Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Mother of School Shooter Found Guilty Of Manslaughter; Former Chilean President Sebastian Pinera Killed In Helicopter Crash; Court Rules Trump Has No Presidential Immunity In January 6 Case; Mother Of School Shooter Found Guilty Of Manslaughter; Adam Neumann Trying To Buy Back WeWork; NTSB Releases Boeing Report; Meta Announces AI Measures As U.S. Election Heats Up. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired February 06, 2024 - 15:00   ET



ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: And good evening. I'm Paula Newton in New York, and we begin this hour with two breaking news. Two landmark

decisions in two very different cases, each potentially massive consequences here in the United States and beyond.

In Michigan, the mother of a school shooter has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in a case that's the first of its kind. And in

Washington, judges have rejected former President Donald Trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution for his behavior after the 2020 election.

And we do want to begin this hour in Michigan. An historic ruling in the trial for the mother of a school shooter. Just moments ago, Jennifer

Crumbley was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Her son, Ethan killed four students in a Michigan High School in 2021. The trial is

testing the limits of who is responsible for a mass shooting.

Jennifer Crumbley is due to be sentenced in April and her husband is scheduled to go on trial next month.

A father of one of the victims spoke to reporters just after the verdict. Listen.


CRAIG SHILLING, FATHER OF CRUMBLEY VICTIM, JUSTIN SHILLING: It's not really a good feeling. It's not really about winning or losing. You know, it is

about you know, making it apparent that now this has to stop in society and it's going to go all the way now. I mean, there's no -- there is no way to

look the other way and we have to address things on every level.


NEWTON: Hearing there from the father of one of the victims.

CNN's law enforcement correspondent, Whitney Wild is with me.

This was really such an emotional trial. I want you to tell us what the reaction was in the courtroom, and beyond that, in the community.

We just heard from that father, but so much was said about this mother and her behavior, and again, to remind our audience, she said on the stand that

looking back on it, she wouldn't have done anything differently.

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: That was such a remarkable moment, Paula. And there were many remarkable moments, but that was really

one of them that was pretty surprising when you look at it, the grand testimony here.

Jennifer Crumbley took the stand in her defense. She was the only witness that the defense called, There were 21 witnesses total over the six-day


So much emotional testimony from the law enforcement officers who were very much a part of this community, who rushed to the scene and saw just

horrific scenes of these children who were murdered in their high school.

Further there, you heard testimony throughout this trial from school administrators, one of whom tried to save one of those children who later

died. It was a gut-wrenching six days. The jury delivering that verdict after 10 hours of deliberation.

Jennifer Crumbley faces up to 15 years in prison. That is the maximum amount for each manslaughter charge. The way that the Michigan law is set

up is that those sentences are only to run concurrently. So the maximum she can face is 15 years in prison.

This was a very difficult emotional journey for the community here that began November 30, 2021 when that shooter, Ethan Crumbley walked into his

high school, Oxford High School and gunned down four of his classmates and shot other school other students and school administrators.

Over those two years, Jennifer Crumbley has been in custody. Prosecutors going for the most aggressive case they could possibly bring. Now, there

were questions about whether or not the jury would actually deliver this guilty verdict because it is such a landmark case, but prosecutors really

brought it home, apparently for the jury when they zeroed in on two legal theories, and the first is that she was grossly negligent in giving a

firearm to her 15-year-old child for Christmas, who was clearly displaying a very concerning behavior, who was clearly in the midst of severe mental


And then further, that she was grossly negligent in not getting him help and turning away, time after time after time when he called vocally you

know, pretty vocally for help when he said that he was seeing things, when he was doing disturbing drawings, she time and time again turned away from

those very obvious cries for help and so in that way, she was also grossly negligent.


This was, again, a novel case, the defense had tried to argue that she did not do anything differently than any other parent, there was no way she

could have conceived that he was possibly capable of causing harm to others that the big concern here had been that he may cause harm to himself. A

jury, apparently, not buying into that argument, again, delivering this guilty verdict.

There were, in addition to the moment that you spoke about earlier where she said she would not do anything differently, and she has simply no

regrets looking back on her actions leading up to that shooting. There was another really pivotal moment that prosecutors keyed in on and it was the

day of the shooting.

And what had happened was, a school counselor saw a drawing that the shooter had done on his math worksheet and they were so horrified, so

concerned by what they saw on that drawing that they called James Crumbley, his father and Jennifer Crumbley, his mother to the school to have a


The school counselor recommended that they take him home. She was that concerned about his mental health. It was the middle of the day. Jennifer

Crumbley and James Crumbley would not take him home. They said that they didn't want to miss work.

Hours later, he went on that rampage, killing those four students, Paula. Just a horrific day, now ending with that guilty verdict.

NEWTON: Yes, and you've done such a good job of wrapping up, as you said, what has been an absolutely heartbreaking testimony there in the trial, but

also of course, goes to the heart right, Whitney, of what we all wonder when these things happen: Could it have been avoided?

Whitney Wild for us, who continues to bring us news there from outside the courtroom in Michigan. Appreciate it.

Jeffrey Swartz is a professor at Cooley Law School and he joins us now. I want to ask you in terms of any far-reaching implications this verdict

could have both for parents, but also for gun ownership when it comes to those guns being at the disposal of minors? I mean, how are you seeing all

of this? Whitney laid it out. It is a pretty precedent-setting case.

JEFFREY SWARTZ, PROFESSOR, COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: It is a precedent-setting case. I'll deal with the last issue. Most states who are not controlled by

Republican legislatures and the NRA are passing gun laws that require that guns be secured within a home, and that was passed by Michigan after this

event took place, not before.

In fact, measures like that had been fought and defeated in the Michigan legislature for, I don't know, the last 10 years or so. So this brought it

to bear. Miss McDonald made it clear that this was her issue, and that's what she was going to go forward with.

As it relates to its long lasting effect outside of that, there is a real danger here that it sets a precedent persuasively and also gives aid and

comfort to those prosecutors who would like to find parents responsible for every act that is done by their children for just being bad parents. That

is you should have seen this coming, so therefore you are negligent, therefore you are responsible.

And we have an adage in the law that says you're not responsible for somebody else's acts. I think that this has far-reaching effects to go

beyond firearms. It can go to knives you have in your home, it can go to a baseball bat that you didn't secure and one of your kids got to beat

somebody up with it.

There are so many other things that come to play here that I'm not sure that you can stop this slippery slope from becoming even more slippery and

people going down, and I think parents really are going to have to be concerned about what they do, how they deal with their kids, and how they

are responsible even for things that are peripherally present and they don't see it.

NEWTON: Yes, so certainly defense made some of the arguments you're making they made them actually in court. And yet I have to ask you, does it really

extend to that because this very clearly was negligence shown on a completely different level, and also having to do with how those parents

provided, you know, access to a gun for their child who they would have known would at least potentially, you know, use it in some harmful manner.

SWARTZ: Okay, I understand that thought process. I think that what happened with the jury was Miss McDonald and her staff tried this case exactly as

they had to. They had to make the jury angry from the first day and keep them angry at Mrs. Crumbley throughout the entirety of the case, so they

would jump from facts about the deaths and other things to things involving her having an affair or the fact that she may have said something negative

about her child to someone at a horse farm, or showing the actual video of the shooting which was wholly and completely unnecessary in this case, and

probably should have never been admitted. And if there is error in this case, that's where it was.


So, I understand the thought process. I just don't know that at this point that it won't go further for people who want it to go further, and that is,

how far are we going to find parents responsible when they miss something in their child that, in retrospect, people look at and say, you should have

caught that, well, you weren't living in the home.

There's a lot of things here that come to play that are really a problem, there really are.

NEWTON: Including another parent, which she also, you know, tried to shine a light on her husband, the father's culpability here. I don't have a lot

of time left.

SWARTZ: Right.

NEWTON: Given what you just said, do you believe that could form the basis of an appeal here?

SWARTZ: There is an appeal, and I think that really the admission of certain evidence, which was to have probative value, but it was outweighed

by a prejudicial value is where it is going to have to go.

The Court of Appeals won't reverse. They'll have to have that ruled upon by the Michigan Supreme Court and we'll just have to see what they do.

NEWTON: Okay, a lot to think about there. Thanks so much for really parsing that perfect for us. Really appreciate it.

Now, some breaking news in to CNN: Former president of Chile, Sebastian Pinera was killed in a helicopter crash in the south of the country. Now

Pinera served two terms as president. The first one was from 2010 through 2014, during which the world saw the rescue of 33 trapped Chilean miners.

His other term was from 2018 through 2022.

I want to bring in Patrick Oppmann.

I mean, Patrick, let's first get to this incident. Obviously, a helicopter crash. I do understand it was a small helicopter, other people on board.

What more are you learning?

PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We know that Sebastian Pinera, the former president did not survive this helicopter crash. Apparently, reports

say that three other people aboard with him were managed to be rescued following the crash. We don't know their condition just yet, but

apparently, this small helicopter that Sebastian Pinera, not only a two- term president of Chile, but one of Chile's richest men crashed apparently in bad weather earlier today in the south of Chile.

This of course, comes on the heels of already another terrible tragedy that the country is carrying out a national mourning for, these wildfires that

we've been reporting on that have killed over 100 people. So of course, a tragedy on top of a tragedy that is affecting all Chileans.

You know, Sebastian Pinera was not only the president of Chile, but he was on the site of that rescue of those 33 Miners. He was following it hour by

hour. He would congratulate each miner when they were pulled from that mine.

I remember covering it and seeing him around the clock. He was there following the rescues minute by minute and that was one of Chile's proudest

moments. As he came back in a second term, a very different mandate as protests took the streets -- protesters took the streets of Chile and the

government, his government was criticized for their crackdown, a heavy- handed crackdown on those protests.

So Chileans already mourning from this terrible wildfire, the worst wildfires in this country's history, are now mourning a president that, you

know, depending on where you are in the political spectrum, and people have very different views of him. But certainly Chileans are mourning a

president, a two-term president that just, you know, year-and-a-half ago was president of this country, and now has died tragically in a helicopter

crash, and apparently was the only fatality of that crash, and certainly is compounding the tragedy that all Chileans are feeling right now.

NEWTON: Yes. The country was already in mourning for the deaths during those wildfires, and now, this shocking news. Patrick Oppmann will continue

to bring us more news on this as we get it. Appreciate it.

Now, when we come back, an appeals court in Washington, DC has rejected Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity. He has until next week to

ask the Supreme Court to take up the case.



NEWTON: A big defeat for Donald Trump as an appeals court in Washington, DC now rejecting his claims of presidential immunity in the federal election

subversion case. Now, he says he is taking the case to the Supreme Court.

The ruling says he has become Citizen Trump. A three-judge panel said his actions after the 2020 election, were if proven, an unprecedented assault

on the structure of our government.

Now Trump's lawyers had argued he was protected by executive immunity. The former president has until February 12th to ask the Supreme Court to block

that ruling.

Alayna Treene is with me now, and what has the former president said about this? What's been his reaction? And has he outlined exactly how he's going

to proceed here?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Well, first of all, Paula, this is a huge blow to the former president's core argument in his defense for this case. They

have been pushing for months that the core argument for them is that Donald Trump was immune, because he was in office at the time and that this was

part of his official duties.

And we saw them make that point again today in statements that they released after this decision came in. But the highlight of these statements

is that like you mentioned, that they are going to appeal this.

Now, it is not clear if they're going to go straight to the Supreme Court with this appeal or if they're going to try to go through the normal

process of going to, it is called an en banc appeal trying to go through back to the DC Court of Appeals, and then also maybe to the Supreme Court

and those are things that they're still working out.

But I do just want to read you some of their statements. I think it gives you insight into what the next steps will look like. The first one is from

a Trump campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung. He said: "If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be

immediately indicted by the opposing party. Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function."

It goes on to say that Donald Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit's decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the presidency

and the Constitution.

So again, they are really making this argument that they think, it is not just about Donald Trump here who should this immunity question, but it is

also setting potentially a precedent for future presidents who may face criminal charges.

Now, Donald Trump himself also directly responded to this on social media shortly after the decision came down, he wrote: "A president of the United

States must have full immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our country. A nation destroying ruling like

this cannot be allowed to stand."

His post went on to say: "A president will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite party's vicious retribution after leaving office. I know from

personal experience, because I'm going through it right now."

Now, I do just want to add, Paula, that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this argument in their ruling. They noted that past presidents

have recognized that they can face criminal liability and also they face the potential of being impeached for any wrongdoing or crimes that are

committed in office, and that is really the case here.

But what's going to happen is they're going to try to find a way to delay this as much as possible, and that is what this appeal is really meant to

do. They have until February 12th, a very short turnaround to issue this appeal.

If they do go to the Supreme Court, which makes the most sense here, that would stop the clock on this trial and again, delaying this as much as

possible is really the Trump team's goal here. They want to push this trial back as far as they can, and their hope is really to push it back until

after the 2024 election in November, but of course, we'll see how the courts ultimately rule on this.


NEWTON: Yes, and in the meantime, they do collect campaign funds that are trying to help with the legal fees here. Thanks so much for that update.

Appreciate it.

We will now remind people that Trump will face several other court battles in the coming months. The Supreme Court this week hears arguments about

whether Colorado can take him off the ballot altogether. Trump is accused of falsifying records in connection to hush money payments to a porn star,

Stormy Daniels. That trial is set to start in New York next month.

In May, his classified documents trial is scheduled to begin and the proposed start date of his Georgia election interference trial is set for


Professor David Schultz at the University of Minnesota is an expert in constitutional law, and I hope doing a much better job of keeping up with

this than most of us as we continue to see these rulings in these cases pile up.

But I want to take up that issue, though, of what this means constitutionally. Quite a rebuke from the judges writing that former

President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and is answerable in court for his conduct. Is there anything

in this ruling that surprised you? And that includes that very unequivocal language?

DAVID SCHULTZ, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: No. First off, nothing surprised me and I've read the opinion today. My students right now, I'm

out of class, they are reading the opinion at this point, too. And when we read it through, it's a pretty strong rebuke. It addresses every one of

these questions, it addresses questions, in terms of, for example, saying that no, this won't inhibit presidents from acting, facing possible

criminal charges. It means what? It is going to keep presidents in line so that they won't do bad things.

They address the question in terms of saying that this is necessary to promote the structure of democracy in terms of holding former presidents


On every score, they addressed all the points that the Trump campaign, rather than Trump legal team made and rejected it. So it's a pretty

powerful opinion at this point. And the question becomes, as you pointed out, where does Trump and his legal team go next?

NEWTON: And that goes to timeline. By the way, I'm heartened to hear that future lawyers and judges who are going through this development in real

time. But the president is going to appeal, and he says he will appeal.

Can the Supreme Court at this point in time, you know, just decline to take this up? If that's the way he goes? And again, I go to that old cliche, is

justice delayed, not justice denied here? The delay tactics have worked quite well so far.

SCHULTZ: Well, first off, for the Supreme Court, they don't have to take this case. It is going to take four justices to agree to want to hear the

case, and I have a suspicion that the Supreme Court may choose not to take this case, because this is an unusual appeal.

Generally, when you're facing a criminal trial, you can't appeal the case until after a verdict has been rendered. What happened here was something

called an interlocutory appeal, basically, an appeal pending a trial court.

What I think the Supreme Court might do at this point is to say, we're going to send this back to District Court. District Court, hold the trial,

if in fact, Trump is acquitted, then we don't have to deal with this issue. If he is convicted, then we may take this up at a later point.

So I think the Supreme Court has an out on this, but I also think what the Trump campaign and what the Trump legal team has to worry about is if they

keep pushing this stuff, pushing it far enough, they might push some of these cases to where they're actually taking place starting, or potentially

rendering verdicts in October. And we always like to talk about what the October surprise, the October surprise could very well be with just within

a matter of a couple of weeks of the election, a verdict comes down.

So don't always wish for something because you might actually get it.

NEWTON: No, I hear you. They are taking a risk with this, and thankfully, we do have you on hand because we do need to discuss, you know, the legal

lineup here.

Upcoming on Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case, questioning whether Colorado's Highest Court has the right to remove Trump

from the ballot, given again, his actions on January 6. When you look ahead to those arguments before the Supreme Court on Thursday, what stands out to

you about that case?

SCHULTZ: Well, I think the Trump campaign or the Trump legal team, I think has a better chance of winning that case. And I think again, what the court

is going to try to do is decide not to decide, and what I mean by that? They're going to try to find a way to probably rule in favor of Donald

Trump, but without reaching the merits of a decision in terms of did he engage in insurrection or not?

What I think the court is going to do is to say that Congress has to pass legislation, what is called enabling legislation before any state can take

any kind of action.

This is a Roberts Court that I think that really, at least, the chief justice doesn't want to get involved in these kinds of issues like that. He

wants to take the court out of politics and I think for many of us, including the Roberts Court, they remember 24 years ago when the Supreme

Court decided Bush v. Gore and that decided a presidential election.


I don't think they want to be enmeshed in that type of criticism again. So look to see, I think, come Thursday, we will get hints of it in the oral

arguments, the court looking for a way to get out of it.

NEWTON: Right, at this point, they want democracy to be able to go to its logical conclusion, leave the candidate on the ballot.

Professor David Schultz, thanks so much for taking time out of your class. We appreciate it.

SCHULTZ: My pleasure. Thank you.

NEWTON: Now, to another story that we've been following here. Prince Harry is now in the UK a day after his father's cancer diagnosis was made public.

Now, the Duke of Sussex was traveling in a black SUV. You see the picture right there. He flew in straight from Los Angeles after the announcement.

King Charles also made his first public appearance since then. He was seen -- you see him there smiling and waving with Queen Camilla on route to

Buckingham Palace.

Now the British prime minister, meantime, says he is optimistic about the King's prognosis. Rishi Sunak tells the BBC that the cancer was in fact,

detected early. We want to go straight to our Max Foster, who has been following all of these developments.

And an eventful day, Max, which kind of surprised me for the King, his family, and now more insight into what he is facing given what Rishi Sunak


What more have you learned about the next few days and weeks to come, what that might look like for the King?

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think today was a lot about projection, I think those images of the King moving from Clarence House,

towards Buckingham Palace, you know, they could have done it in a black SUV where we couldn't see him. We know that the Princess of Wales left in that

manner from hospital.

That state limousine is designed to be very clear, so you can see exactly who is inside and how they feel. So that was intentional. And I think the

message there was, within himself, he feels well enough to go out in public. It is just the doctors are saying, that's not safe, considering

your current treatment to be amongst crowds, and you might pick something up. So I think that was one part of the messaging.

The other side of it, we're seeing him fly off with a helicopter off to Sandringham, to his country estate. Just the fact that he's able to leave

London, away from the specialist hospitals is very telling in itself as well.

You know, this is how the family communicates in many ways. It is through vision, without necessarily saying something and backing it up with

statements, so I think a very clear messaging today.

And you know, I think there may come a point where King Charles does reveal exactly what type of cancer he has got. It has been made clear to me, it's

not necessarily the rule anymore, that you keep these things private.

He wants to -- he has worked with cancer charities before. He has raised awareness of cancer. This is a big opportunity for him to do so again, and

show that their head of state is suffering from a similar illness that other people suffer from, so I think that's a watch.

NEWTON: Yes, definitely in a lot of cancer charities watching that quite closely.

Before I let you go, Max. I mean, look, you're reporting that Prince Harry has no plans to meet with his brother, Prince William while he is in

Britain. What do you think is behind that?

FOSTER: Well, I think, you know, clearly, Charles and Harry are working on their relationship and making some progress there. I think William and

Harry are very much still estranged. And that, you know, that was a reminder that that rift isn't fixed.

So I think, you know, here in the UK, a lot of people want to see Harry back in the fold, particularly with Charles out of the public eye, and

perhaps they do need some more public support. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

I just don't think there's any progress in a relationship between William and Harry. I'm not saying it is forever irreparable, but it does -- there

is just no signs of them coming together. So I think there's some sadness around that.

And you know, Megan hasn't been over for a while either, but you know, some progress it feels like anyway, certainly with the King.

NEWTON: Yes, I guess, the emergency. I do remember, Max, though, years ago, you told us that the vision was that these two brothers would really be

upholding the monarchy and each of them could lean on each other. Clearly, not happening yet, and maybe never again.

Max Foster for us, appreciate it.

Coming up, the conviction in the US of a school shooter's mother could set a new precedent for who is responsible for mass shootings and we will have

more on those implications right after the break.



NEWTON: Hello, I'm Paula Newton, and there's more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in a moment.

When Meta says it's taking action to rein in AI generated images after a string of controversies and the NTSB has released a preliminary report on

Boeing's Alaska Airlines blow out. We'll give you the details. But before that, the headlines this hour.

U.S. Secretary of State said he's reviewing a response from Hamas in a proposal to release hostages from Gaza. A source told CNN that Antony

Blinken reacted positively to the counter offer from Hamas. He is set to discuss it with Israeli officials Wednesday.

U.S. President Joe Biden is blasting the apparent collapse of a bipartisan border deal. This as the bill's opponents are blocking additional money for

border security as well as aid to Ukraine, Israel, and the Palestinians. The bill was developed in the U.S. Senate, but has been rejected by the

Republican House speaker.

Chinese stocks staged the largest rally in years on Tuesday. The Shanghai Composite had its best day since March 2022. Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index

meantime was up 4 percent. The rally comes after a state investment fund said it would buy up more shares. Beijing has been trying to halt a three-

year market wrench.

And we do want to go back to our top story. The mother of a school shooter has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter related to her son's

murders. Jennifer Crumbley is set to be sentenced in April. Her son Ethan killed four people at a Michigan high school in 2021. Now a member of the

jury told CNN outside the court that the fact that Jennifer Crumbley was the last adult seen with the gun really helped sway the jury.


Now the historic decision could of course set a new precedent for who is responsible for mass shootings and the kind of responsibility that parents

have in these cases.

Kris Brown is the president of Brady, an organization that fights gun violence, and she joins me now.

And Kris, we do want to get to the potential policy and the legal implications here, but first, I want to ask you what was your reaction to

the verdict as someone who for so long now has worked for increased gun safety?

KRIS BROWN, PRESIDENT, BRADY: Well, it's hard to celebrate a verdict like this, knowing that four children who went to school didn't come home to

their families. That is a tragedy. And a tragedy that this verdict cannot do full justice to. But as an advocate of gun violence prevention, as a

leader in this movement and as a mom, I celebrate this verdict because ultimately what it stands for is the idea that parents have a unique role

in the life of their children.

And it's appropriate that in this instance and for all parents there is the real risk that if you are facilitating access to a firearm for your child,

you can be held criminally responsible for that. And clearly, when I heard that CNN reported what the juror said who deliberated, that's right. What

she's saying is that Jennifer Crumbley was in a unique position and had access to that firearm before her son obtain that weapon.

And across this country, I hope it also really points the obvious fact here if you look from Columbine forward at the tragedy of school shootings in

this country, about 76 percent of all school shooters get their firearm from a home. We have more guns than people in this country. So the message

that I hope most Americans take away is that safe storage is mandatory if you want to protect your own family, others coming in contact to your home

and stop violence like school shootings from happening, safely store firearms in the home. That's what we all must do.

NEWTON: Yes. So three or four get those guns in home, extraordinary statistic and a sad one as you point out. I want to ask you, though, do you

believe anything materially has changed with parents and gun ownership? This is one case, one state, one verdict so far.

BROWN: Well, look, that's the way our system works, right? We have verdicts like this in an area of the law that frankly is not highly regulated at

this point in time. And when you have a verdict like this, yes, people across this country pay attention and understand that these facts and

circumstances may be unique to this case. But ultimately the principle that parents can be held liable for the actions of their child and for providing

access to a firearm, I think will have an important message to households across this country.

My friend Kristen Song has been working day and night to pass laws like Ethan's Law, which stands for the principle that safe storage should be

required if you have a child with access to firearms in a home. And I hope that Congress also takes that up. I think we have to use all of the tools

at our disposal to end family fire.

And it's not just school shootings it's also that you have an appreciably increased risk of suicide in your home if you have access to loaded and

unsecured firearms. And eight kids a day are killed or injured with guns in their own home. The number one risk factor of that is whether or not your

firearm is safely stored. So all of these elements can be prevented with one simple act and that's safe storage.

NEWTON: I have to ask you, you know, earlier we had a legal expert on who made the point that perhaps this isn't a reasonable burden for parents in

the sense that should parents be held criminally responsible. I mean, she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and four counts. Should they be

held criminally responsible for the actions of their children?

BROWN: Well, look, you know, I'm a lawyer or I used to play one on TV. So I'm not going to substitute my judgment for others in that space. I will

say as someone who practiced law, to be held criminally responsible, you need to show gross negligence.

Having reviewed the facts and circumstances of the actions or rather inaction in the face of a child who is clearly at risk, who was indicating

signs that they wanted to carry out a school shooting, purchasing the firearm on behalf of that child in your home and then failing to take

action to safely store that firearm is so egregious I'm not sure how a jury could not have found criminal liability here.


I think for every parent looking at this, gun owner or non-gun owner, it's also sending a message, you want to make sure that if your child is going

over to a friend's house that that gun is safely stored, so no one wants to face criminal liability, neither should we fear as parents facing civil

liability, and the way to stop either of those is safe storage.

NEWTON: OK. Yes. Again, as you said, echoing the victims' families there, this is not anything to celebrate. It has been an absolutely heart-

wrenching display there in court on so many levels.

Kris Brown, we appreciate your perspective. Thanks so much.

Now preliminary report says there were four missing bolts on that Alaska Airlines jet, four, when its door plug blew off during a flight last month.

More on the NTSB's findings and what they mean for Boeing and quite frankly you to flying on those planes.


NEWTON: U.S. safety investigators say a 737 MAX-9 had missing bolts when its door plug blew out last month during a flight. In its initial report,

the NTSB stopped short of assigning blame to Boeing. FAA administrator Michael Whitaker testified about the incident today on Capitol Hill. He

says regulators will put Boeing under more scrutiny.


MIKE WHITAKER, ADMINISTRATOR, FAA: The events of January 5th, it really created two issues for us. One, what's wrong with this airplane, but two,

what's going on with the production at Boeing, and there have been issues in the past and they don't seem to be getting resolved. So we feel like we

need to have a heightened level of oversight to really get after that.


NEWTON: Pete Muntean is standing by for us and I'm going to quote you. In those 20 seconds, that was a bombshell. Look, I don't have any technical

knowledge here. It doesn't take technical knowledge to figure out that something went horribly wrong here.

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: A bombshell finding indeed by the National Transportation Safety Board. This is just the preliminary report,

which is typically the just the facts, ma'am, report that comes out from the NTSB a month after an incident. We are one month and one day since that

January 5th door plug blow out at Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 and what the NTSB has said is very significant.

They have said that none of the four-door plug bolts that essentially hold the door plug that fell off of the side of that MAX-9 onto the plane were

present at the time of this incident, meaning that they were missing. This is the other key thing here. This was a relatively new airplane. It took

its first flight in October of 2023. It arrived at the Boeing factory, the fuselage arrived at the Boeing factory on August 31st, 2023.

And then the day after that Boeing saw problems with the rivets that were near the door plug and the NTSB says at the Boeing factory in Renton,

Washington, technicians there removed the door plug and then when they completed the work, and the NTSB was able to tell this from a photo that

they obtained from Boeing, the door plug bolts were still not present. So what this does, this report essentially points in flashing red to a problem

at Boeing.

And that is where the problem has been or the focus has been all along on Boeing's quality control issues. This is just another piece of evidence in

a litany of problems at Boeing and Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun says this is essentially unacceptable.


He's responding now saying that Boeing must be able to get these things right when a plane leaves its factory. So this NTSB report is not the

finding of probable cause. That will come in about a year's time, but it is significant and we will see whether or not the NTSB goes on to lay blame.

Just want to demonstrate what the bolt is on the door plug. There are two at the bottom and two at the top of the door plug. They essentially keep

the door plug from going out and up, which the NTSB says it did exactly on January 5th. The bolt is like this. This is called an AN6 bolt. Pretty

common in aviation. This is the bolt itself. There is a castle nut here and a cotter pin that keeps this nut from moving free.

There was a theory for a time that may the cotter pin was gone. And so this nut, this castle nut, could move freely. But in essence, the NTSB is saying

these bolts were not there. So this plane only flew 154 times according to the timeline also released in this preliminary report by the NTSB. And

without these bolts, the door essentially it gets pressurized and unpressurized by the cabin air inside the plane. And it could the only take

so much of that abuse. Ultimately, on January 5th, it shot off like a rocket because the bolts like these were not there.

NEWTON: Yes. And thankfully, no one was seriously injured in that event.

MUNTEAN: That's right.

NEWTON: And we will say that right now those inspections, now that they're ongoing, those planes should be fairly scrutinized now that they are back

in the air, at least some of them.

Pete Muntean, thanks for that wrap up. Really appreciate it.

Now the former CEO of WeWork is apparently trying to make a comeback. Adam Neumann is said to be exploring a bid for the now bankrupt co-working

company. We have more on that.


NEWTON: WeWork's founder Adam Neumann reportedly wants to buy back the company. The hedge fund Third Point says it's had preliminary talks on a

deal but has not committed to any financing. Now you'll remember a failed IPO in 2019 raised questions about his leadership and led to his ouster.

His spectacular fall from grace inspired the TV series "WeCrashed."

As a high-flying startup WeWork was privately valued at $47 billion. It was worth just $45 million when it filed for bankruptcy in November.


Clare Duffy has been following all of this for us.

I mean, this move will certainly keep your interest. But what's behind it besides, you know, a billionaire entrepreneur wanting to redeem himself?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Well, look, Paula, for Adam Neumann WeWork was always more than just a company. From the time he co-founded

WeWork, he talked about the company in these philosophical terms, wanting to revolutionize the office space industry and build community. And it was

that vision that helped him grow WeWork to its peak $47 billion valuation before it all started to come crashing down in 2019.

It's also clear that Adam Neumann has remained interested in the real estate market. In the years since he was ousted from WeWork, he started

working on a new residential real estate startup called Flow, which he's talked about in sort of similar terms, saying he now wants to revolutionize

the housing market. Flow has received backing from venture capital firms like Andreessen Horowitz and is reportedly privately valued at more than $1


So you have that, you have the multimillion dollar exit package that Adam Neumann received when he left WeWork and then you also have WeWork's

current bankruptcy and its decline in value. If there was ever a time that Adam Neumann was going to try to regain control of WeWork, which is sort of

his baby and so closely tied to his image, this might be the time, Paula.

NEWTON: Yes, I understand. Obviously the price would be quite low at this point, but what are the odds of this deal actually happening?

DUFFY: It seems like it's sort of a longshot at this point. You have reports that Adam Neumann's lawyers sent a letter to WeWork last night

urging them to engage with his takeover bid and saying he has this partnership going with Third Point, but Third Point told me today that

again, while they've had preliminary conversations with Neumann about his ideas for WeWork, they have yet to commit any funding to such a deal.

WeWork also was pushing back on the idea that they were going to play ball with Adam Neumann today. They told me that while they regularly receive

expressions of interests from third parties, and I'm quoting here, "We continue to believe that the work we're currently doing, addressing our

unsustainable rent expenses and restructuring our business will ensure WeWork as best positioned as an independent and sustainable company into

the future."

So WeWork clearly not playing ball here. And look, even if it did, it's really WeWork's creditors at this point who Adam Neumann would have to

convince to be on board with this deal. And I think that's probably going to be tricky for him given his controversial history with the company.

NEWTON: Yes, two words. Adam Neumann attached to this deal which will probably mean it doesn't happen.

Clare Duffy, for us, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

Meta says it's planning to label images created by AI. Now images created by tools from Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Adobe, Midjourney, and Shutter

Shock -- Shutter Stock, pardon me, are to be included. Meta says it's also working on new standards for pictures made by AI like adding invisible

metadata or, there you go, those watermarks. So they can easily be identified. AI generated content has already begun to muddy the waters of

the 2024 election cycle.

Marietje Schaake is the international policy director at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center. And she joins me now from California.

And happy to have your expertise on this. I'm going to ask you straight up. Can this work? Because some in the tech universe have already suggested

that AI will outsmart this attempt in order to label AI.


welcome. But we should not have any illusions about the ecosystem within which political ads, manipulated ads, AI generated ads, or content will be

shared. And if you look at a social media platform like Facebook, then the targeting aspects, so those features that help advertisers reach their

audiences on the basis of very detailed data profiles are essential to the harms that can be done.

And so knowing that the content is created with artificial intelligence or generative artificial intelligence is, you know, a step in the right

direction, but it's by no means everything that a social media platform like Facebook can do.

NEWTON: We just had those hearings, of course, which did not have -- did not deal specifically with AI, those meetings on Capitol Hill last week,

but given that Meta is on the front foot here, you've been outspoken about the responsibility of those companies. Do you believe that they're actually

taking that seriously now? When I say seriously, I mean, committing real research, real dollars to making sure this stuff can be identified and


SCHAAKE: Well, we'll have to see, but we shouldn't forget what earlier steps the company has taken, which is to lay off the trust and safety teams

that were hired initially to make the platform a safer place including during elections. They've reversed as have other social media platforms

like YouTube their policies that would not allow the denial of the previous 2020 presidential election outcomes on their platforms.


Now, we see already that lies about the outcome of the previous election are still a very important narrative in this upcoming election. So it's

very dubious why those opportunities have not been taken to make the platforms safer. And it looks as if the policies around trust and safety,

around election integrity are very wobbly an opportunistic on the part of social media companies.

NEWTON: And that leads us right to our next question. You know, with much fanfare, the leaders in AI, some of them were at the White House last year.

Europe has tried to be very proactive. What do you think needs to be done? Do you think it is over to you, you know, the governments of Europe, the

United States, and elsewhere to actually compel these companies to do this?

SCHAAKE: Well, I do believe that regulation and independent verification of what these companies are doing, what their obligations are, and holding

them to account is critical around data collection, data brokerage, data protection, so making sure that people's privacy is protected, restrictions

on political advertisements, and transparency.

I'm currently no longer in a regulatory -- I work at Stanford University, but indeed, as you mentioned, the European Union has taken the lead with

binding AI legislation that will come into force, but only after this election year, and so we do have to look at a mix of measures that can be

taken quickly enough for this year that will see an unprecedented amount of people around the world going to the polls with generative AI truly being a


And it's important that we understand the technology for what it is, not to underestimate it, but also not to overestimate it so that people begin to

believe that they cannot trust anything anymore. And that the whole hype around generative AI is distracting from, you know, the very surveillance

capitalism as Shoshana Zuboff calls the business model of these social media platforms that actually allow for the very targeted advertisements in

the first place.

NEWTON: And it is, as you remarked, a good first step, but also dangerous depending on where this goes next in terms of people lacking faith in any

of their institutions to be able to identify this. Really want to thank you for your insights. Appreciate it.

And there are just moments left to trade on Wall Street. We'll have the final numbers and the closing bell right after this.


NEWTON: So subdued day on Wall Street. Not much moving the markets. The Dow, though, is set to close up. You see it there about 130 points. It's

been a narrow trading range. So throughout the session we want to have a look those key down components now. The Walgreens finishes on top, Boeing

stocks, as we were talking about, in the green, despite as we were saying being in the hot seat over production safety.

McDonald's is down after claiming unrest in the Middle East impacted their low fourth quarter numbers. Amgen, meantime, as you can see it there,

bottoming out losing nearly 2 percent.

That is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. I'm Paula Newton. The closing bell ringing momentarily there on Wall Street and "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts

right now.