Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Tonight

GA Trump Probe Foreperson Says Grand Jury Recommended Multiple Indictments; Vanderbilt University Sends Message Using ChatGPT in Wake Of Deadly Shooting; Camerota And Panel Discuss How Social Media Is Affecting Us; Camerota And Panel Discuss About Working A Four-Day Work Week; United Airlines Changes Its Policy On Flying With Kids. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 21, 2023 - 23:00   ET



ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Here with me now, we have executive editor for One World, Kierna Mayo. Also, Mike Broomhead, host of "The Mike Broomhead Show" at KTAR, Kaivan Shroff, senior adviser for "The Institute for Education," and former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman.

Harry, you're a former prosecutor. Is that a problem, that she is speaking out and -- a lot -- I will play more sounds from her -- and talking a lot about what the process was for the special grand jury? I thought that was supposed to happen in secret.

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is not great. And she -- it's not as if she is breaking the law, but she could really have the judge come down on her hard. She could raise arguments that Trump will eventually raise as to tainting the jury poor bad.

But the headline here, you know, let's just take a step back. The Fulton County D.A., they clearly recommended the indictment of Donald Trump, not to mention maybe 15 other people --

CAMEROTA: How do you know that?

LITMAN: She has as much as said it. She said, you know, I won't tell you, but the initials are Donald Trump. When they asked, well, he says he was completely exonerated. She literally rolls her eyes and laughs. There are four different ways in which she makes it really beyond any doubt there is a possibility Willis doesn't take her up on the recommendation but it's a small one.

So, yes, absolutely right, she's talking out of school, it's not good for the case, but man, we're going to have for the first time in the history of the country a Fulton County D.A. is going to indict not just Trump but almost certainly, it seems to me, Mark Meadows, maybe John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani. This is the huge event people have been clamoring for a year.

CAMEROTA: Okay. So, let's listen to a little bit more of what she said right here to show how you are reading these tea leaves.


CAMEROTA: They're not subtle.



KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Is it, what you say, when it comes to there are, there are indictments recommended, of course? Is it --


BOLDUAN: -- more than 12 people? Is it more than 20 people?

KOHRS: I think, if you look at the page numbers of the report, there is about six pages in the middle that got cut out. Allow for spacing. It's not a short list.

BOLDUAN: Not a short list?


More -- I mean, when it comes to 75 witnesses, it's not -- I assume, of course, it's not --

KOHRS: Right.

BOLDUAN: -- 75 people. Would you characterize it as 20-ish people?

KOHRS: I can't say I counted.


BOLDUAN: Okay. More than a dozen, though, I think, I heard you say in another interview.

KOHRS: I believe so. It's probably a good assumption.


CAMEROTA: Kaivan, what are you hearing here?

KAIVAN SHROFF, SENIOR ADVISER, THE INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATION: Yeah, you know, I think -- I relate, first of all, for her wanting to share this with the American people because this process is so confusing and so secretive.

And it's not just a year that people have been waiting. Really, it has been six plus years, two impeachments, you know, the January 6 Committee, countless probes, and nobody really has seen any accountability here.

So, there's all this process with the result. And I think sort of the backsliding of American democracy will not stop until we do see that accountability. So, I certainly hope that Harry is right here.


CAMEROTA: Mike, you have your finger on the pulse of Trump supporters and Republican voters. You talk to them on your call-in show. What do you think here?

MIKE BROOMHEAD, HOST, "THE MIKE BROOMHEAD SHOW" ON KTAR: I think part of this -- what this does sometimes is it makes him a sympathetic character in a lot of ways. When you talk about the laundry list of accusations over the years, people in that camp believe that this has been a witch hunt. And this is one more level of them. They are not going to stop until they get something.

Whether that is true or not, I'm just giving you what the information is and what the people inside that camp are doing. It makes him a sympathetic figure that this is a witch hunt. They're not going to stop until they get something on him. And I imagine that is what Trump is going to say, too, eventually.

CAMEROTA: Kierna, how do you see it?

KIERNA MAYO, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, ONE WORLD: Trump has also been accused, allegedly, of rape. So, when I think about Donald Trump and indictment, I think about someone who has gotten away with a lot. It really doesn't matter what people's feelings are, really, on the right. It just can't matter. At some point, something got to stick. Better now than any time. You know, here we are.

CAMEROTA: One of the interesting things about that, Kierna, is that we don't know if he has gotten away with a lot. We don't know if he has been adjudicated.


CAMEROTA: It is not even that he goes through the court case and then isn't convicted. It is that somehow -- I mean, other than impeachments which, as you know, the Senate didn't convict, other than that, there is not a level of adjudication. And so that, I think --

MAYO: None whatsoever.

CAMEROTA: -- for people who are critics of Donald Trump or just even law-abiding people who want there to be a process --

MAYO: I think everyday Americans.

CAMEROTA: -- they are the ones who have been waiting a long time.

MAYO: Yes.

BROOMHEAD: Yeah. At the same, when he has gone through the process in some cases, it hasn't ended up in a conviction. So, in other cases, people say, unless you are convicted of a crime, then you've not been convicted.

CAMEROTA: That's true. BROOMHEAD: So, that is the issue here. We all want the truth. I will

tell you, if somebody breaks the law, I don't care who you are, you should pay a penalty for it, and I think it does a disservice to the justice system.


But time after time, there have been accusations against the president, but there hasn't been convictions, or I should say the former president. There hasn't been convictions. And that, for me, I think when I look at the supporters of Donald Trump, that is what they keep pointing to. You keep accusing, but nothing ever sticks.

CAMEROTA: Harry, what is going to happen now? I mean, she's speaking. You said that she could be in deep water with the judge, meaning what? What could --

LITMAN: McBurney will say -- he told them, look, you shouldn't really be saying anything that's not published. And she's being very cutesy and saying all kinds of things. She's giving the basic numbers. She's getting close to giving the names, et cetera. Now, it's not against the law. He won't throw her in jail, but he could really hammer her and say, you're violating the court's orders.

Again, though, that is the most -- I do think that she -- there is obviously some frustration on the part of that special grand jury, though she said they weren't talking with one another, at least on the part of that foreperson. She not only gave all these hints, she also said, I want something to happen finally.

They're frustrated, I think, that Willis is still taking a fair bit of time after calling it imminent, and maybe she's trying to put pressure on her. It is not good, what she is doing. In fact, you know, it is -- it could harm the case. Still, the headline, the mind-blowing headline. And to your point, facts and law. Just give me 11,500 votes. This is the first time he'll actually be indicted and subject to proof.

I should actually say the indictment will come here first. I'm not sure the travel come here first. We can talk more about that. But, you know, she has got very good facts on her side starting with the Raffensperger call that Emily Kohrs said they spent a lot of time on.

CAMEROTA: I am reminded of how many people I have interviewed on a set just like this over the past -- fill in the blank -- six years who have said something is imminently going to happen, from the Mueller investigation through the hush money payments. Michael Cohen is often on here and says that things are immediately going to happen, and it never has. But Harry -- I mean, Harry is so confident.

LITMAN: I'm not lying (ph).

CAMEROTA: No, you haven't. But, I mean -- but you sound as confident as people have in the past predicting things like this.

LITMAN: Look, it's definitely -- I have 100% confidence in the special grand jury report. Why would Willis not uphold that recommendation when everyone will be there? There's a chance, but that strikes me as a 95% shot. So, that's my confidence. We're really close to actual grand jury speaking. Sorry, go ahead.

SHROFF: No, yeah, I mean, I hope you're right. But I do think, again, like, everyone always is waiting for this big shoe to drop. And I think, you know, it's 2023, the justice system needs to sort of adjust and adapt and learn how to communicate with the American public in a way where it's not all or nothing and they are understanding sort of why can't certain information be shared or why would it be inappropriate sort of as we're criticizing the forewoman there. So, I do think, you know, there needs to be a major update to the DOJ and how they're doing a lot of this.

CAMEROTA: Kierna, what happens -- you know, Donald Trump is running for president again. What happens of this indictment is soon, imminent or is happening?

MAYO: What does happen? First of all, half of us, let's just say half of us, believe that he is a criminal, right? So, we have a criminal running for office. If you are one out of two Americans, you do not believe anything that the man has claimed to be true. And unfortunately, we are looking at a situation where we might have a convicted criminal running for office. Ask the right.

CAMEROTA: Yes. And your point, Mike, that might -- I mean, the people that you talk to, that would not be a deterrent?

BROOMHEAD: Again, the people I talk to, it would not be a deterrent. To your point a few moments ago, you said it's not about feelings. There are a lot of people in this country that believe that because of the Hunter Biden thing, that Joe Biden is a criminal. That doesn't make it true. That doesn't make him convictable. It doesn't mean that he shouldn't be the president of the United States.

I want -- again, from my point of view as a Republican, I want the truth. If the former president committed a crime, he should be punished for that crime. But I want evidence. I want to see it. With the grand jury, is it solely in the grand jury, that it is the prosecution that's giving evidence, and there is no defense.

CAMEROTA: You have heard the -- you have heard the --

BROOMHEAD: I'm not arguing that. Right. But I want to see that part of it. If it goes to trial, I want to see both sides. The American people deserve to see that. And then, let's come to conclusion as people. Not Republicans and Democrats but as citizens of this country.

CAMEROTA: And so, Harry, the special grand jury, we have these clues from the forewoman. So, now what? A different grand jury needs to be convened now?

LITMAN: Right. By Georgia law their only role, she needed them for some reason, but they cannot vote out an indictment. Now, there must be regular grand jury. There's good reason to think that grand jury won't meet until next month. [23:09:55]

But she can very quickly in fact through hearsay, as lawyers would say, bring an agent and summarize the report, give it to them, and ask the new grand jury for an indictment. That's the way it would work.

CAMEROTA: Okay. And then -- and let's -- let's just go down this road, then there is an indictment, and then how long this -- what is the next step and how long does that take?

LITMAN: Yeah, it's a great question. First, by the way, you know, every week brings a mind-bending unprecedented scenario with Donald Trump. This one, it's especially funky -- I think would be the legal term -- because you have a local D.A. indicting a former president.

Does that mean that after Biden has done someone from Oklahoma can do the same? There are a lot of embedded issues here. Even without them, he could go for a year before you really swear in a jury. With them, who knows? It might go to federal court. It is really a complicated sort of law school hypothetical.

The bottom line though is there is no constitutional reason why the president cannot run with an ankle bracelet and from jail. It's just crazy. But if the 32% stay with him, et cetera, and he becomes the nominee and he's a convicted criminal, that's what the framers had in mind.

MAYO: Unbelievable.

BROOMHEAD: What the Republicans are talking about, running with the candidates now, Nikki Haley in, the possibility of Ron DeSantis, the Republicans are not stupid. And if the president is up against those kinds of headwinds, well, they're not stupid. The Republicans are not stupid. And if they are up against those headwinds and they are supporters of Donald Trump, if they see this now, if he's convicted or looks like he's going to be convicted --

CAMEROTA: I mean, will be, we won't have time (ph). What you're saying -- certainly, there will be time for conviction.


CAMEROTA: You're saying the process will be underway.




LITMAN: I think that might be one reason DeSantis is waiting.

BROOMHEAD: And I think you'll see people -- at least they want to look for an alternative. Even if they're die-hard supporters --

LITMAN: Yeah. BROOMHEAD: -- you're not going to stick with a horse that can't win.

SHROFF: But how many times has that been said? Yes, in this case, we're talking about a criminal conviction. But, again and again, it has been said, you know, Republicans are going to stick with Trump if he does this, if this happens, if that happens. And I hate to, you know, disparage, but, you know, maybe they should all take the competency test.


BROOMHEAD: But take a look at the numbers. Look at how the numbers are going now where you're seeing a huge amount of support in the Republican Party for Ron DeSantis. I'm not currently predicting he's going to win anything. Nikki Haley is confident enough to jump in the race. They aren't doing that if they don't smell blood in the water, so to speak, that they think that they have a chance of winning against Donald Trump.

CAMEROTA: It's a good point. Thank you all very much. Great perspectives. Now this, Vanderbilt University reaching out to students after the deadly mass shooting last week in Michigan, and they are talking about caring for one another and promoting inclusivity. But there's something about their statement that is not sitting well with some students. We will tell you what, next.





CAMEROTA: See, I'm not going to do it. She is going to do it. After the mass shooting last week at Michigan State University, Vanderbilt University sent a note to try to soothe its students.

And that note read in part -- quote -- "In wake of the Michigan shootings, let us come together as a community to reaffirm our commitment to caring for one another and promoting a culture of inclusivity on our campus. By doing so, we can honor the victims of this tragedy and work towards a safer, more compassionate future for all"

We are back with Kierna Mayo, Mike Broomhead, Kaivan Shroff, and Harry Litman. So, Kierna, do you anything strange about that? I mean, just at first blush, would you notice if there was anything strange about that?

MAYO: Yes. I'm a writer, I'm a wordsmith. It's generic. There's no nuance. There is no tone. A tragedy has happened. I want the human touch right off the top.

CAMEROTA: So, you would -- you would sense that there was something kind of robotic -- MAYO: Absolutey.

CAMEROTA: -- about that?

MAYO: Absolutely.

CAMEROTA: Okay. I don't -- I wouldn't.

MAYO: I completely sensed it.

CAMEROTA: You did? You sensed there was something wrong. Mike, did you sense there was anything wrong there?

BROOMHEAD: No, I didn't. I'm with you, I didn't sense it. But knowing what happened, it's outrageous. But to your point, it would take an expert like you in order to be able to -- but I didn't see.

CAMEROTA: I didn't see it either. Kaivan, it turns out the ChatGPT, they farmed this out. The administration at Vanderbilt farmed this out to ChatGPT.

SHROFF: I think it's so offensive and incredibly ironic. I mean, you're talking about building culture and community and respect and emotion, and you're using a robot to do it because you don't want to take the five minutes to write a sincere message to students. I mean, I think it's ridiculous.

By the way, it may sound generic. I think, you know, at this point, we have a gun violence epidemic in the country, so it probably would sound generic even if a human wrote it. But they probably have many of those letters that they had sent. So, if they wanted to save the time, they certainly could've updated one of those. I find it an absolutely ludicrous choice.

CAMEROTA: Not even sure of the motivation. Harry, will they -- you know, it wasn't a time thing (ph), which is hard to believe because it was only something like four paragraphs --


CAMEROTA: -- or was it we have to get this right? You know, we have to get this right. Language is so dicey right now. Let's get the help of ChatGPT. It is hard to know.

LITMAN: My sense is they just want -- they are curious about ChatGPT. I actually feel the same about this as I hear about the last story. This is atrocious judgement. They really misbehaved. But ChatGPT, this is some scary stuff. You saw another story where like, you know, the ChatGPT is suddenly going weird and then asserting --


CAMEROTA: Yes. We interviewed that journalist where ChatGPT developed a crazy crush on a journalist.

LITMAN: That's right. And all you have to do is program that. I mean, there is a genuine question among serious A.I. scholars. Can they be programed? How in 2001 be a real scenario where they're looking to take over? The answer is not clearly no, I think, from people I was talking to.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Hold on. That was the Bing search engine that went -- that turned into a love craze. That was Bing search.


We talked to the journalist at "The New York Times." But here is what the students -- once this came to light and they figured out it was ChatGPT, you can imagine the students at Vanderbilt felt confused. And so, here is what one student said. I had friends on Michigan State University's campus in Berkey Hall the night of the shooting. No one expects an institution to comfort you after a tragedy. But you do expect them not to make it worse in a scramble to score PR points.

MAYO: Yeah, I think you actually do expect the university to comfort you after a tragedy. One, you give them a lot of money to take very good care of you. And two, we live in a crazy world. People have got to be nuanced and sensitive when things like this happen.

The one interesting thing to me though about that's happening with A.I. is the predictable loss of white-collar jobs, which is actually very level setting. Usually, when we think about innovation, we throw away working class jobs as though those people don't matter, as though those jobs don't -- those lives don't matter. And in this case, I think there's going to be a very different conversation when people like all of us have our actual jobs threatened.

CAMEROTA: We don't need P.R. people anymore if they're going to just spit out these types of letters --

MAYO: Exactly.

CAMEROTA: -- P.R. person that ChatGPT is coming for your job.

MAYO: Yeah. But the university should be ashamed.

BROOMHEAD: But there are so many things in life that have to be genuine. If you are going to give -- if you're the best man or the major matron of honor at a wedding and you're giving a speech, if you have to do a eulogy for a brother, and when you do something like that, the best thing you can do is have it be genuine.

When you're doing something like this with a tragedy like this, to have it not be from the heart and be robotic, it is a slap in the face. I think it says a lot to what the challenges are for ChatGPT and what they're facing in what the real word is, in motion, and can they convey that?

CAMEROTA: Yeah. I'm with harry. I just don't know that we would know this. If they --

LITMAN: They put the little thing in the bottom. CAMEROTA: They did. So, they -- I don't know if it was accidental

that they put that thing at the bottom that said by ChatGPT or if they wanted the students to see what it was? But if not, we wouldn't know that it was generated by that.

This is from the dean. I just want to get the dean's statement trying to explain this. The dean at Vanderbilt says, the development and distribution of the initial email did not follow Peabody's normal processes providing for multiple layers of review before being sent. The university's administrators, including myself, were unaware of the email before we sent. My office will conduct a complete review of the sequence of events that led to sending out this original email.

That is dean of Vanderbilt's Peabody College.

SHROFF: (INAUDIBLE) have ChatGPT like that?


SHROFF: I think, you know, the story about ChatGPT is also a story about higher education in America. And really, this perception which is often true that it really is about the bottom line and less and less about students and less and less about the education. So, you know, it's really a sad moment, I think, that really reflects a bigger picture.

BROOMHEAD: This is a bad P.R., if you talk about P.R. people. I have great P.R. people who work with me. That's their job. It is to make sure -- I do. I know I do. That is what I'm saying. We know that they vet things like that. They make sure that doesn't go out. The fact that that wasn't reviewed is just amazing to me at Vanderbilt University.

CAMEROTA: You're right. Condolence letters need to be written by humans.


CAMEROTA: It can never change. Here again, a year from now, this may not be a story. This may become commonplace and heaven forbid for all of us. Thank you, guys, very much. Okay, everyone, stay with me.

Just ahead, the Supreme Court is hearing cases that may tell us a lot about how to control social media and how it's affecting our society. Harry is going to put it in layman's terms for us because it can get complicated and he is going to explain it.




CAMEROTA: All right, the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments today in the first of two cases that could reshape how social media platforms handle free speech. The cases involve Google and Twitter. These are big questions that the court is tackling about which laws should regulate social media.

We're back with Kierna Mayo, Mike Broomhead, Kaivan Shroff, and Harry Litman. Harry, tell us how these cases in front of the Supreme Court will change our lives.

LITMAN: How they could? So, you ever do a Google search and it comes back and it is like your first-grade teacher and your favorite food -- how the hell did they know that? They know that because they use algorithms. They know what you have done before and they send it your way. They would say they're just trying to help you out, sort of curating.

That's independent input from Google. What the law says is, if you are just publishing something that a third party has said, you just put it up there, you don't have any liability. Here, Google did this and certain people from ISIS got the -- joint ISIS police, they did -- they killed the family member of someone and those people are suing.

What they're basically saying is the law that says you've got a clean past as long as you are just (INAUDIBLE) what somebody else said should not apply where they are contributing their own stuff to do the -- putting their own stuff to the party.

CAMEROTA: So, more accountability. That sounds good, right? More accountability for these platforms?

LITMAN: The nine people on the court, as Justice Kagan says, we are not internet experts. The real worry is that if you put it in, it could be (INAUDIBLE) by the door and all kinds of lawsuits. And they posed that question to the U.S. government and basically said it's true but (INAUDIBLE).


But the court is obviously concerned with a field day for lawsuits. I talked to people who were in the courtroom. They actually think Google is probably going to win this one, but the main thing that the court was thinking is this should be Congress's problem. We just don't know.

And they have got to fix this. Please don't bring this to us. And I think we are going to have another case tomorrow. It's slightly different. But that, the final opinion, I think, will reflect that kind of Congress, this is your job.


SHROFF: Yeah, I think to that point, I consider the nine people deciding this, they are not digital natives. Actually, the nonprofit I'm involved with, the Institute for Education, we did an event. We had Megan Smith, the former CTO, and Justice Breyer (ph) and talked about, you know, how do the justices stay up to date with innovation and technology. They really do draw from so many sources.

But I think, still, when you're not online every day, you're not on T Twitter, you're not understanding sort of the vitriol that can come at you. It is really different. And it is funny here because I think there's a lot of support on both sides for diminishing this Section 230 for really polar opposite reasons, which is that Democrats want to hold social media companies accountable for failing to moderate hate and disinformation and Republicans want to punish them for moderating that stuff.

So, they come up with the same answer to very different sort of agenda items. So, it's interesting to watch.

CAMEROTA: You just mentioned Section 230. Here's what it is. It's a legal shield that protects platforms from legal liability from content provided by third parties. Platforms have immunity for moderating content as they see fit.

Kierna, we've all seen the downside of this. The algorithms feed you often pernicious, dangerous stuff. And I think of teenage girls. Teenagers who are fed on anorexia content and it makes them sicker.

MAYO: It is very complex subject. But really, there is a problem when the internet, in and of itself, causes harm. First of all, this is only happening -- this has only come because somebody's child was killed. You send your child to Paris on vacation. You think your child is coming home. You don't think your child is going to be a victim of ISIS because someone has been radicalized by the internet.

I think we just have to be real about the impact overall that the internet has. And we have gone way too long allowing these major companies to have a pass and not claim that they are publishers. They are publishers. You are held to a standard. "The New York Times" is held to a standard. Every other publisher is held to particular standards except the internet. There has got to be some give there.

BROOMHEAD: My only concern is who defines hate? And what is going to happen for your business and what you do if there is another group of people that get to define hate? Is this now going to be a challenge to our First Amendment rights?

And you are obviously better at speaking to this than I am, but, you know, a lot of people -- I have a lot of hate come my way on social media because of what I do. But at the same time, I have a right to speak and no one has ever challenged my right to speak.

My concern would be that it would get to that point. That somebody would say that what I am saying is hateful and dangerous and I would be shut down. I think that is a huge concern, maybe, down the road.

CAMEROTA: I'm not saying it's not complicated. I'm just saying that -- I mean, I hope that Congress can tackle this. Harry, let's look at the other case.


CAMEROTA: So, as I understand it, the Supreme Court this week will be hearing another issue. This one revolves around the mother of a 10- year-old who died after seeing and then I guess doing the blackout challenge on TikTok. She tried it on herself. And here is the mother of this girl who, again, was 10 years old, was on CBS this morning. Let's listen to this.


TAWAINNA ANDERSON, MOTHER OF NYLAH: They are actually feeding it to our children. They are sending them videos that they never even searched before. She was the life of my life. She was smart. She was caring. She was a star. She was my butterfly. She was everything --



CAMEROTA: It's awful, and there are obviously real-life consequences to all of these things.

LITMAN: These are super tragic stories. This one went the other way. And so, it might give the court some options for sort of middle ground. But basically, Google wants to say, we are a huge newsstand. And they want to say, you're choosing to make this magazine about blackout or ISIS and put it in front. And when you do that, you have lost the sort of neutrality that is the assumption behind 230. It's tricky, tricky, tricky issue. They say, we are a newsstand. Others say, you are a publisher, get real.

CAMEROTA: But what about what Mike says? Will it curtail free speech? It has the possibility of curtailing free speech.


LITMAN: Yeah, of course, Congress -- you know, Congress just said, you are okay if you are just channeling. That's not a free speech issue. But if you get to this point where people are getting sued, I mean, that's what "The New York Times" settlement is about. If you do things that are for free speech reasons and people can sue you, yeah, that's a problem.

The justices were wrangling with that. The lawyer from Google was saying this in the justices came back, I don't know if I have to buy your whole parade to the other way. But, to your point, they are really struggling. They are human and they are old. By and large, they are not -- you know. My kids go circles around me and could get that very thing. That's what they're dealing with.

CAMEROTA: Yeah. To your point, (INAUDIBLE).

SHROFF: And I think people keep pointing out, you know, the court is worried about this like sort of floodgates of litigation opening up. That is one consideration but it certainly shouldn't be, I think, the main consideration on this.

Another point people keep saying, Section 230, the internet could've got off the ground without it. But I think it's fair to say, you know, the internet is doing okay. I don't think that those examples are necessarily good justification, so I'm very curious to see what the outcome would be.

LITMAN: Tune in tomorrow. We can all listen to it. It's very interesting.

CAMEROTA: Oh, that's what you are here for.


LITMAN: Just inviting.

CAMEROTA: That's exactly what we're doing. Thank you all. Stick with us, everyone. Who would like to work a four-day work week? We are going to tell you who's doing it and what the data shows and how it's working.




CAMEROTA: Okay, everybody, imagine working four-day week but still getting 100% of your pay. It's not a dream, it's happening. So, how is it going? We're back with our panel.

Okay, here is what they did to figure out if this would work, guys. This was a pilot program in the U.K. and they basically did at 61 companies. There were almost 3,000 workers who took part. It was a six-month trial. As I said, they got 100% of their pay for 80% of the time. Okay? And it went really well. They all really liked it.

In terms of productivity, they said that they got 100% of the output. Basically, here's how they rated it. They said 92% of the organizations will continue, want to continue doing this four-day work week and everybody agrees. The overall experience out of a 10 was an 8.3.

The business performance and productivity was at 7.5 on a scale of 10. Revenue went up, they claimed, 35% at the 61 companies. The number of staff leaving during that time went down 57% compared to similar periods from previous years.

Why aren't we all doing this? To we need any more evidence?

MAYO: I said you'll hear me at four days (ph) like this won't close the segment over.


MAYO: It is curious that productivity was down and revenue was up.

CAMEROTA: Wait, productivity -- business performance and productivity are at 7.5. That is how they rate themselves. So, productivity, I think, they would say is --

MAYO: I thought you said it was down.

CAMEROTA: No, the number of staffs leaving went down --


CAMEROTA: -- and productivity, I think, they say it went up. And happiness went up. We'll get to that in a second.

LITMAN: Here is the most interesting finding of the study. The men there round up spending much more time in childcare, in their own child care. Not household work. But the men in the study did --

CAMEROTA: More time with their families, their kids.

LITMAN: The real thing. That was a really remarkable thing. That whole social good, right?


MAYO: Mothers in particular have always needed that extra day. There's a lot of juggling, in addition to the job. The job always gets done. So, what we were saying at break is that for most of us, eight- hour days is really 10-hour days anyway. So, you are putting in the time. The work is going to happen. But this opportunity to wash clothes on Friday afternoon --

CAMEROTA: Anything.

MAYO: Yes.

CAMEROTA: Going to grocery stores is also delicious.

MAYO: Yes.

CAMEROTA: It sounds fantastic! Here's what, according to the employees, what their feelings are now. Ninety percent of them want to continue, 73% felt greater satisfaction in the lives, 71% had reduction in the levels of burnout, 62% easier work life balance, of course, 55% increase in their ability at work, 54% reduction in negative emotions, 46% reduction in fatigue, 43% improvement in mental health, 40% reduction in sleep difficulties, less stress.

We are in this mental health crisis and we are all wondering. What are we supposed to do about it, Mike? And then it turns out a four-day work week might solve some of this.

BROOMHEAD: We did this. I was in construction for years and had my own electrical contracting company. We would do these on job sites for efficiency because you have 20 guys on the job, everybody gets there in the morning, there is a roll out time, at the end of the day, there is a roll out time, and you eliminate one of those days. It was for efficiency.

We didn't realize that all of those things are going to happen. They really liked it. They wanted Friday off until Monday morning, and they wish they had Monday off.


The idea of having a three-day work week or a three-day weekend motivates people to get the job done. In the four days, they want you to keep doing it. And you're right, all of that happened as a byproduct of what we thought it was going to be.

CAMEROTA: Kaivan, why aren't we doing this everywhere?

SHROFF: First of all, (INAUDIBLE) pilot program (INAUDIBLE) really will drive home the point that America should be doing these experiments with policy.


That's our bread and butter and I'd love to see more of it. I do think it's worth pointing out, you know, when we talk about a four-day work week for who? Because we saw with the pandemic, of course, you know, a certain secretary of the labor market did have all the flexibility of remote work and not commuting and more time at home with kids, but, of course, our nurses, our frontline workers were working harder than others.

So, you know, how do we deliver sort of the future of work to everybody in a way that's sustainable instead of really further segment the workforce where you have all these people that do get to have all this quality time and enjoy their work environment, and everyone else gets left behind. So, I think that should be part of the conversation.

CAMEROTA: Well, we need more nurses and teachers. We just do.

SHROFF: Right.

CAMEROTA: To have a four-day work --

SHROFF: Absolutely.

CAMEROTA: And just in life we need more. All right, well, I feel that we have decided that this is a great idea.

MAYO: And A.I. will take care of the rest.


CAMEROTA: Yes. So, I guess I won't be seeing you guys tomorrow. We'll see how that works. Thank you, guys, very much. Now to this, if you fly with your kids, you're going to want to hear about this, United Airlines making a big change to its family seating policy. I don't really understand why they ever had this policy, but we are going to talk about how it is changing now for your next travel.




CAMEROTA: Okay, (INAUDIBLE), everyone. Good news for parents, flying together as a family is about to get easier and possibly cheaper. United Airlines will now let families with children under 12 book seats together free of charge. How about that? The policy comes with basic economy tickets, but not with economy plus or first class. It should go into effect in the next few weeks.

Back with me, we have Kierna, Mike, Kaivan, and Harry. Guys, I'm very bummed because I used to like a random stranger having to take care of my kids.


CAMEROTA: How is this not a policy? How are you supposed to be separated from your children in a different row, Mike?

BROOMHEAD: And who is the person that says --

LITMAN: I want to stay with your kids.

CAMEROTA: I don't get it.

SHROFF: I'm happy for families. I'm happy for everyone else on the plane. I love kids, but not on a plane.

BROOMHEAD: You don't want babysitting by your side (ph).

CAMEROTA: Three kids in the front of the plane. I don't understand how this ever wasn't a policy.

MAYO: Yeah.

BROOMHEAD: Isn't it interesting now that this has become a benefit?

MAYO: Yes.

BROOMHEAD: One of their first.


LITMAN: -- origin is the state of the union. I think there is some staffer who (INAUDIBLE) and whoever thought of this. Now, we've been elevated three times, what a great idea.

CAMEROTA: Here is that moment.

LITMAN: State of the union and changed the world.

CAMEROTA: Here is this moment of import. Here you go.


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We are making airlines show you the full ticket price upfront. Refund your money if your flight is canceled or delayed. We will prohibit airlines from charging $50 round trip for families just to be able to sit together. Baggage fees are bad enough. Airlines can't treat your child like a piece of baggage.


CAMEROTA: He was passionate about it.

LITMAN: Then there is Ukraine, but, you know --


SHROFF: But in fairness, they want to blame Pete Buttigieg for every traffic jam in the country, but he has been pushing this policy since July, so credit where it is due.

CAMEROTA: Is that right? But taking away all this hidden airline fees.

SHROFF: We have a family policy.

CAMEROTA: The family policy?


CAMEROTA: I don't -- I'm astonished. I guess I have just been coughing up the extra $50 and not knowing because my kids are always with me.

MAYO: Yeah. I think we always assume that is what it was, but this is also an interesting pivot considering engines are pulling out of planes while they are in the air. It is another thing to talk about.


MAYO: All the way together.

CAMEROTA: No, I agree, I'm much more concerned about the near misses --

MAYO: Yeah.

CAMEROTA: It seemed to be happening at various airports. I would like them to get that. Whatever the system is, that means upgrading. I would like them to focus on that, for sure, even more important than this. But I'm just happy that families can now sit together without $50.

BROOMHEAD: And how quickly the other airlines are going to have to follow. There is no way that they're going to be able to sustain this after this has happened.

MAYO: Bringing back state -- where is (INAUDIBLE) when you need them? You kind of bring it all back.

BROOMHEAD: We do not do that.

MAYO: There needs to be a dress code.

BROOMHEAD: We can't have that. I am in pajamas on an airplane.

CAMEROTA: Are you? Really? Like a three-year-old? You show up like a three-year-old?

BROOMHEAD: Sweatpants, shoes you don't have to tie, I'm as lazy as can be on a plane.


BROOMHEAD: No, no, no. Never, ever, ever. When you have to clear security, I don't want to tie my shoes when it is over.



LITMAN: Smart.


CAMEROTA: That was great. But back to Kierna's point, something is going -- I don't want to say something is going wrong with airlines, there have been concerning things with airlines that I would like them to focus on now, now that we have got this taken care of --


CAMEROTA: Yes. I would like them to stop the near misses and planes accidentally landing on top of one another. Things like that.

LITMAN: Right. And the extra fees they charge you for the excitement --

CAMEROTA: You fly constantly?

LITMAN: Exactly.

CAMEROTA: Is it pleasant or unpleasant?

LITMAN: I really hate flying, but flying with kids is a special kind of torture for everyone else. So, the reason that surprised me, who doesn't let your kids sit with you? You know, they want to -- they want to let your kids sit with you.


CAMEROTA: Yeah, it is overdue.



SHROFF: Yes. Actually, my family just flew to India this weekend. I have to tell you, I'm not envious of their travel journey. It ended up being like 17 hours, multiple planes. Just sounds like a disaster to be traveling right now, got to tell you.

CAMEROTA: Have you done that flight?

SHROFF: Not as bad as that, no. Usually, direct. The way to go to India.

CAMEROTA: All right, guys, thank you very much. Really fun to have all of you here tonight. Really appreciate all the different perspectives. Thanks so much for joining us. Great to see you. I will be back tomorrow because I am working a five-day week at the moment. And our coverage continues now.