Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

Top Trump Intel Officials Brief Senate Committee On Threats To U.S.; Some Republicans Downplay War Chat Mistake, Others Express Concern; Top U.S. Intel Officials Testify Amid War plans Group Chat Fallout; Zelenskyy Confirms Deal For Black Sea "Free Navigation"; Haitian, Venezuelan Migrants In U.S. Sue To Keep Protected Status; "Cannamoms" try To Erase Stigma Of Pot Use. Aired 12:10-1p ET

Aired March 25, 2025 - 12:10   ET

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

[12:10:35]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: All right. You've been listening to a very feisty first annual threat assessment report from top intelligence

officials of the Trump administration. Obviously, this had been a long planned report and briefing before members of the Senate.

But, of course, it's coinciding just hours after that bombshell revelation of a very serious security lapse where top government officials of the

highest levels were reportedly planning a strike on Yemen over an encrypted app called Signal and had inadvertently invited a journalist from "The

Atlantic," Jeffrey Goldberg, into the chat. His reporting about this incident has shocked Washington, has shocked the world.

And what has been very interesting in hearing this hearing from these top security officials is how they, I don't know how else to sum it up, but

they sought to downplay the severity and the implications of this breach.

I want to go to CNN's Evan Perez, who's been listening from Washington, D.C. And Evan, we heard from DNI Director, Tulsi Gabbard, as well as CIA

Director John Ratcliffe. John Ratcliffe did acknowledge when asked that he was indeed on this chat.

When Tulsi Gabbard was initially asked, she would not respond and thus became a very heated exchange between many members of the Senate,

particularly Democrats and these top intelligence officials. Fill us in on what stood out to you.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR U.S. JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, just the evasiveness of the answers really, really strains credulity, right? I mean,

the idea that -- you saw there near the end with Senator Ossoff from Georgia who tried to bring it down to sort of like the basics, right? Is it

possible for an adversary to perhaps reposition their air defenses when U.S. military members are about to attack? And if they know that

information ahead of time, would that be a bad thing?

Those were finally some good questions because it really kind of nailed that these -- some of these witnesses to actually have to admit some of the

problems here.

The idea that they are all saying that there is no classified information here, I think there might be some kind of a technical thing that is going

on, which is, you heard a little bit of it from John Ratcliffe, the CIA director. He is pointing to Pete Hegseth, who is a defense secretary. He's

the one that was sharing details of when the strike would happen and so on in Yemen.

And what he points out is that Pete Hegseth is what's known as an original classification authority, meaning, that he is capable of declassifying

information. And so it appears -- it appears that that's where they're going to go over the next few days as they try to explain this away.

It appears what they're going to do is say that Pete Hegseth is the defense secretary. And so when he shared this information, he could have

declassified it personally himself and then decided that that was safe to share. And, you know, that might be the way that they get out of this

problem from a -- from a legal standpoint.

Because as you can see also from Kash Patel, the FBI director, he is not prepared to really answer any questions about whether the FBI is going to

investigate this. I think you and I both -- you guys both know that if it was someone else who were on -- who was on this -- on this signal chain and

had shared these types of -- this type information, these types of details of a military strike that was coming, they would -- there would be

consequences.

They would probably be investigated, almost certainly be investigated. They might lose their jobs. Certainly, their security clearance might be in

danger.

But because of the level of the people on this chain who were, you know, the national security advisor, the CIA director, the Director of National

Intelligence, because they're so high level, it is possible they're going to get away with -- without any consequences, certainly from the White

House, from the way the White House is handling this.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. This was labeled a principles committee chat. And as you noted --

PEREZ: Right.

GOLODRYGA: -- these are the highest levels of government officials from the vice president on down. It was the national security adviser, Mike Waltz,

who reportedly had been the one who inadvertently invited Jeffrey Goldberg of "The Atlantic" to join this chat group.

[12:15:04]

And the president spoke with him this morning, and at least for now, is sticking by him saying that he learned his lesson and that therein ends any

particular consequences that he may face as of now, but still so many questions to be answered.

PEREZ: Right. One more thing. I mean, can you believe, you know, I'm sure you guys had your mouth agape, right, when they asked Ratcliffe. This was a

colossal screw-up, and he said no. And come on, mean, are you insane? Is that -- is that -- I mean, are we watching the same thing? Are we reading

the same thing? It's just, that's hard to believe.

GOLODRYGA: That was the most animated I've ever seen Michael Bennet, side note. The man ran for president. And I have never seen him as heated as

about that.

ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: It is not -- it's not just Michael Bennet, because as Bianna pointed out, even Donald Trump is sticking by Mike Waltz, and

essentially saying that, you know, this is -- this was a glitch. And it wasn't necessarily a serious one. So it's not just the people in that room,

the senators who are questioning the intelligence officials. It's also coming from the White House as well.

Evan Perez, live for us there, thank you so much.

PEREZ: Thank you.

ASHER: I want to bring in our chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst, John Miller, who's been listening to this as well.

I mean, a lot of people -- a lot of the senators who are posting the questions, John, were essentially saying that it is absolutely mind-

boggling that you had a journalist in the middle of a grocery store parking lot reading these messages on Signal.

And very sensitive information when it comes to, you know, targets that the U.S. were going to attack in Yemen, targeting Houthi rebels. Just walk us

through what stood out to you about the way in which the intelligence officials, be it Tulsi Gabbard or Ratcliffe, the way in which they defended

themselves here.

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, I would start off by saying that their inability to answer extraordinarily

simple direct questions with a simple direct answer and engaged in the most torturous parsing of the English language to avoid saying yes or no and

giving a real answer, you know, bordered on deliberate obfuscation at best, at worst, on deception.

I mean you have things that were clearly classified by any reasonable standard where you have the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi

Gabbard, who has no national security experience prior to being put in charge of the entire apparatus, saying there was nothing classified there.

You have the CIA director, who is a serious person and former member of Congress, saying that there was no classified intelligence information. And

as Evan pointed out, if it was classified Defense Department information, it's still classified. So he's sidestepping saying, well, we weren't giving

the intel part.

It was, on any level, a little bit embarrassing. And I say that as a former member of the intelligence community, embarrassing to me that officials

would play these games, especially the official who, in a normal circumstance, would be in charge of investigating how intelligence

components did this.

The Director of National Intelligence who probably won't be in charge of investigating it because she was a part of it.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the fact that these principles should have all known better than to even engage in this type of high-level private secret and

highly classified conversation over a chat is one thing, even something that's encrypted like Signal because, John, and if you can explain to our

viewers, while it is safer than most other chat platforms, it's actually the device that someone is using it on that raises a lot of questions

because if a device is actually compromised, then it doesn't matter what encrypted app you're using it on.

And we now know that Steve Witkoff, who was also on this chat group, was in Moscow, of all places, while he was communicating with this group about

this impending strike on Yemen. And Tulsi Gabbard just said that she was out of the country as this was happening as well. Talk about the risk from

that vantage point.

MILLER: Well, Bianna, you hit the nail on the head, which is let's take it in three component pieces. Number one, Signal. A December 18th memorandum

from the Department Homeland Security, CISA, the people who were in charge of infrastructure security and cyber stuff for DHS, basically told

government officials switch to encrypted apps, apps like Signal for confidential government business. That did not mean classified business,

because Signal is well encrypted and very secure.

But as you already know, adversaries like China and Russia spend all of their time working on the open source code, looking for that tiny

vulnerability, that back door, that side door. And once they compromise it, they don't call Signal and said, we found a hole in your fence. They start

exploiting it.

[12:20:06]

So we know Signal is pretty secure, we don't know what other foreign adversaries have already compromised it and are collecting from it.

But your main point is true. We also know that China, under the Volt Typhoon program, has compromised entire computer systems, entire computer

networks, entire telephonic networks, so that they basically can own the devices.

And as you point out, if you have them in your device and you're using a secure app, but they're in that device looking over your shoulder at every

keystroke, the security of the app won't matter.

GOLODRYGA: Which is why when typically these meetings are had in person behind closed doors in a SCIF, everybody involved leaves their phones, even

their smart watches, all of their devices outside of the room.

John Miller, great to see you. Thank you.

ASHER: Thank you, John.

MILLER: You too.

ASHER: Appreciate it.

All right. Earlier today, Donald Trump told NBC that his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, is a good man and has learned his lesson. Let's go

straight now to the White House for more reaction. CNN's Alayna Treene joins us.

So he didn't just say that he'd learned his lesson and that he was a good man. He also said that this is the only glitch that we've seen in two

months. And from his perspective, it turned out not to be a serious one because from Donald Trump's perspective, the strike still went ahead. So

that's why he thinks it wasn't a serious glitch necessarily.

Is this the reaction that we expected from Donald Trump, Alayna?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: You know, it's hard to say. I do - - I can tell you from my conversations with people who are close to the president that behind closed doors he was, of course, frustrated with this.

I was told that when he was briefed on what had happened that he repeatedly expressed his disdain for the reporter. I should note that he has a

personal dislike of this reporter going back several years now. All to say that what he is saying publicly is not necessarily what he is saying behind

closed doors.

However, I also heard repeatedly, and this was even yesterday in the -- in the immediate aftermath of this story being published, was that a lot of

people thought that know, the calls that potentially Michael Waltz, of course, was the one that the reporter Jeffrey Goldberg said added him and

created this group chat on Signal that reports that he might be fired or he would be the one to take the fall and he was on the chopping block were too

premature, that this would have to play out over a series of days.

And we did see that today with the president's direct reaction. Again, as you mentioned him saying that he learned a lesson, he's a good man. The

only glitch in two months. I think there -- this is still the beginning though of this process. And we have to really see how this story evolves,

just as someone who has covered this president for several years now.

He is someone who will be watching this media attention very carefully. He's going to be watching the fallout of this very carefully. And so things

could change in the coming days.

But what is very clear at this point in time is that the White House has begun to develop a deliberate strategy here. And we've seen it play out

starting last night. The strategy is essentially to really downplay what was being discussed on that Signal chain, to downplay the idea that this

reporter was inadvertently added to this Signal chain, and also deny that there was any sort of classified information.

And then separately as well, getting to my point before, try and disparage and criticize the reporter. And that's what we've again seen play out.

Yesterday, we heard the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, say that there were no war plans that were discussed in this chat.

Today, we heard directly from White House Press Secretary -- White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt. She said, no war plans were discussed.

She said, there was no classified material on the thread. You heard both John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard say that as well during this hearing.

All to say, you can see the narrative that they are shaping on this. Of course, though, there are so many questions of, you know, the sensitive

nature of this, whether there actually might have been classified information. We've heard from Goldberg himself saying that Hegseth was

lying when he said that there were no war plans discussed.

So this is not the end of the road. I do suspect there are going to be investigations, whether there are Capitol investigations or different

agencies are going to be looking into this. We'll see what comes from that.

But as of now, from the president's standpoint, he's kind of doing the same thing we're seeing many of his top aides do, which is trying to downplay

this and contain this, even though, of course, behind closed doors, the message might be a little bit different.

ASHER: All right. Thank you for clarifying that. That is one thing. Trump says one thing, obviously, in front of reporters, but obviously behind

closed doors, he appeared to be very frustrated about this particular leak.

Alayna Treene, live for us there. Thank you so much. We'll be right back with more after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:17]

ASHER: All right. Welcome back to ONE WORLD. I'm Zain Asher.

GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga.

We have breaking news to bring you from the U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia. The White House says Ukraine and Russia have agreed to ensure safe

navigation in the Black Sea. And Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says, the deal means that the U.S. and Russia will stop using military

force in the Black Sea.

ASHER: Yes. This after a U.S. delegation met separately with Russian- Ukrainian officials in Riyadh, the White House's statement says a Black Sea agreement was the goal of both meetings.

CNN's Clare Sebastian joins us live now from with the details. So, Clare, just walk us through it. So we know that a deal has been reached to ensure

safety and to eliminate the use of force in the Black Sea. What more can you tell us?

CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think the word detail is the key word here, Zain. I think what we've got is that the White House has

pulled together something that they've managed to get both sides to sign on to on paper, but with the Russian side, as we've gotten used to over the

past few weeks of talks, it is a yes, but.

So what we have here from the White House, they've put out two readouts, two separate readouts, one from the talks of the Ukrainian side, one from

the talks with the Russian side.

They are almost identical, both sides have agreed, they say to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial

vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea. And they've also agreed to develop measures for implementing an agreement to ban strikes against the

energy facilities of both Russia and Ukraine.

Now, each side has something separate in the agreement, a concession or a set of concessions of sorts. On the Ukrainian side, it's about the U.S.

remaining committed, they say, to help achieving the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civilian detainees, and the return of forcibly

transferred Ukrainian children.

And on the Russian side, it says the U.S. will help, this is a key word, will help restore Russia's access to the world market for agricultural

fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.

[12:30:12]

Now, when we get into the detail, the Kremlin readout of this that has just come out, the Kremlin response to this, is very telling. They are saying

that the ceasefire will not come into force until essentially they have sanctions relief.

So reconnecting the Russian Agricultural Bank and other banks that are involved in these transactions to the SWIFT network. You remember one of

the original very crucial sanctions that was put in by the West at the beginning of the full-scale invasion was disconnecting Russian banks from

the SWIFT international payments network.

We know that this has been an irritant for Russia as it continues to try to export its goods. There are other sanctions relief that they're calling

for, including lifting restrictions on servicing ships in ports and sanctions on ships under the Russian flag involved in the trade in food,

lifting restrictions on the supply of agricultural machinery to the Russian Federation.

So this is where you get the yes, but. President Zelenskyy, in a press conference this afternoon, has said that he believes, the U.S. believes,

that this cessation of violence comes into force as soon as these readouts came out from the White House. But on the Russian side, they are saying

that this does not come into force until they get that sanctions relief.

So, you know, on paper, a step forward here, this kind of partial ceasefire that the U.S. has been working towards. But when it comes to the detail, we

don't know exactly when it comes into force. We don't know exactly how it's going to be monitored. And we don't know exactly, Zelenskyy was open about

this. What happens if this is violated?

So they are continuing, they say, to work towards more talks on top of this and eventually, of course, some kind of durable peace deal. But this raises

a lot of questions at this stage.

ASHER: Clare Sebastian, live for us there. Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Our next guest, Evelyn Farkas, served as the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasians. Now the

Executive Director of the McCain Institute. Evelyn, it's good to see you.

So on paper, at least you have some sort of headline that it seems the United States was really eager to put out here. There's a lot of detail

left to be written in, though, and different interpretations allow for different results as to how Ukraine and, most notably, Russia view whatever

this deal is.

It is interesting to see President Zelenskyy calling out what he views as a weakening of sanctions on the part of the United States in allowing it to

help facilitate Russia's agricultural exports.

I'm just wondering your views on that is now the time to even think about lifting sanctions. And can the U.S. do that alone without Europe?

EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: So, Bianna, I'll take your last question first. The United States can do that

alone without Europe, but actually the real bite in the sanctions happens when Europe is involved. And I suspect that the Europeans will not go along

with lifting any sanctions.

Now to the other questions, the reality here is, this is why President Biden didn't engage in this kind of diplomacy with Russia because you see,

they are already questioning this very limited agreement saying, it's not coming into effect yet until they get sanctions relief.

So, you know, the Russians negotiate like this. They drag things out. And the other point I have to make is that, you know, we started last week

talking about a 30-day global, you know, ceasefire on all strikes. And now they've gotten to a very limited agreement on energy and the Black Sea.

ASHER: And when it comes to just the level of trust, I mean, obviously one of the key issues for Zelenskyy, and it was one of the things that he

brought up during that famous sort of oval office incident just about a month ago, was the fact that there is such little trust towards Russia by

the Ukrainians.

They have broken agreements in the past. They haven't stuck to agreements in the past. Just walk us through how that aspect of it, the level of trust

and the assumption that Russia is constantly trying to manipulate or delay, for example. How does -- how does that aspect of it get overcome here?

FARKAS: Well, Zain, the Russians have a long track record of breaking their agreements. I mean, they've broken a bunch of conventional, you know,

military agreements when I was in the Pentagon and then also, of course, all kinds of arms control agreements.

And we know that when we try to negotiate in the early phase of the war, so from 2014 to, you know, 2018 or so with the Russians to bring an end to

this war in Ukraine that they started, they also broke their agreements. That was the so-called Minsk agreement process.

So there's a long track record, Russia and this Kremlin is not to be trusted. And unfortunately, we see the administration appear to be willing

to give them concessions without seeing action first on the part of the Russians to meet the agreements that they have made.

[12:35:07]

GOLODRYGA: Have you seen anything? And again, this is -- this is new, so we just got reports on this moments ago, so apologies if we're just throwing

this at you.

But there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for enforcement or repercussions if either party breaks the ceasefire deal. Without that, how serious of a

deal is it really?

FARKAS: Right. I mean, this is the problem. You need to have a verification. You need to have enforcement. And the Ukrainians have come

out now and they're saying that, you know, it should be as of now, the agreement should be enforced. The Russians are saying, no, no, we need to

work out the details and we need the sanctions removed. So there is a disconnect.

These details should be worked out at the negotiating table. But that's why you have a lot of work done behind the scenes before you call in the big

negotiators. And I suspect that that work wasn't done.

ASHER: And based on what we've seen so far, I mean, obviously, there is an agreement in place to eliminate the use of force in the Black Sea. So that

is just a start. Are you optimistic that this is just the starting point in terms of getting to eventually a lasting, durable ceasefire agreement?

FARKAS: I am not optimistic at all because I think that Vladimir Putin thinks that time is on his side. And because time is becoming shorter,

because President Trump wants a peace deal almost at any cost, it seems, I mean, at least in terms of his commentary, President Trump is very eager.

And the eagerness to have this agreement is playing into Russia's hands. And that does not make me optimistic, because Russia now would like to have

a peace on its own terms. So they're trying to control the timeline.

They want to get the Kursk region back so that Ukraine doesn't have that territory, which is Russian territory, as a negotiating chip. The Russians

believe that they can outlast the Ukrainians at least for a little while.

I believe that they are, however, tired and there are economic reasons to believe that Russia can't last forever. So Russia's just trying to

calibrate this and use President Trump's eagerness to the advantage of the Kremlin.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we're hearing reports President Zelenskyy saying that he will ask President Trump for more weapons and new Russian sanctions if

Moscow does break this at least limited ceasefire in the future. We'll see how the White House responds to those requests.

Evelyn Farkas, thank you so much.

ASHER: Thank you, Evelyn.

All right. Still to come, we take a closer look at court fights to help Haitians and Venezuelans living in the U.S. keep their protected status.

Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SERAFINA ADAMS, ATTENDEE, ST. LOUIS CANNAMOMS GAME NIGHT: Moms that smoke weed should be just as acceptable as moms that drink wine. It should be,

you know, something that is exactly the same.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Moms who choose weed over wine, not a headline we say every day on this show. Why they say pot use is making them better moms. We'll have

that story, just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:40:31]

GOLODRYGA: Happening later today, we're expecting a hearing in U.S. District Court in Boston in the case of a Haitian advocacy group suing the

Trump administration.

ASHER: Yes. It's one of several organizations trying to block a decision by the Homeland Security Department to end temporary protected status for

Haitian and Venezuelan migrants living in the U.S.

They had been allowed to work in the U.S. because of economic and security crises in their home countries.

GOLODRYGA: The revocation of that status is the latest move by the U.S. president to crack down on immigration.

ASHER: All right. Time now for The Exchange. Joining us live now is Mirian Albert. She's an attorney with Lawyers for Civil Rights, which is

challenging the Trump administration.

Mirian, thank you so much for being with us. I think it's important for our viewers to know that Haiti was first designated as a temporary protected

status because of the earthquake that we saw back in 2010, but it has been re-designated multiple times ever since that point in time.

Just explain to us what these migrants risk if they are forced to return to their home countries, particularly the Haitian migrants.

MIRIAN ALBERT, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Sure. So thank you so much for having me. And like you said earlier in March, my office, Lawyers for Civil

Rights, filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the federal government's unlawful attempt to strip TPS protections from thousands of Venezuelan and

Haitian immigrants.

And in the instance of Haitian TPS holders in particular, many of them have had TPS status for over close to two decades now, many of them, and they

have built homes here. They have bought homes. They have had U.S. born children who weren't citizens, obviously, and they have also opened

businesses.

They're fully integrated in many aspects of society. And now, they may be forced to return to Haiti, a country that is still in political turmoil,

where there is continuous violence, their health and really political system has completely collapsed. And all of these people would be in

complete danger if they were forced to return to Haiti.

GOLODRYGA: So aside from canceling the immigration protections and work permits for these Haitians, in particular, that are here in the United

States, what if anything do you know is the Trump administration's policy regarding Haiti right now?

ALBERT: Well, talking specifically about Temporary Protected Status, it would include the ability to be protected or not be at risk of deportation.

And then along with that, the work authorization that is too many TPS holders.

And so, you know, being forced to or moving this type of protection from TPS holders will put families at risk or at imminent risk of being deported

of having to separate from their families. For example, parents who have had children here in the U.S. Many of them don't want to force their

children to move to Haiti because of the dangers that await them in Haiti.

And so many of them are faced with a difficult decision of whether or not, you know, they will separate their family and what that will mean for them

in the future.

ASHER: A lot of people who are questioning this move by the Trump administration say that there is a racist element to this. Guerline Jozef,

who's the executive director of the advocacy group, Haitian Bridge Alliance, said that, let's be clear, this is a war on poor black and brown

people in the United States who dare to seek safety. These families have followed the rules. Now they are being told that they are no longer

welcome.

Do you agree that there is potentially a racist element to this?

ALBERT: Yes. I mean, that is an aspect of the lawsuit that we also filed. We allege an equal protection claim and we draw based or make this argument

based on many of the statements that were made both by President Trump and Secretary Noem, many times referring to Venezuelan immigrants as criminals,

which we all know is a racist trope, right, of saying that people of color or immigrants are equal to or similar to criminals.

And similarly, there has been statements been made, statements have been made against Haitian immigrants, particularly or most notably, most

recently, we can point to the statements made by President Trump saying that Haitian immigrants eat cats and dogs or eat pets.

[12:45:04]

And so those are some of the things that we outline in our complaint and that other complaints also challenging TPS protections have also drawn on.

GOLODRYGA: Just make it clear for our viewers, what are the legal rights that these Haitian immigrants have here in the United States right now?

ALBERT: Sure. So people who have TPS protections, as I mentioned earlier, will be protected from deportation. That is exactly what the TPS statute

says. In addition to that, they are able to obtain work authorization, and this enables them to be able to integrate into society by being able to

find employment. And many times, like I said, many people will form their family here, build home, I mean, buy homes. And so those are some of the

things that are offered to TPS holders.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Mirian Albert -- Mirian Albert we'll continue to be following this story closely. Thank you so much.

ASHER: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, an Oscar-winning Palestinian filmmaker has been released from Israeli custody after being held overnight. Hamdan Ballal was

allegedly beaten up by Israeli settlers outside his home in the West Bank on Monday.

Eyewitnesses say -- eyewitnesses say that he was then taken by Israeli soldiers taken away. Video released by the Center for Jewish Nonviolence

captured an attack on activists at the scene where Ballal was assaulted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let go.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't do that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let go. Let go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: The Israeli military said, they arrived at the scene of a, quote, violent confrontation between Palestinians and Israelis who were

throwing rocks at each other.

ASHER: Ballal's co-director posted on X a short time ago that Ballal was held at an army base where he was allegedly beaten by soldiers. Ballal co-

director of the film "No Other Land," which won an Oscar for Best Documentary just last month.

We'll be right back with more news after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHER: All right. We're learning new details about Pope Francis' recent health crisis and a really sort of crucial juncture in his treatment.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. The doctor who led the medical team treating him has revealed that, at one point, they were considering ending treatment so that

the pontiff could die. But the team ultimately did not give up, and Pope Francis was discharged Sunday after more than five weeks in the hospital.

ASHER: A group of moms are claiming that cannabis is actually making them - - that's quite a transition.

[12:50:04]

GOLODRYGA: They call themselves Cannamoms. And they say, despite the risks, smoking weed helps them cope with the daily grind of motherhood. CNN's

Meena Duerson has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: N, 40.

MEENA DUERSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): These are the St. Louis Cannamoms. And this is game night.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: O, 60.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Cannamom Game Night is a night out with the besties away from the kids. You're meeting new friends. You're going to be gifted

some joints. You're going to play some games and you're just going to live your best kid free life for a couple of hours.

DUERSON (voice-over): Here in Missouri, recreational cannabis has been legal since late 2022. Every few months, these moms get together to

consume.

DUERSON: What is special about this being like a room full of moms?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It gets me out of the house. The women here are all very accepting.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You put marijuana in a mom together, this thing really go together.

DUERSON: Why do you think people care if it's a mom?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because mom is supposed to do everything, because it's pretty perfect person.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're held to a certain standard.

ADAMS: Moms that smoke weed should be just as acceptable as moms that drink wine. It should be, you know, something that is exactly the same.

DUERSON: And do you think that they're not treated like that?

ADAMS: Not at all.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Both of us used to drink. We used to go to the bar. We used to go out.

DUERSON (voice-over): What's the difference?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Huge. I'll never in the world understand how marijuana was illegal for so long and alcohol was legal, when alcohol has literally

killed and destroyed so many people in my family's lives.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) on in.

Girl. Hey, how have you been? I've missed you.

DUERSON (voice-over): Jessica, Carol, and Kimberly Kesterson started this group to help moms like themselves find and support each other.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're just really have created a community, a space where women come together, they laugh.

JESSICA CARROLL, ST. LOUIS CANNAMOMS CO-FOUNDER: So if you're any parent like me, you put your children first. So to be able to step away and give

yourself some time and do some self-care, it's hard to do.

DUERSON (voice-over): A lot of these women say their kids know they smoke and that weed actually helps them be better moms.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They see that I'm not doing it to party, I'm doing it to relax. And as far as motherhood, it helps me be able to calm down and

handle the situation at hand.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I normally do it in the night time or right after I get my kids on their schedule to sleep.

DUERSON: So for you, like, you're tucking your kids in in a bed, they're asleep, and you're like?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's time for me to relax. I got through the day. Kind of like replenish myself. I water myself like a plant.

DUERSON (voice-over): Cannabis is still illegal at the federal level. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns it may have, quote, a

wide range of health effects on the body and brain, and cautions against smoking and driving.

For these moms, the group's about a lot more than getting high. St. Louis Cannamoms, one of dozens of similar Facebook groups around the country, has

more than 4,000 members and provides donations to moms in need.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not just me and my kids. I don't know where we would be without them. They're my family.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Being a mom's hard. That's not nice, Benjamin. There's so many expectations on you. And we feel like we have to be perfect. We

feel shame around our blow-ups and having a hard day.

All right. I'm going to step out.

And so I think it's super important that we're able to see that there are so many other moms that go through the same struggles.

DUERSON: Do you see it now as like a tool in your parenting?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes. For sure. I think it definitely helps me stay patient. I actually want to sit down and do stuff with my kids instead of

sitting scroll on my phone all day.

Triceratops, you found them.

DUERSON: Do you get any backlash?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just, you know, you're a bad mom. You shouldn't have your kid because you smoke.

DUERSON: People said that to you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mm-hmm.

You're secret baby?

I feel like I'm at a space now where I feel very secure within myself and who I am and how I use cannabis.

Here. Get up here, brush your teeth.

And if people want to judge me for that or make an assumption that I'm a dad mom, we let them.

Go put your dinosaurs in your room.

DUERSON: That's not something that's keeping you up at night?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, not at all. Absolutely not.

Are you going to say good night? Good night.

DUERSON (voice-over): Meena Duerson, CNN, St. Louis, Missouri.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ASHER: All right. And finally -- and finally, a flight from Los Angeles to China has to turn around and go back on Saturday because the pilot forgot

one vital thing.

GOLODRYGA: Ooh.

ASHER: What is that one thing that you forgot?

GOLODRYGA: It's his passport. How often do we have these?

ASHER: I've done that once in my life.

GOLODRYGA: Horrifying moments, yes. Not even a pilot can get away without his though.

The United Airlines 787 had 257 passengers and 13 crew members on board. One passenger told CNN that about two hours into the flight, she heard the

pilot's, quote, very frustrated voice over the intercom explaining the situation.

ASHER: The plane had to turn around over the Pacific Ocean and head to -- I mean, at least he was honest and he told the passengers what was actually

going on.

[12:55:05]

United tells CNN passengers were given meal vouchers and compensation for the mix-up after the landing. A new crew took over and left San Francisco,

landing in Shanghai about six hours behind schedule. Can you imagine?

GOLODRYGA: Oh, boy. I feel for that pilot.

All right.

ASHER: I feel for the passengers.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Spare them all thoughts.

That does it for today's edition of ONE WORLD. I'm Bianna Golodryga.

ASHER: And I'm Zain Asher. Don't go anywhere. Bianna will be back after the short break with "AMANPOUR."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END