Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

15K+ Southwest Flights Canceled In Last Week Amid Airline "Meltdown"; Supreme Court Keeps Trump-Era Border Policy For Now; Key Findings From New Batch Of Jan.6 Committee Transcripts. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired December 28, 2022 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Sara Sidner, in for Victor Blackwell, welcome to CNN NEWSROOM.

The Southwest Airlines meltdown is now on its seventh day of derailing people's travel plans. Since last Thursday, the company has canceled more than 15,000 flights including 2300 set for tomorrow. FlightAware finds 89 percent of the nation's cancellations just today belong to Southwest Airlines. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg promises to hold the nation's largest domestic carrier accountable, but for some passengers, Southwest may never be able to make up for days of delay, misplaced luggage, and ruined holidays.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LILY LOPEZ, TOOK 24-HOUR+ BUS RIDE AFTER SOUTHWEST FLIGHT CANCELED: Oh, I hate Southwest. I hate them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How long did you wait at the airport?

LOPEZ: I hate them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you make out?

LOPEZ: I was there from -- well, I left at 12:00, I'm still stranded. I need to drive nine more hours. (INAUDIBLE) I'm upset, I'm stressed, I'm tired, and I hate them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: She did not pull any punches there. CNN correspondent Nick Valencia is at Hartsfield Jackson airport outside Atlanta, the busiest airport in the world. Nick, what are you hearing from Southwest passengers today? Do they sound anything like what we just heard?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Sara, they're over this. They are so over having to deal with the delays, with the cancellations, with the re-bookings, but it seems at least one more day, they're going to have to deal with just that. The slew of cancellations continues already since this saga started last week, more than 15,000 Southwest flights have been canceled today, another 2500 or about 62 percent of the planes that they expected to put up in the air. Looking at the line behind me though here at the Southwest ticket counter, you would think that there would not be a problem at all. But this really doesn't translate to the mass of the passenger experiencing.

The reason that really no one is in line or that is considerably thinner than what we've seen in past days, people don't have planes to get on. So, even those that are coming here with a flight scheduled to take off on time, they're encountering a different set of problems. Earlier, I spoke to an 11-year-old girl who told me through tears that she had planned to travel as an unaccompanied minor but because of staffing shortages, she wasn't able to get on the plane that she had anticipated getting onto Florida later today.

And the loyalty of some of the Southwest fliers who have flown with this company for in some cases, decades, it's really being tested here. Earlier, I spoke to Michelle Smith. She said she's flown with Southwest for more than 20 years. But after going what they -- what she went through this week, she's really drawing all that into question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHELLE SMITH, SOUTHWEST LONG-TIME CUSTOMER: I've been a longtime southwest fan, 20 years, a companion pass holder, travel a lot. This year has been a bad one. They have really disappointed me.

VALENCIA: Do you have a message to the CEO, if he's watching? What do you say to him?

SMITH: Fix it -- fix it. He's got a lot of loyal fans and he's losing them left and right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VALENCIA: You know, really, there's a lot of sad stories all around this airport when it comes to Southwest because it is really their problem today as it continues to, you know, deal with these outdated, antiquated systems the way they operate their airlines.

Earlier, Sara, I spoke to a woman who says that she was sleeping in the airport for the last two days. She's stranded here, she says. The canceled flight that she had to Columbus, she doesn't have enough money to rebook a ticket there. She hasn't been given a refund. She's really out of options. She did not want to go on camera, but we're seeing really mixed emotions at this point, frustration boiling over to anger, and that becoming tears, you know, to some of these passengers dealing with what they're dealing with, Sara.

SIDNER: Nick Valencia, thank you so much for joining us and giving us that insight from the passengers as well. Appreciate it.

VALENCIA: You bet. SIDNER: Let me turn now to a Southwest passenger. Her name is Courtney Clark. Courtney, your story mirrors other people's. You're from Austin and had been in Delaware with your family enjoying the holiday hopefully, and then you were supposed to fly Southwest home back to Austin on Monday. It is now Wednesday. And apparently, you boarded the plane which is better than what most people have been able to do, but then what happened?

COURTNEY CLARK, SOUTHWEST PASSENGER, FLIGHT WAS CANCELED: So, on Monday, our flight got canceled as we were lining up to board our Southwest flight home. We were lucky to get a different airline and get a flight home late, late last night early this morning. So, we're now home.

SIDNER: Nice.

CLARK: But not on Southwest.

SIDNER: How did you get that flight? Was it Southwest that took care of that for you or did you have to do all of this sort of figuring out on your own?

[14:05:00]

CLARK: We did it ourselves. I'm a frequent flyer with Southwest. And my husband and I are savvy travelers. We clued in pretty quickly that Southwest wasn't going to fix this problem for us in a timely fashion and we were able to go online, book some relatively affordable flights ourselves to have a backup plan. And Southwest had gotten us booked on a flight, but lo and behold, we woke up Tuesday morning and saw that flight had also been canceled. So, we knew we had this Allegiant Air flight, and we took it and we managed to get home.

SIDNER: Well, congratulations on getting home. I'm sure that it feels good to be there. I do want to ask you what your thoughts are and what we've been hearing from those who run Southwest, the CEO, apologizing, saying that this is a systems issue. And the Pilots Association, also saying like, look, we've known about this for a really long time that we have an IT issue, we have a systems issue that is very old, and that hasn't been upgraded in a really long time. What do you make of that?

CLARK: I've been hearing that same feedback. And it makes sense. But the original Southwest Airlines culture was if you keep your employees happy, they will make your customers happy. That's what Southwest used to set it apart. And they haven't been keeping their employees happy because they're using these antiquated, outdated systems that have their own employees on hold for hours to get rescheduled. And I think that's why. It's because they're not sticking to what made Southwest, Southwest, keeping their employees happy, so their employees could deliver great customer service. Now, the customers are mad.

SIDNER: And they are really mad, some longtime customers we've been hearing from who are thinking about never flying Southwest again. I do want to point this out because Southwest is saying to keep all the receipts for any expenses, and the airline plans to make everyone's situation whole. What do you want from them? What would make your -- you whole?

CLARK: That would certainly help. I think what I need is immediately, yes, refunds and reimbursements for everything we incurred two different hotel rooms, a whole other set of flight plans. Additionally, what I'd really like to see is what are they going to do both short-term and long-term to keep this from happening again. I'm an almost weekly flyer in my job as a keynote speaker that goes to conferences. So right now, my trust is broken. And I would want to know if I can trust them to get me where I need to go.

SIDNER: Do you think there should be legislation that gives passengers more power?

CLARK: I don't know the answer to that right now. I certainly think that we have a lot of questions that we need answers to and so I'd like to see some immediate first steps to build that trust back. And yes, I think we need to unearth and get to the root of what allowed this to happen before we can even think about how do we build that trust back.

SIDNER: Courtney Clark, thank you so much for sharing your story with us.

CLARK: Thank you.

SIDNER: The Supreme Court has decided to keep in place the border restriction known as Title 42 at least until it hears some of the legal challenges that will be brought forth in February. Now, the policy put in place by the Trump administration during the early days of the pandemic, allows federal officials to deport migrants before they have received an asylum hearing. But the court's ruling has some interesting allies. Conservative justice Neil Gorsuch siding with the court's liberals about eliminating Title 42 and writing "the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort."

Joining me now, CNN's Leyla Santiago, she has been in El Paso now for days, and CNN White House reporter Priscilla Alvarez.

Leyla, I'm going to begin with you. You're in El Paso. You are seeing the results of some policies. And they're still preparing, as I understand it, for another surge of migrants to come through. How do officials inform asylum seekers about what is happening with the laws in this country?

LEYLA SANTIAGO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, there is so much confusion, Sara. As I have spoken to migrants, they are asking me a lot of questions because they themselves are trying to make sense of what this means and for them more importantly, the impact. So, let me kind of walk you through where I am right now. This behind me is a shelter that is run by the church and you can see that the streets are lined with not only young men, older men, but also families. I mean, I have seen toddlers and babies and have heard just nightmare stories of what it was like to get here dealing with cartels, being robbed, being harassed, being threatened, etcetera.

[14:10:04]

So now as they learn of Title 42 and the Supreme Court's decision to keep it in place, the fears continue, the uncertainty continues, many not knowing exactly what they will do, fearing that they could be sent back at any time. So, this doesn't appear to be much of a deterrent at this point but it does appear to just add to the fears and the uncertainty that many of them have been feeling. As you mentioned, the city, I'll go ahead and show you over here as well, you can see many of them lining up for donations and meals.

While I tell you about the city and its efforts, they have now said that they are preparing two vacant schools in hopes of preparing that for shelters for what could be an influx, a surge -- a potential surge of migrants heading this way. Customs and Border Protection have said that they are putting up temporary facilities to increase capacity when it comes to processing migrants that may be coming up because on the other side, not far from where I am right now in Mexico, we know that there are tens of thousands of migrants in Matamoros and Reynosa, and Ciudad Juarez which is close to where I am, that are waiting to cross into the United States, but many of them not sure of what is next or what their next move will be, Sara.

SIDNER: Thank you, Leyla, for laying that out for us. Priscilla, how is the White House responded to the court's ruling at this point?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we heard from President Biden late last night and he said that this is long overdue in terms of getting rid of Title 42, but that they're going to comply with the order and continue to advance their preparations. Now, I just want to remind viewers why we're still seeing migrants in Texas and why there are still concerns of a surge.

Title 42 does not apply to all nationalities. It really depends on who Mexico was willing to take back and who they can expel to their native countries. And that doesn't always apply to all the nationalities that we're seeing arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border, which is why migrants are being released after being processed by border authorities. Of course, there are also migrants who are evading border authority. So, that is why the administration is still focused on their preparations be setting up temporary facilities, scaling up air and ground transportation, and working with NGOs along the U.S. southern border.

The administration though is also taking the opportunity to tell Democrats and Republicans to find comprehensive immigration reform and to work towards that. Of course, that is an issue, Sara, that has vexed them for years and has only grown more politically contentious.

SIDNER: Yes. I mean, this isn't just the president's issue. This is a congressional issue. Priscilla, you have some new reporting about DHS warning of domestic violent extremist threats relating to the end of Title 42. Tell us about that.

ALVAREZ: That's right. I obtained a memo dated December 23 that really underscores the concern within the Department of Homeland Security over the end of Title 42 triggering domestic violent extremism. They note, for example, online chatter that was focused on targeting migrants and critical infrastructure, some of what social media users were saying, for example, firearm attacks, placing landmines along migration routes, and shooting electrical substations to disrupt potentially immigration facilities.

Again, this really underscores some of the concerns within the Department of Homeland Security and also the grievances over immigration policy and the animosity against immigrants that have also fueled attacks in the past. So, all of this is being monitored by the administration, Sara.

SIDNER: Priscilla Alvarez and Leyla Santiago, thank you both for your reporting.

New January 6 transcripts detail former President Trump's fury at Vice President Pence and allege Mark Meadows burned documents in an office fireplace regularly. And the snow has finally stopped falling in Buffalo, but the work is just getting started for the rescue crews. We'll take you there, live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:17:59]

SIDNER: The latest batch of witness transcripts from the January 6 committee reveal new key details from their investigation. One standout, the revelation from star witness Cassidy Hutchinson that Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows reportedly burned documents in his office fireplace. CNN's Sara Murray joins me now. Sara, the transcripts include an interview, I mean, I had to pause there because this is crazy, with Trump's White House aide John McEntee and Trump's attitude towards Vice President Mike Pence after the election. Tell us about that.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, John McEntee was a close aide to the former president. He was round for a lot. So, he had some interesting revelations in his transcript, including saying that the former president was referring to effing Pence. This was after January 6 had happened. It was around January 25 when they were preparing to leave the White House, and Trump was still complaining About pence at that point.

He also said in his interview with the January 6 committee, McEntee, he acknowledged that they had pressured the General Service Administration to try to delay the transition. This is something CNN had reported on as it was happening at the time. McEntee also said that he heard at one point Trump mentioned a potential blanket pardon for those involved in January 6. You know, in a transcript, he says Trump raises this possibility the White House Counsel pushes back and says, you know, this isn't a good idea. Trump is saying, well, what about for the people who were nonviolent that day, who were just there, and the White House Counsel is like, no, we're not doing this. This is not a good idea. Sara.

SIDNER: There's a lot going on in these transcripts that we have not yet heard, that we certainly didn't see in the public hearings. What else stands out to you?

MURRAY: That's right. I mean, I think one of the things frankly, that sort of surprised us it didn't come up in the public hearings was this notion of Mark Meadows burning documents. And this is something that Cassidy Hutchinson brought up in her interview with a committee. She said there were about a dozen instances where she saw Meadows throw documents into the fireplace in his office. She said she didn't know what those documents were, she didn't know if they were original documents or if they were copies, but that was an interesting revelation.

[14:20:06]

She also said Meadows have these close-hold meetings. And she wasn't sure if these were meetings that were kept off the official logs that were taking place around the Oval Office and the White House at that time. And she said that there were several discussions in the White House about QAnon conspiracies. And I want to read you one of the lines from one of the Cassidy Hutchinson transcripts.

She says, at one point I had sarcastically said, oh, is this from one of your QAnon friends, Peter? She's having this conversation with Peter Navarro in the Trump administration. She said. Because Peter would talk to me frequently about his QAnon friends. He said, have you looked into it yet, Cass? I think they point out a lot of good ideas. You really need to read this, make sure the chief sees it.

He's apparently referring there to Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, which she details a number of other points in her transcript where QAnon and various QAnon conspiracies come up during her time in the White House, Sara.

SIDNER: She seems to have more courage than all the president's Men. Sara Murray, thank you so much for bringing that to us.

Let's discuss this with former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom Dupree. For you, I know there was a lot there because there are many, many, many hundreds, if not thousands of pages. But what's the biggest takeaway that you took from all the read?

TOM DUPREE, FORMER PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, we're certainly getting a lot more insight into kind of the craziness that was going on behind the scenes in the days up to leading January 6, then afterward. With regard to what we were just talking about, about the Chief of Staff burning documents in his fireplace, I mean, that's a detail we hadn't really heard a lot about before. We knew that he might have done it. I don't think we fully appreciated the volume of the documents that he apparently burned.

Without knowing exactly what those documents were, it's hard to say whether or not it was illegal. But I think one thing everyone could agree on is that it's not best practices for the White House Chief of Staff to be burning documents in his office fireplace.

SIDNER: Can I ask you, you know, what sort of things would make it illegal because there is something that's like, you know, it's the documents that really technically belong to the people you're being paid by taxpayers? What would make it problematic or even illegal? What kind of documents would make that a problem?

DUPREE: Sure. As a general matter, the rule typically would say you need to retain and preserve original copies of documents. Typically, that would be the document that was actually put eyes on by the president, signed by the president, handled by the president. But if you've got a situation where the original document is preserved, you're often free to discard it. In some cases, actually, you're required to discard additional copies of that document. So, if he was throwing out and burning original documents, that could be a problem. If they were copies, maybe not so much.

SIDNER: How would you prove an allegation like that?

DUPREE: Well, it's a challenge, right? Because the evidence is literally burnt to a crisp. I mean, one thing you could do is if there were witnesses who were in the meetings, who could attest to what documents he was given during that meeting, what documents he was handled during that meeting, therefore, what documents he discarded, that's how you might go about proving it. Obviously, another way you could do it is to see if you can locate the original document of what he was given. If the original document is sitting somewhere safely preserved, well, then it's a good bet that whatever it was he burned was probably a copy of it.

SIDNER: You know, as an attorney, what do you make of the interference of Cassidy Hutchinson's First attorney, Mr. Passantino? in some of these transcripts, she talks about that, and then she obviously switched attorneys, and she then went back and said, I want to basically redo some of the things and clarify what she told the committee.

DUPREE: Yes, it's worrisome. And look, I mean, anytime you're representing a witness in this context, number one, you need to make sure that you're forthright and honest with the witness about, you know, who's paying the bills, who you're representing, what your interests are, if any, in this case, and you've also got to be careful not to try to shade or color or persuade the witness not to tell the truth under oath. Now, of course, there's no obligation for a witness simply to say, you know, everything that's on their mind, everything they could say, you know, you are required just to answer the questions that you're given. But certainly, what we saw from Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was that at least the way she saw it, she was being pressured, maybe to be more reticent, more reluctant, not fully forthcoming in response to questions, which as I said, does raise worrisome concerns that her lawyer may have crossed the line there.

SIDNER: You know, there's obviously attorney-client privilege, but then she as the client can complain about this, right? I mean, what would have to happen? Could he be disbarred, for example, or disciplined if Cassidy Hutchinson came out and said, yes, I was pressured to say, I don't know or I don't remember?

DUPREE: Well, sure. I mean, attorneys are always in potential jeopardy if they're found to have violated some sort of ethical rule about some sort of disciplinary proceeding taking a case. At the same time, I would say it's not simply how the witness perceived it, but it's actually whatever the lawyer said to her. Whether that advice came in the context of recorded transcripts before the House Committee, whether that advice came behind the scenes and the witnesses saying here's what my lawyer said to me and getting ready for the hearing, that could pose a problem.

[14:25:12]

So, whatever the client perceived and how the client interpreted what the lawyer was saying is certainly a big part of it. But it's not necessarily the whole story. And if there ever were a disciplinary proceeding, I suspect the first person that wants to hear from is the lawyer himself about what he said and what he intended to communicate to his clients.

SIDNER: Absolutely, right. Tom Dupree, thank you so much for your analysis.

Pope Francis says Pope Benedict is very sick and ask for everyone's prayers. The latest from the Vatican just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)