Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Trump Says To Call Elon Musk "Whatever You Want" In Defending His Role In The Administration; Trump Falsely Claims Ukraine "Started" War With Russia; Interview With Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT); Trump On Ukraine: "You Should've Never Started" The War; Video Shows Delta Plane Crash And Flip On Runway; Vatican: Pope Francis Has Pneumonia In Both Lungs; Police Arrest Alleged Cult-Like Leader Of "Zizians" Group. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired February 18, 2025 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT: Sales dropped over 40 percent last year over the years before. And you got to look at China, in China there are hundreds of different EV companies that will likely be winnowed down to a dozen or two just global superpowers in the next decade, but that's a race that Donald Trump seems he wants to sit out.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes. Is there a good roar with the e- vehicle?
WEIR: No you need to do it artificially, it whines too much and it would beat any NASCAR right off the line, but you need to wait to recharge the battery, but so much faster.
KEILAR: Bill Weir, thank you.
And, thank you for joining us. AC560 starts now.
[20:00:41]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, the president once said the great Elon Musk will lead the Department of Government Efficiency. Now, that DOGE is firing people and courts are getting involved. Suddenly, the White House says he's not running DOGE.
Also, Russia invaded Ukraine but as President Trump is now seeking a deal with them, he blames Ukraine for starting the war.
And later, new video and new information, which could shed light on how a regional jet with 80 people on board ended up on fire upside down with a wing missing.
Good evening. Thanks for joining us.
We begin tonight keeping them honest, with new developments surrounding DOGE, the organization that Elon Musk famously said this about
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ELON MUSK, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: So, all of our actions are maximally transparent. In fact, I don't think there's been I don't know of a case where an organization has been more transparent than the DOGE organization.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: He said that a week ago today, speaking for the DOGE organization, a week of less than transparent moves through the federal government later, we do not know fully what DOGE is doing, except that tens of thousands of federal workers are losing their jobs. We don't know how those decisions were actually made or why.
And now, if you believe the White House, it's not even clear who runs DOGE. According to the Trump administration, it's not Elon Musk. In a recent court filing, under penalty of perjury, a White House official named Joshua Fisher declares, "Mr. Musk is an employee in the White House office. He is not an employee of the US DOGE Service or US DOGE service temporary organization. Mr. Musk is not the US DOGE Service Administrator."
Fisher made that argument in a case before a DC Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Now, you may know that name. She's the person who, you will recall, earned the president's insults and other verbal attacks for being the trial judge in his election interference case, which is now dropped. In this latest case, she ruled in his favor, denying a request from a number of states for a restraining order against Musk and DOGE, saying that they lacked sufficient evidence of immediate and irreparable harm from the job cuts.
Now, this comes just days after a federal judge in Boston, George O'Toole Jr., lifted a similar restraining order. By the way, he's a Clinton appointee. Judge Chutkan was appointed by President Obama. Both ruled in President Trump's favor. Back to the question of who runs DOGE, though, and that court document claiming that it's not Elon Musk. Here's what the White House press secretary says.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANDRA SMITH, FOX NEWS, CO-ANCHOR: This affidavit actually says he doesn't work for doge at all. So what is his role at DOGE?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Sure, I'm happy to clarify. Elon Musk is a special government employee here at the White House, serving at the direction of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Elon Musk has been tasked with overseeing DOGE on behalf of the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: So, the sworn statement says Elon Musk is, "not the DOGE service administrator." The president's press secretary says he oversees it. A short time later, the president himself weighed in without exactly clearing things up. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Elon is -- to me a patriot. So, you know, you could call him an employee. You could call him a consultant, you could call him whatever you want. But he's a patriot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, the president was also asked this about Musk, who, as we reported, is not being required to file publicly available financial disclosure forms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, given your concerns about corruption, you said that if there were any conflicts of interest with Elon Musk, you wouldn't let him anywhere near it.
TRUMP: That's right.
REPORTER: DOGE and SpaceX employees are now working directly at the Federal Aviation Administration and the Defense Department, agencies that have billions of dollars in contracts with Musk's companies or that directly regulate his companies. How is that not a conflict of interest?
TRUMP: Well, I mean, I'm just hearing about it and if there is, and he told me before I told him, but obviously I will not let there be any conflict of interest. He has done an amazing job.
They revealed -- in fact, he's going to be on tonight a big show called Sean Hannity at nine o'clock and he's on and I'm on and we talk about a lot of different things.
And any conflicts I told Elon, any conflicts you can't have anything to do with that. So, anything to do with possibly even space, we won't let Elon partake in that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, keeping them honest, as you heard in that question, DOGE officials are already involved with the Pentagon. We learned today they had meetings there Friday. Unclear if they're still there now. But Defense Secretary Hegseth just last week said the Defense Department would welcome DOGE and Musk very soon.
As you heard there, Elon Musk is a Defense contractor, which means by the president's own standards, he shouldn't have anything to do with anything at the Pentagon. Unless, of course, you believe another line from that White House official sworn statement to Judge Chutkan.
It reads, "Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself. Mr. Musk can only advise the president and communicate the president's directives." So maybe there is no conflict if Musk doesn't actually do anything, except the president seems to have given him broad authority to do lots of things. And it's not like Musk isn't openly suggesting the very same thing. He's been talking about that quite openly, implying that he is making decisions and is not merely advising the president.
Remember the tweet, "We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could have gone to some great parties. Did that instead."
[20:05:55]
That doesn't sound like the words of someone who's just doing a little fact finding, then reporting back to the boss. We'll talk more in a moment about what he and the administration might be up to with all this, or whether some of this just reflects a measure of chaos and noise surrounding the administration, in which there seems to be plenty of these days, some of which involve speculation, there's a divide forming between Musk and the president, who addressed it during a conversation with Fox's Sean Hannity.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Elon called me, he said, you know, they're trying to drive us apart. I said, absolutely. No, they said, we have breaking news. Donald Trump has ceded control of the presidency to Elon Musk. President Musk will be attending a Cabinet meeting tonight at eight o'clock.
And I said, it's just so obvious they're so bad at it. I used to think they were good at it. But you know what I have learned, Elon? The people are smart. They get it.
MUSK: Yes, they do, actually.
TRUMP: They get it. They really see what's happening.
MUSK: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: There's always plenty to cover. CNN's Kaitlan Collins, who anchors "The Source" at the top of the next hour, starts us off. So, Kaitlan, I mean, if Elon Musk isn't running DOGE, has the White House made clear who is?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: No, they haven't. This White House official who was defending the administration in court did not name who is actually technically the administrator of DOGE, which was a renamed service previously when Trump took office, they renamed it to DOGE. And the White House has not said either who is technically serving in that role.
And so, its raised a lot of questions here because, one, maybe on paper, it does not say that Elon Musk is the administrator, but obviously he is the head of it, and he has been acting as the head of it in terms of directing what they are looking at when they are looking at it. And as he has made very clear in his public post on social media, certain agencies that he wants to delete or what they have uncovered or what he alleges that they have uncovered.
But the reason that this is important, if someone at home is wondering, you know, who cares who the administrator technically is. It actually could matter when it comes to the courtroom and we have seen a slew of lawsuits that have been filed, including most recently by a lot of Democratic attorneys general in several states who are saying that Elon Musk essentially has too much authority that's not being checked and not really accountable.
It is that this matters when the arguments are being made in the courtroom, who technically is the administrator and what this White House official was arguing, this White House lawyer, was essentially saying that he does not have the decision making authority, that he simply has as much influence as any other senior adviser to President Trump does.
But it could matter when it comes to accountability and lawsuits and also ethics claims as well for these special government employees or senior advisers to the president and how they operate. And so, a lot of confusion here, but also, just on a political note, you heard Elon Musk saying time and time again that DOGE is being the most transparent, and they are letting everyone know everything that they are doing.
But this clearly is not a sign of transparency, since they're not saying technically a simple question who the administrator actually is.
COOPER: I mean, if they really wanted to be transparent, which they say they are being transparent, but if they really wanted to, I mean, they could have cameras with the DOGE team as they're -- you know, running the wood chipper and dismantling, you know, putting agencies through the wood chipper. I mean, we've seen the president had cameras in the oval office as he's signing an executive order after executive order. There are other things they could do to be more transparent, aren't there?
COLLINS: Certainly and the question really has been, what is accurate about what they are finding and what they are uncovering? Because we're seeing, you know, allegations from White House officials that tens of millions of people are receiving Social Security that are either dead or should not be receiving it. Obviously, that would be a third of people who get Social Security.
When you actually look at audits that have been done, including one that was done, I believe, two years ago in 2023, this is something that the government has been reviewing in the past. It's not a newfound idea.
But then sometimes there are claims that you've seen the administration make, including when Elon Musk was confronted about one of them, about condoms going to Gaza in the Oval Office, who said it was not true and that he would correct things when they were wrong.
But oftentimes it takes some work going on behind the scenes to ask them about that before they get there. And so, I think that has been a big part of the question here in terms of accountability and transparency and what is actually accurate and what is fraud and what is simply something that this administration disagrees with.
Just because they think its wasteful or not spending, not a good use of taxpayer dollars, that doesn't mean it's necessarily fraudulent, because Congress has approved this money and appropriated it, and that is why it has been granted to these agencies to use.
The other part of this that comes into play here, that has been a big focus of the conversation in Washington is accountability when it comes to a co-equal branch of government on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers and a lot of Democrats and critics of this administration have had a lot of questions about what exactly DOGE is doing, especially when it comes to firing all of these federal workers.
I'm going to speak to Senator Bernie Sanders in the next hour about this very effort, and whether they do feel that they have proper oversight of how this is being conducted. Right now, it doesn't seem to be the case, since they don't know technically who the administrator is.
[20:10:50]
COOPER: Yes, Kaitlan Collins, thanks very much. We'll see you at nine for "The Source" and that interview with Sanders.
Much more now on Elon Musk and DOGE and who's running it, among many other things. Joining us is Kara Swisher, who knows Elon Musk well and is often written about him. She's an encourages ire, of course. She's host of podcast -- the podcast on with Kara Swisher, co-host of "Pivot" and we're happy to say a CNN Contributor. So Kara, who runs DOGE?
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I don't -- I think Elon Musk does, but they're just saying he's not. I mean, they're sort of doing a don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain kind of thing. If you want to think about "Wicked" or something like that.
They're trying to sort of shift his -- who he is and what control he has. You remember the old "SNL" joke? He's a dessert topping. He's a floor wax. We don't know what it is. That's on the occasion of their anniversary. Happy Anniversary.
So, they're trying to do that on purpose. And often Silicon Valley does is, a lot of these people who actually run everything don't have titles. Like many years ago, Jerry Yang was Chief Yahoo, for example. They sometimes have the CEO titles, but often they are -- they have indiscriminate titles. But what happens is they're actually in charge of everything and that's what's happening here. Elon is in charge.
COOPER: I mean, do you think it's just a Silicon Valley like inside joke thing, or is it are they muddling the language because this is can end up in court and it matters in court?
SWISHER: Yes, to all of the things, to all of it. I think they're just playing games and what are you going to do about it? If they say this and say that it doesn't matter. Effectively, he is running the thing. And as you noted, he tweets about it. He talks about wood chippers. He talks about killing off things. He talks about firing.
He's clearly in charge. This is not a, you know, a Kumbaya group of people making decisions. This is Elon Musk making decisions or presenting things to the president.
And the president just shakes his head. I doubt he very much knows a lot of the specifics of what they're doing. But diving into agencies like this, like they're a Marine force attacking a beach. That's what they're doing. They're creating fear. They're creating a narrative about they're coming. They're coming to get you and you know what they're really trying to do, what I think they're trying to do is get control of this data for purposes of uniting it in some way using AI, probably Elon's AI company to do so.
So. I'm always paying attention to what they're after, which is data. And that's to me, the US government has the biggest trove of that on the planet right now.
COOPER: You know, there were camera crews with the marines on, you know, and the military on D-Day as they landed on the beach to show the American people what was happening.
SWISHER: Yes.
COOPER: I don't understand why not be transparent? I think anybody from any political background would be happy with cutting waste and cutting inefficiencies and any kind of abuse and any kind of bloat and all that stuff. Why not be super transparent about it?
This group was fired because X, Y, and Z -- I mean, we don't even know the decision making process. You know, you hear reports about from people have been fired that like -- I had to go to present in front of some, you know, 20-something-year-old who knows nothing about my agency. I had to justify my job in a minute or two or something.
SWISHER: Right, that's what they want to do. They want to create chaos and confusion. It's because these decisions aren't very well made, because they are not interested in reforming, if they're interested in reforming they would pass Congressional laws, right? That's the way you do it.
What they're interested in doing is shock and awe and we're coming in. We're just going to cut, it's a very common thing that Elon does at all his companies. He comes in and upends -- someone at one of his companies says he comes in, he upends a trash can and then runs out, and everyone is summarily scared and then they get back to work.
And in this case, that's what he's doing. He's creating a situation of discomfort among these people to do that, but they don't want you to see it because either there's nothing to see or they're doing things, perhaps in not the most legal of ways, and probably both of those are true.
COOPER: I mean, look, he's wicked smart, way smarter than I am, I'm sure. But I mean, didn't he -- he did that at Twitter and then they lose, like 70 percent of their value or something?
SWISHER: Well they did, they did do that. You know. But the Twitter purchase may not have been about making money, that company has never made money. I think it's about influence. The same thing, he wants influence and to use it as a cudgel against his enemies, which he uses it quite effectively as propaganda and to elevate his personal brand.
And I think a lot of this is about elevating Elon Musk's personal brand in terms of being the best friend of the president. He's right alongside him. And so, I think that's why they're doing this interview tonight, which I found a little bit desperate. We love each other. No we do. It's sort of like you've done those celebrity interviews, where we are not divorcing, what are you talking about?
[20:15:16]
COOPER: I'm trying to avoid this at all cost, to be honest.
SWISHER: I understand but you know what I'm saying, it's the reason they're doing this interview because there is some discomfort for people with unfettered power. And so, they're trying to say there's nothing to see here, when in fact there's a lot to see here.
COOPER: You know, let's play just a bite of one other clip from this interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: I used to be adored by the left, you know.
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST, "HANNITY": Not anymore.
MUSK: Less so these days, huh? I mean, less --
TRUMP: I really didn't know.
MUSK: I mean, this whole sort of like, you know, it's they call it like Trump Derangement Syndrome. And I -- you know, you don't realize how real this is until, like, it's you can't reason with people.
So, like, I was at a friend's birthday party in LA, just a birthday dinner. After I mentioned the president's name, and it was like they got shot with a dart in the jugular that contained, like, methamphetamine and rabies, okay? It was like "ah!"
And like, what is wrong with -- guys, like you -- you just can't have like a normal conversation. And it's like, it's like that they've become completely irrational.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: It's interesting to watch the dynamic between them and also how a lot of people in the company of Elon Musk, like, have this fake laugh, like what he's saying is like super, super funny.
SWISHER: Yes, I know every joke, joke at will, it's everything is super funny when you're the world's richest man, in case you're interested, if you ever get to that status. You know, I think they're just trying to show -- this is a show, Anderson. They said the word show. If you notice, the president said that, this is the buddy comedy. And I think that's what they're going for. And of all people, Donald Trump understands the power of narrative.
And there's a narrative happening here but just don't bother us with the details. This is not, you know, this is a way to do shock and awe rather than actually do the hard task of reforming the government, which everybody is behind. But why do it this way? Because it's interesting. Because it's a show, because it's entertaining, because there's -- is he a villain? Is he Iron Man or is he Thanos? Like that kind of thing. And I think they don't mind if you think either of them. They just want you to keep watching.
COOPER: But I am fascinated to know how decisions are being made about who gets fired and who doesn't.
SWISHER: Capriciously.
COOPER: You really think so?
SWISHER: By people, I do. I think they're just -- they think just cut the top, just cut 20 percent and it will work out. That's what he did at Twitter. He didn't know what people did. He just cut them.
And then if you need them back, like the nuclear regulators, oh, well get those guys back. And so, they'd rather, you know, they'd rather sort it out afterwards and do the cuts to start with. And that's a very common thing in Silicon Valley.
COOPER: Do you think that -- I mean, you know, there's been endless talk about, you know, they talked about driving a wedge. People are trying to drive a wedge between him and President Trump. Where do you see this going? I mean, do you see Elon Musk as a presence for the next four years?
SWISHER: I do, I thought at first they might fight, but Elon has done a really good job when someone -- I think it was Maggie Haberman, said that Trump is a one-ring circus, but Trump likes this other ring happening with Elon because it casts attention on him in the same way. And I think Elon's has been very deft about playing. You know, Trump is the alpha, I'm the beta, but he's no beta.
You know what I mean? He's been very solicitous of him. And I think Elon is very manipulative in a very clever way here in terms of I'm just here to help the boss, that kind of thing, when in fact he's -- he has his own interests, whether it's contracts or data.
COOPER: Well, I mean, the idea that -- right, I mean, the idea we heard from President Trump today that he didn't know anything about the potential conflicts, it is just, you know, it's funny.
SWISHER: Yes, he does, and that's ridiculous. Of course, he shouldn't be anywhere near the Defense Department. He shouldn't be anywhere near the FAA. But now they're saying he doesn't have influence, which is just laughable.
It's like saying Mark Zuckerberg doesn't control Meta, he does. That's the way it is, or the Google guys don't control Google. These people are kings in Silicon Valley and that's how they behave. And if they want to pretend he's not powerful, it's just a game they're playing with you and he is running it. He is running it. Let's stop pretending and discussing it at length because it's just -- he's running the thing, he's making the decisions and when things get messed up, Trump will say, all right, pull them back or something like that. Inevitably, they will get messed up.
COOPER: Kara Swisher, thank you, appreciate it.
Still to come tonight, after extraordinary sacrifice and bloodshed to save their country, Ukraine today, President Trump blamed them for starting the war.
Also tonight, new incredible video showing the moment the Delta plane crashed in Toronto. We have new details about what may have caused the accident and also video from inside the plane.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:23:33]
COOPER: Breaking news, now, as top US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio met in Saudi Arabia with top diplomats from Russia, President Trump told reporters today that he would" probably meet with Vladimir Putin before month's end."
This came only moments after he blamed Ukraine for starting the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think I have the power to end this war, and I think it's going very well. But today I heard -- oh, well, we weren't invited. We'll, you've been there for three years. You should have ended it three years. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: He's talking about Ukraine. Now, Ukraine did not start the war, Russia did when it invaded Ukraine exactly three years ago next Monday. These talks are extraordinary for two reasons. One, it is the first time top level officials from both countries have met face-to- face since Russia invaded in 2022. And the second reason is, it's extraordinary that Ukraine was excluded from the talks.
We're joined now by our chief national security correspondent, Alex Marquardt, who is in Riyadh. So, President Trump made those comments after the initial meeting between the US and Russia wrapped up. It came late at night in Ukraine. Has there been any reaction yet from Kyiv or its allies in Europe? ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Not just yet, Anderson, but you can imagine that this is going to play into the deepest fears that the Ukrainians and the Europeans have about how President Trump views this conflict and fears that they have, that President Trump is playing right into President Putin's hand as this these negotiations get underway.
President Trump is not making the often -- the argument that we often hear from Republicans about how this war has been going on for too long, it's cost too much money. It's cost tens of billions of dollars. We need to slow down aid. He's not even talking just about how Ukraine might have provoked this war by getting closer to NATO and to the European Union. What he's really arguing is that Ukraine started this war. He said that verbatim and you and I both know that is not true.
It was Russia who invaded that country, invaded sovereign territory from multiple different borders, coming up on three years ago and it is really they who bear this responsibility. And this is going to ratchet up these major concerns from the Ukrainians that he has -- that Trump is essentially echoing and telling Putin what he wants to hear as these negotiations just get started -- Anderson.
[20:25:47]
COOPER: So as for the talks themselves, what are US officials saying about how they went?
MARQUARDT: Well, they're saying that they were productive. They were solid. These were aimed at getting relations going again, essentially reset after three years of being frozen. They covered a wide range of issues. Of course, there has been a lot of criticism that the US has brought Russia back in from the cold, is engaging directly with them in a way that they shouldn't. But we heard the US delegation today defend what they did, saying that you can't strike a peace deal between two parties if you are not talking to both parties.
Now, there were no concrete decisions. There were no solid positions that were taken by the US delegation. But there were broad agreements that we heard from Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.
The first is that both countries will ramp up their diplomatic facilities, their embassies in both Washington and Moscow, which have taken a real hit with diplomats and spies getting kicked out over the past few years. So, essentially normalizing diplomatic relations again. The second effort is to create a high level delegation on both sides that will continue negotiating on this -- on the Ukrainian war.
And then the third, Anderson, is quite interesting because it's clear that the US is looking past this war and essentially offering Russia a carrot, saying that if we can come to an agreement, there could be an opportunity for historic, economic and investment opportunities.
They also pushed back against this accusation that the US is leaving out Ukraine and the Europeans. They say that they talked to them all the time. In fact, the Ukrainian envoy, Keith Kellogg is arriving in Ukraine on Wednesday for more conversations with the Ukrainians. And, of course, the US hopes to get both Ukraine and Russia eventually to the table to get to a peace deal -- Anderson.
COOPER: All right, Alex Marquardt, thanks very much.
Just before air, I spoke with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Senator, I just want to play again what President Trump said today, falsely blaming Ukraine for starting this war, listen.
TRUMP: I think I have the power to end this war, and I think it's going very well. But today I heard -- oh, well, we weren't invited. We'll, you've been there for three years. You should have ended it three years. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.
COOPER: He's referencing Ukraine's displeasure at not being involved in the talks in Saudi Arabia. I mean, he's basically parroting Russia's narrative about the war.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Yes, I mean these are Russia's talking points that Ukraine started the war that is patently absurd. Everyone watched Russia invade Ukraine. Russia wants to go back to a world in which big countries invade small countries, to expand their borders. That world is incredibly dangerous for the United States, for global commerce.
We cannot allow for that world to return. And it is pretty incredible to listen to the president of the United States, try to rewrite history, try to lie to Americans and tell them that Ukraine started the war or could have negotiated its way out of the war in the first few months.
Now, I guess that's technically true, Anderson. Ukraine could have given up. Ukraine could have allowed for Vladimir Putin to own and consolidate power throughout Ukraine in the early days. But that would have been the end of the post-World War II order. Putin would have not stopped there. So yes, not surprising, but really sad to hear the president lying about the way in which this war started.
COOPER: President Trump is adamant about the US getting access to Ukraine's supply of rare Earth minerals. Ukraine's president says he's open to it in exchange for security guarantees. But then President Trump also says that the US would not take part in any peacekeeping force. But if European countries wanted to send peacekeeping forces, he's "all for it."
Would any kind of peacekeeping force without US Involvement be, I mean, feasible? Would that be enough of a deterrent?
MURPHY: Well, I mean, Donald Trump pretends like he's some great dealmaker. It's pretty amazing that he has thrown out any leverage that could help in these negotiations. Right from the start, Donald Trump has said, yes the United States is not going to take part in any security guarantee after the war ends. The United States isn't going to continue to fund Ukraine. The United States doesn't believe that Ukraine should be able to regain the territory that it's lost.
Essentially, you're giving away all the leverage that you might have at the negotiating table. But let's also be clear about why he wants these mineral rights.
[20:30:16]
This is just about the billionaires that he serves that he serves that could make a ton of money in Ukraine if they are taking those minerals out of the ground and selling them globally for a profit. So, it's consistent with the way that Donald Trump operates, that his number one agenda would be to gain mineral rights for his billionaire donors, instead of actually trying to secure the freedom of Ukraine and American security interests in the region.
COOPER: You also had the new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on his first trip overseas, his debut essentially also giving away a lot of negotiating potential by saying that NATO -- that Ukraine would not be part of NATO. Then others tried to walk it back the next day. And then Trump now has again said that quite clearly.
MURPHY: Yes, whether or not your ultimate position is that Ukraine should be part of NATO, why announce that at the beginning? Again, this is such diplomatic malpractice, but it's not surprising. Like Pete Hegseth got the job because he's the weekend news anchor on Fox and Donald Trump watches a lot of Fox.
And so he decided to make that guy the head of the Department of Defense and our chief negotiator in Ukraine. Pete Hegseth is screwing it up badly, but of course he is. He has no experience negotiating with anybody. All he knows how to do is read the news.
So nobody should be surprised that this national security cabinet is badly mismanaging the early stages of this negotiation and are going to end up in a settlement that ultimately likely gets a lot of Americans killed in the medium and long run.
COOPER: Just to play devil's advocate, you know, the president is saying, look, this is a brutal, bloody war should never have happened. There's been too much death and I'm going to bring peace. What is wrong with that argument?
MURPHY: But peace in this instance is Ukraine being owned by Russia, which will simply be incentive for China to invade its neighbors, for Putin to perhaps move beyond Ukraine. It is an invitation for the disintegration of the post-World War II order in which we do not reward big nations for invading their neighbors.
Ultimately, there is no end to that if it becomes precedent again. And listen, I understand that it is difficult and hard to support Ukraine in its defense of its borders, but it is worthwhile at a moment when China is threatening to do the same thing in Asia.
If the world explodes into state on state conflict, that is terrible for America. That is terrible for the global economy. And it's ultimately terrible for American democracy back home to lose democratic allies all around the world.
COOPER: Senator Chris Murphy, I appreciate your time. Thank you.
MURPHY: Thank you.
COOPER: Well, coming up, incredible new video, the latest on the Delta flight that crashed and overturned on the runway in Toronto on Monday. How did everybody on board survive?
Also, new details on the health of Pope Francis, who's been hospitalized since last week.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:37:35]
COOPER: When the broadcast ended last night, our best look at the plane crash that all 80 on board managed to survive was either from a distance or after the fact. Well, today, that changed. This is video of the Delta regional jet on short final approach yesterday afternoon to Runway23 at Toronto's International Airport.
Now you see the plane descend toward the pavement, then hit hard, roll, lose its right wing and burst into flames.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
JOHN NELSON, PASSENGER: When we hit, it was just a super hard light, like I hit the ground and the plane went sideways. And I believe we skidded like on our side and then flipped over on our back where we ended up. There was like a big fireball.
PETE KOUKOV, PASSENGER: There was no like real indication of anything. And then, yes, we hit the ground and we were sideways and then we were upside down, hanging like that.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
COOPER: Again, all 76 passengers and all four crew members survived.
CNN Aviation Correspondent Pete Martin joins us now with more. So what could the new video tell investigators about what went wrong?
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: That new video, Anderson, is very revealing when you consider what you see against what you do not see. This video is taken from a Learjet that was holding short of Runway23 there at Toronto Pearson International Airport.
And what you see is a relatively normal approach as the plane is coming up to the runway, descending at about 800 feet a minute, according to the flight tracking data, coming down towards the ground. But that descent rate continuing and then landing, at least according to what I'm seeing, first on the right main landing gear really hard, causing the right wing to shear off. What you do not see is a change in the attitude of the airplane, something called a roundout or the flare as the plane is coming into land to essentially cushion the sink rate and the descent. The idea is to do that at about 20 or 30 feet and essentially of the main landing wheels.
The two in the back kiss the runway. The attitude of the airplane doesn't change. The nose doesn't pull up. And the big question now for investigators is why did that happen? Of course, the wind has been a big question because it was gusting a quartering right crosswind at about 40 miles per hour.
So was there wind shear, meaning that the wind was there and then suddenly not, which can create a big sink? Or did the blowing snow, which was reported at the time across the runway, create a bit of an illusion and make it harder for pilots to judge that flare at the last moment? Some really big questions now for investigators.
COOPER: But it sounds like from that passenger who we just heard from that they didn't really have any warning that anything was amiss.
[20:40:06]
MUNTEAN: Yes. You know, it sounds like maybe the approach itself was a little bit bumpy, but they didn't really describe anything other than the big impact. And that is what's so telling here. And it seems like the narrative now is shifting towards a hard landing that caused this airplane to fail in a structural way so dramatically.
Of course, investigators will want to look at the airplane itself. Was it up to snuff? Was its maintenance OK? Was the wing structure OK? They'll look at the pilots. Of course, they'll interview them. And then they'll look at the environment. That is really the big question.
And now, they have the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder. The electronic evidence, which is so key, can provide some really big clues here. They can even get down to the granular detail of the ambient noise of the wind going by in the cockpit and even the warnings in the cockpit, which may have alerted pilots to a wind shear problem.
But still really big questions here. Now, the Canadian Transport Safety Board is leading this investigation. They say they have 20 investigators on the scene right now. But they said in the new video released this evening that it is much too soon to reach any big conclusions about a cause.
COOPER: All right, Pete Muntean, appreciate it. Thank you.
For more on what this new video tells us now passengers experienced it, I want to bring in CNN's Tom Foreman, who's been going through it frame by frame. Tom, what have you learned?
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Boy, an awful lot, Anderson. When this video begins, we're going to mark this as zero seconds, everything would appear to be normal to the passengers. The plane is coming in around 130, 150 miles per hour. It looks like it's about 100 feet above the runway, stable and descending smoothly.
In the next few seconds, though, just what Pete talked about there, you do not see the nose come up as it flares to slow that descent. Instead, it's softening the impact. It slams in very hard. Seven seconds after everything was fine, this plane with a maximum landing weight of 73,000 pounds comes down very hard.
The right side landing gear, as Pete noted, collapses. The wing is torn off as it contacts the ground. That's actually very good news because that allows the fuel in that wing to spray away from the plane, not onto the main cabin where all those passengers are.
Then the roll starts. The plane is on its right side. It tips up. It rolls all the way over and winds up upside down.
COOPER: It must have seemed like it happened incredibly fast for the people inside.
FOREMAN: Absolutely. They would have gone from what would have seemed to be, this is a mock-up of that, they could have gone from about 7 seconds in to -- from a normal flight to this very hard landing and then a fireball outside and then rolling over all of this in about 4 seconds.
COOPER: Wow.
FOREMAN: What saved them in that time was the fuselage is still intact. That's still related to that wing tearing away instead of crushing the cabin. And by their seats, which by regulation would have made with a requirement that they can withstand that kind of shock and not release from the floor dropping them all on their heads, Anderson.
COOPER: Even then, I mean, it wasn't over yet. I mean, that --
FOREMAN: No. This is the amazing thing.
COOPER: Yes.
FOREMAN: Imagine you're in this position and this is what happens. The plane goes on sliding for 7 long seconds while they're upside down before the fire trucks can race out and the evacuations could begin.
In total, those passengers went from what seemed a picture perfect flight or at least pretty close to it to scrambling for their lives in 18 seconds, Anderson. The fact they all got out alive, remarkable.
COOPER: That's incredible. Tom Foreman, thanks so much.
Up next, what we know about the arrests of three people. Prosecutors say were members of a cult-like group linked to a string of nationwide killings, including that of a border patrol agent.
Plus, people around the world tonight praying for Pope Francis as the Vatican reports more medical issues for the 80-year-old pontiff.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:48:14]
COOPER: The Vatican today said that what they yesterday called a polymicrobial infection in Pope Francis's respiratory tract is actually pneumonia in both his lungs. He's been hospitalized since last week. Crowds outside the hospital tonight prayed for the 88-year- old pontiff.
More now from our Vatican Correspondent Christopher Lamb who's there. Christopher, what more do you know about the Pope's condition?
CHRISTOPHER LAMB, CNN VATICAN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, the Vatican explained this afternoon that the Pope had a CT scan and that revealed pneumonia in both of his lungs. Obviously, it's a concerning development because people in the Vatican were fearful that when the Pope got bronchitis and didn't go into hospital, that something like pneumonia would be developed by the Pope.
And those fears have come true with this result of a CT scan that has shown this development of pneumonia. Now, the Pope has been in the Gemelli Hospital behind me for five days now. He has had treatment for this respiratory tract infection, which the Vatican say is a complex one.
And in fact, the word complex is what the Vatican say the situation the Pope is facing is. They keep repeating this word complex, which I think only adds to the concern about the Pope's health. Anderson?
COOPER: And just to be clear, is the Pope's condition getting worse or are officials just getting a handle on the exact diagnosis? Because obviously, pneumonia is not what the Vatican was saying yesterday.
LAMB: That's right. I mean, the Vatican has said is the Pope is in a stable condition, that he's in good spirits, that he's had breakfast, he's eating, he read newspapers today.
[20:50:03]
What we're hearing from the Vatican is that things are basically stable for the Pope, but this obviously this development of the pneumonia is a concerning one. And that suggests that the condition is not going in the right direction, that things are deteriorating to a certain extent.
COOPER: Christopher Lamb in Rome, I appreciate it. Thank you, Christopher.
LAMB: Thank you.
COOPER: Well, coming up next, police have arrested the alleged leader and two alleged members of a bizarre cult-like group called Zizians, linked, say, authorities to at least six murderers in multiple states, including a border patrol agent and the parents of one of the alleged members. Details on that ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:55:19]
COOPER: Disturbing new details tonight about an alleged cult-like group who call themselves Zizians, who have been linked to at least six murderers across the country. Jack LaSota, Michelle Zajko and Daniel Blank were taken into custody over the weekend in Maryland. They're charged with trespassing and obstruction and are currently being held without bail.
Now, prosecutors say that LaSota goes by the moniker Ziz online is the alleged leader of the Zizians, the group that's been linked to homicides in California, Pennsylvania and Vermont, including the death of the U.S. Border Patrol agent David Maland.
Joining me now is CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst John Miller. So what do we know about the Zizians? I'd never heard of this.
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, they're pretty new on the radar. And it tells us a few things. It starts with LaSota, a blogger, and the blogging is about radical veganism, animal rights, gender fluidity. They rail against a different group that may be another cult, although different, against rationalization theory.
So the difference here, though, is --
COOPER: Arguing over rationalization theory, yes.
MILLER: Yes. And when you get into the rationalization people, it takes a lot of rationalization to understand them, too.
COOPER: OK.
MILLER: But this came tinged with violence, where, you know, it starts in California, where they have an attack on their landlord, where he's stabbed 57 times. He loses an eye. He runs to a neighbor's trailer and, you know, he's got a sword sticking out of his back.
And then you see he's obviously the -- he lives, but he's the prime witness. And then by January, he's murdered by somebody else.
COOPER: Wow.
MILLER: So then you have the murder of the Border Patrol agent. This is now -- that was 2022. The Border Patrol agent happened just several weeks back on a car stop in Vermont. So at the end of the day, when you start to connect the dots, you have six murders in three different states with a core group of under 10 people that seem to have connections to different parts of it.
COOPER: And so they've been out there now for four years. I mean, has this law enforcement been aware of them and looking for them since that landlord?
MILLER: So yes and no. I mean, individual jurisdictions, for instance, one of the cult members is allegedly connected to the murder of her two parents in their home in Pennsylvania. So you've got them moving between Pennsylvania, between Maryland, California, other states, and you have these individual crimes.
And law enforcement is better networked today than it has been in 100 years with wants, warrants, computers, fingerprints, ballistics, information that finds matches. But it was the murder of the Border Patrol agent where the FBI came in and started to deep dive into each of these individuals and their connections that really kind of brought this richer picture together.
COOPER: I mean, is there something new at play here in terms of cults?
MILLER: So yes and no. One, if you go by -- and if you talk to people like Gregory Sadov (ph), Dr. Sadov (ph) from UVA, people who study serial killers, cults, terrorist groups, gangs, you see these common themes, right? These are people who are lacking something. They're not getting what they need out of life.
And they find the answer through some charismatic leader. And then you have the Internet. That's the deal breaker here. You could think of Charlie Manson and that cult or Jim Jones and that cult or the SLA and Patty Hearst. But once you have the Internet, now you're bringing together people who would have never met because they're from all over the country.
And that's how you get 30 members. But that's also how you find the people who are willing to travel, the people who are willing to kill, the people who are willing to die that becomes that central core group. Then when you get to their ideology, I think you can put that aside because the main cult requirements that there is a leader, that you have the special knowledge, the special existence, that you shut out the outside world and strike out against them if you feel threatened, that's fairly standard, strange as it may sound.
COOPER: And some of them, I mean, come from tech backgrounds.
MILLER: Well, that's the other thing. There is this perception that to be in one of these cults, you have to either be mentally ill or weak minded. You have some extraordinarily, highly intelligent people here. That's what sets them apart from a lot of other cult members.
The thing that doesn't set them apart, though, is whether it was the gender fluidity issues or something else in their life where they were being isolated, they found each other and they found this leader Ziz that brought them together in this common cause.
COOPER: And were they work -- I mean, I guess there's more members out there.
MILLER: There are. And the question is, where does membership start and stop? You know, if you were a follower of the blog, if you were a fan, you know, what were you willing to do? How deep into it were you? Are you a casual user or are you a hardcore member?
But with the main members, which numbers about seven, who are either dead or in jail, you see kind of a real dent in that leadership. We'll have to see where it goes.
COOPER: All right, John Miller, thank you. Fascinating.
That's it for us. The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.
