
HONIG: Well, that's tricky, Ana, because there's something called the spousal privilege, meaning that conversations between husband and wife, spouses, are generally privileged if one or both of the spouses says, I don't want to disclose that. On the other hand, there's a obscure legal argument that Congress is
not bound by that privilege or any other privilege.
On the other hand, I think, as a practical and political matter, I don't think the committee will go into those conversations. I think it is seen as politically dicey.
CABRERA: And not every spouse is a Supreme Court justice right?
HONIG: Right.
CABRERA: Should Justice Thomas have recused himself from cases involving January 6th?
HONIG: Absolutely, yes.
Here is the way that the issue lines up. Any time a judge at any level has some sort of direct or indirect personal financial or familial interest in the case, they ought to think hard about recusing, meaning, removing themself from a case.
We've seen that. Justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum have done that in recent years. Clarence Thomas himself has done this over two dozen times in his career.
In fact, there was a case in 1996 involving VMI, the Virginia Military Institute, where Clarence Thomas' son was a student and Justice Thomas did the right thing. He said I'm out of this case.
And so if he's going to recuse there, I think there's a very strong argument that he should recuse here.
And by the way, it doesn't matter if Justice Thomas and Ginni Thomas are plotting over the breakfast table. No one is accusing them of that. But the appearance here is very bad and very damaging to the Supreme Court's institutional standing.
CABRERA: So now that Justice Thomas is out of the hospital -- we're glad to hear that -- should he have to give a public response to this controversy?
HONIG: Well, I think we want to be respectful obviously of somebody's health situation.
But, ultimately, here's the thing. You cannot compel a Supreme Court justice to recuse himself or herself.
[13:55:00]
Lower federal court judges have a rule book that tells them when they have to recuse. Supreme Court justices tend to be above the law. And so there's no mechanism to compel Justice Thomas to explain himself.
He ought to do so, but there's nobody who can force him to do that.
CABRERA: Elie Honig, it is good to see you. Thank you -- HONIG: Thanks, Ana.
CABRERA: -- for explaining all of that to us.
HONIG: All right.
CABRERA: And that does it for us today. Thank you so much for being with us. I'll see you back here on Monday. I hope you have a wonderful weekend. Remember, you can always find me on Twitter, @AnaCabrera.
Our coverage continues right after a quick break. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
