Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Spreading California Fires Misinformation; Zuckerberg Meets with Trump; Investigators Searching for Answers on Deadly Fires. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired January 13, 2025 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: -- Trump was right as the hills around it burn. Let's discuss with CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, and former White House spokesman and president -- for President George W. Bush, Pete Seat.

Maria, let me start with you. Let's put that back up on screen again. I mean, he's been going after Democrats and their response to the fires and so on. I mean, Trump talked about uniting the country after he won election. in November and that he's putting things out like that. What do you think?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR AND DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: It's disgusting. And he's not even in office yet and he's already giving us a preview, which is frankly, a look back at what we already had with the four years that he was in office. But I think this is going to be that on steroids.

I think people are already exhausted what he's doing in terms of politicizing these fires after horrendous loss of life, loss of property, loss of livelihoods. You've had people on your show, it is gut wrenching to hear their stories. You have all sorts of communities suffering, the Latino community suffering, African Americans, all kinds of communities, frankly, many of which voted for Trump.

ACOSTA: Yes.

CARDONA: And what is he doing? He's not doing anything to help those communities, to bring the country together, to bring down costs now when they need it the most. He should be working with California leadership. He should be saying, if he has an issue with how Newsom or Democrats have dealt with this, he should say, let's sit down to figure out how we can make this better. But we know he's not capable of that because he is not a leader, he's a bully.

ACOSTA: Pete, I mean, how is that uniting the country? I mean, he told Americans in his victory speech it is time to unite. And yet, he's putting out memes saying Trump was right with the Hollywood Hills on fire. I mean, is that the behavior of a president?

PETE SEAT, FORMER G.W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN AND VICE PRESIDENT, BOSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS GROUP: There are legitimate questions that need to be asked and answered as far as how the fire started and how it was able to engulf so many structures and so many acres so quickly.

I was in Southern California in October 2007 with then-President George W. Bush to see first-hand a fire that burned almost 1 million acres. It was devastating. But even then, there are questions that need to be asked. We can't just say it's climate change and wash our hands of accountability.

Among those questions, why were the hydrants running dry? Gavin Newsom himself is asking that question. What role did his refusal to divert water from Northern California to Southern California? Something the Trump administration tried to do in 2020. What role did that play? What role did budget cuts play? Over $17 million cut from the fire department's budget. Those are questions that those who have lost their homes, lost their possessions and now only have memories, they deserve to know the answers to those questions.

ACOSTA: Oh, yes, Pete, no question about it. And we'll hold their feet to the -- to all of this. There's no question about it. But, you know, I do want to raise the question. I mean, is he really going to do this for four years? Put these kinds of memes out there when people are suffering, when their whole communities have been destroyed, you know, he's going after the governor, calling him Newscum and so on? I mean, come on, right?

SEAT: Donald Trump takes the permanent campaign, maybe a little too literally into heart, and there are better and more appropriate ways to ask those questions. But this is the way Donald Trump does it. And people still put him back in office.

Maria says that folks are exhausted and tired. Well, obviously not. The last election says a completely different story.

ACOSTA: And, Maria, I do want to get to the confirmation hearings because they're going to get started for several Trump cabinet picks, including Pete Hegseth for defense secretary, Doug Burgum for interior, Doug Collins for the V.A., obviously Burgum and Collins will probably sail right through. How much should Democrats engage on the Hegseth pick? Do you -- this is going to be a battle, do you think?

CARDONA: Yes, I think it should be. I think they should engage on the Hegseth pick. Look, there is an assumption that presidents get to choose who their cabinet secretaries are and who their appointees are. Absolutely. But there's also an assumption that president-elects will pick the most qualified people, will pick the most -- the people who are going to mostly unite the country, will pick people who are experts in their field, will pick people who do not have scandalous, controversial backgrounds like Pete Hegseth.

ACOSTA: Yes.

CARDONA: And frankly, others. He's not the only one. So, I think Democrats should absolutely unite to give Trump the appointees that he wants, the ones that are actually qualified, that have good backgrounds and expertise in the areas that they -- that he has appointed them in. But then, there are others like Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Patel, Robert Kennedy Jr. I mean, I think those are the most dangerous, those are the top dangerous four, I believe, that deserve for Democrats to really, not just pick a fight, but ask the tough questions. Let the American people know why these picks are so dangerous to the country, to national security, to our health care, to the future of what we want this country to be. And so, I do think that it's worth for Democrats to bring up those questions.

[10:35:00]

ACOSTA: And, Pete, I do want to ask you about this, J. D. Vance, the president -- vice president-elect was on Fox yesterday saying that these violent January 6th rioters should not receive pardons. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J. D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT: I think it's very simple. Look, if you protested peacefully on January the 6th, and you've had Merrick Garland's Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned.

If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned, and there's a little bit of a gray area there, but we're very much committed to seeing the equal administration of law, and there are a lot of people we think, in the wake of January the 6th, who were prosecuted unfairly. We need to rectify that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: After that interview, Vance appeared to try to clean it up in a post on X saying some of the rioters were, quote, "unjustly locked up," including people who were, quote, "provoked and got a garbage trial." Pete, what are your thoughts on this? I mean, I think that of all the things that Trump is going to do on January 20th or afterward, this has the potential to divide the country like any -- like -- unlike anything else.

SEAT: Well, Donald Trump was pretty consistent throughout the campaign that there could very well be pardons for those who participated in January 6th, but he's also said recently that it's not going to be blanket. It's not going to be everyone that they're going to look at these cases person by person, issue by issue and make a determination.

So, I think J. D. Vance is probably correct that those who actually committed violent acts on that day won't see a pardon.

ACOSTA: All right. Maria and Pete, we'll be watching.

CARDONA: Let's hope so.

ACOSTA: Yes, that's going to be critical to watch all of that. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

ACOSTA: As Big Tech braces for an uncertain future in a second Trump administration, Mark Zuckerberg's MAGA metamorphosis is already on full display. The Meta CEO met with President-Elect Donald Trump on Friday after a week of controversial policy changes at the company.

Zuckerberg also appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast lamenting a, quote, "neutered corporate culture" and accusing the Biden administration of pressuring him to remove COVID misinformation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, META: Basically, these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and like scream at them and curse and it's like these documents are -- it's all kind of out there. Basically, it just got to this point where we were like, no, we're not going to take down things that are true That's ridiculous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Joining me now CNN Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter. Brian, this is the same man who banned Trump from Facebook and Instagram in 2021. I was at the White House the day that he was kicked off of Twitter. A lot has changed. What a difference four years makes.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: And I'm glad you brought that up, that it was Zuckerberg, it was Facebook that banned Trump from the platform, just as Twitter did. And now, here we are and there's very much a MAGA makeover of Meta happening.

Look, I heard a business analyst describe Zuckerberg as a really effective shape shifter. And I think that's a great phrase for what is happening. Zuckerberg is shifting because he believes that's what's best for his shareholders. And remember, he owns 13 percent of Meta. He is a billionaire many times over, thanks to that stock price that's been on a tear lately.

So, he is trying to evolve the company to make sure it is successful in the Trump years. And that means, number one, being cozy to Trump, to the president-elect, keeping Meta in the good graces of the government, maybe making that pesky FTC antitrust case go away. Meta has a lot of business before the U.S. government, and I think that's ultimately what this is all about.

ACOSTA: Yes. And he's complaining about the Biden administration, you know, yelling at them to say, you know, get some of this COVID misinformation off their platforms. I mean, isn't that -- that's sort of what the White House should be doing, right? I mean, tell folks to get this garbage off these platforms if you can, get rid of fact- checking altogether, especially during these wildfires. I mean, that sounds like something that could really, you know, backfire, big time.

STELTER: It's just so easy four years later to sit around and say, oh, you know, they were pressuring us. We went too far during an emergency, right? The early months of the COVID pandemic were an emergency, unlike anything that we've lived through before. And were there some mistakes? Were there some screw ups? Were there some poor decisions? Of course. But it's so easy to sit back and claim that now as opposed to honestly reflect on what happened. And I think there's so much of this debate about free speech, you know, acts as if it's very simple when in fact, many of these combinations are very complex.

Ultimately, it's about values. And I was so struck, Jim, by President Biden kind of shaming Meta the other day, shaming Zuckerberg and saying that it was shameful to remove the fact-checkers. Biden obviously valuing fact-checking, even though he was often fact-checked during his four years in office.

ACOSTA: Right. I mean, fact-checking is a good thing. It's not a bad thing. Is that correct that they're just not going to have fact- checking altogether on these?

STELTER: All of Meta's financing of fact-checking is going away, effective in March, and it'll be replaced by community notes, you know, letting users police themselves and decide what is true and false. It's going to result in a much more chaotic and confusing information environment. And that's ultimately the big picture about what this is about and why it matters.

That's what Biden was getting at in his recent interview with USA Today. He said his biggest regret as president was not being able to navigate this changing information environment. We've heard some of his cabinet secretaries say the same thing, that they --

ACOSTA: That's right.

STELTER: Ultimately, when we're talking about facts versus fiction, we should ask, who benefits from the fictions? Who benefits from an environment where there are more lies, more propaganda, more innuendo spreading, and who suffers?

[10:45:00]

You know, that's the kind of cost benefit analysis that I think Zuckerberg's kind of trying to avoid as he curries favor with the incoming administration.

ACOSTA: Yes, fact-checking is not always popular, but it is necessary. We got to have facts in this society. All right. Brian Stelter, thank you so much. As always, we appreciate it.

STELTER: Thank you.

ACOSTA: Coming up, as crews fight the flames in Los Angeles County, investigators are searching for clues into what sparked the deadly blazes. I'll speak to a former arson investigator. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00] ACOSTA: Even as crews scramble to contain the Los Angeles wildfires, investigators are already looking to how they started, including the possibility that an electric transmission tower was the origin of the Eaton Fire, that's according to the Los Angeles Times. Southern California Edison, the power company, said it's unlikely that its equipment caused the fire.

And joining us now is Ed Nordskog. He's an arson profiler and investigator. Ed, thanks so much for joining us. What do you make of that possibility that it was the power company's equipment that caused this?

ED NORDSKOG, FIRE INVESTIGATOR AND ARSON PROFILER: I say that's a decent possibility. I've investigated fires in Eaton Canyon. There are power transmission lines there. They have been involved in past fires over the years, so that's a reasonable place to start.

ACOSTA: And, you know, we were talking to this couple earlier on in the program and, you know, a lot of people are tearing their hair out trying to figure out how it got this bad as this couple was saying, and you know, Ed, wildfires happened in Southern California. It's a part of the daily life there that you have to prepare for. But nothing like this, that anybody can really remember.

Do you have any theories as to how it got this bad? And what are your thoughts on the fire hydrants and whether the fire crews were ready and doing everything that they needed to be doing to get ready for this?

NORDSKOG: Well, the fire crews are ready. They deal with wildfires all the time in Southern California, but this was an extraordinary wind event. They haven't had a wind event like this since I've been working, and that's over 25 years in the area. We've had high winds, but not to this level.

And that was preceded, of course, by the dry year. It was a very dry -- hot, dry year, and there was a lot of moisture last year, which caused more brush. So, all three of those things came together, and now you have this catastrophe.

ACOSTA: And so, do you think it may be very well a possibility here that it was these hurricane force wind gusts that just absolutely made this much worse than anybody thought was possible?

NORDSKOG: Yes, especially in the Palisades area. They haven't had fire in there for decades and it's -- so, it's not a normal place to have fire. And the hurricane force winds were the biggest factor for that fire.

ACOSTA: And I want to talk about the Palisades Fire. Washington Post investigated showed that it was likely that it may have been started near where some New Year's Eve fireworks were being used, and there was a blaze that had been extinguished just days before. Is it possible that there were some remaining hot spots from that and this was a reignition fire? NORDSKOG: Yes. So, in the -- in the term of art in the wildland sector, it's called a holdover fire, and that's a reasonable theory at this point. They're going to investigate it today. But there is a burn pattern in the area. You can tell just as the first smoke is spotted. So, there was a previous fire roughly in that area. So, that's what the investigative teams will be working on.

ACOSTA: And do you think that there's a possibility that arsonists were behind any of this?

NORDSKOG: Well, you have -- yes and no. You have six larger fires going on in Los Angeles. There's no indication right now that any of them were intentionally started by arsonists. However, Los Angeles has 10 million people in it, and they have 50, 60 fires a day in Los Angeles, every day of the year, 30 or 40 of them are set by homeless people or transient type people. And those are all sort of criminal fires.

Most of them do not get big, but on a wind driven day they could. So, it's not uncommon to have multiple arson arrests in L.A. every day.

ACOSTA: And because that is -- I mean, that is what is so puzzling about all of this. We were just showing the map and the way that these fires are spaced apart. I mean, it goes to what you were saying, that you do have numerous fires happening all at once in L.A. County, but not anything like this. And this Palisades Fire, the way it's swept across these neighborhoods.

I mean, if you're just sitting on a bar stool talking to a guy in there and he says, how the hell did this happen? What do you say?

NORDSKOG: Again, it goes back to your very first question, it's just a very unique set of circumstances that came together, and the biggest factor for Palisades was the wind. It just -- it was one of the biggest winds we've ever seen here. So, that took what would normally be a smaller fire and drove it into this massive event.

ACOSTA: All right. Ed Nordskog, thank you very much for your expertise. We appreciate it this morning.

NORDSKOG: You're welcome.

ACOSTA: And donations are pouring in from all over. Find out how you can help by going to cnn.com/impact or text wildfires to 707070 to donate. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

ACOSTA: Joining me this morning, I want to bring in my good friend Pamela Brown. And, Pamela, you know, I could not -- my Commanders and the doink heard round the world. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Washington (INAUDIBLE). And it is in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Wow. Look at that. Oh, my gosh.

ACOSTA: Look at that. Man, oh, man.

BROWN: Nail-biter.

ACOSTA: You know, it was a great victory. Last second field goal --

[11:00:00]