Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Any Moment: Judge May Rule On Whether Trump Violated Gag Order; Video Undercuts Pentagon Account Of 2021 Afghanistan Blast; New White House Rules Mean Hassle-Free Airline Refunds. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 24, 2024 - 13:30   ET

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

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The judge is struggling with is, what is the appropriate remedy at this point to stop this from happening? If it's happening now, you better believe it's going to be likely that it continues to happen. The judge has to stop it in its tracks.

[13:30:13]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Let's put back up that graphic where it said the possible penalties for contempt here, because you can see it says $1,000 or up to 30 days. I think we all know which one would be more convincing to former President Trump when it comes to getting him to stay within the lines here. And to that point, Joey, CNN's John Miller has reported that the Secret Service, court officers and NYC Corrections have been quietly discussing what happens if Trump ends up being jailed for contempt. If he continues to violate the gag order, do you see any scenario where that would actually happen?

JACKSON: I really do. And I do because let's talk about a few things. Number one, if we accept the proposition that no one is above the law, the options we looked at just there, right, there's the admonishment, but we also looked at the monetary $1,000 punishment.

Guess what? Wasn't there just a civil proceeding wherein there's a half a billion-dollar judgment or so against the former president? Has that prevented him from doing anything? Hasn't there been an E. Jean Carroll defamation case too, right? I mean, one relating to allegations of sexual assault, wherein there's up to $90 million. What has that done?

And so it gets us, Brianna, to your question of the other option, which is jail. Now potentially, you know, you have a maximum of 30 days under the law. Does that mean he puts him in? That is the judge at some point for a few hours as you put him in overnight. But it has to be a real possibility. And obviously the Secret Service and interested parties have to do it in a way where they're ready for such a contingency.

Now, there may be other ramifications to that, I think, you know, that have to weigh on the judge, not only of this proceeding, but you know, how might there be a public reaction, right? We can say that, hey, the judge shouldn't be considering that. But you know, I just think people are so entrenched in their views that the judge has to consider everything in terms of safety. And incarceration, though, to get the president -- former president,

to do what he's supposed to do and what everyone else really kind of does all the time, which is to follow judicial orders. And if not, they're in contempt, I think has to be on the table.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Joey, I want to present a contrasting view of things. We spoke to someone you frequently share our air with, Michael Moore, a criminal defense attorney in Georgia yesterday. And he argued that he believes Trump is doing this deliberately to take the focus off the actual content of the case and to make the focus about his rhetoric and his ongoing fights with Michael Cohen, et cetera.

I'm curious what you think of that. If you think this is a deliberate attempt from Trump to distract. And if so, whether that might influence the judge to handle it differently.

JACKSON: Yeah, I think Michael Moore may be onto something, and that may be very well the case. Now, it's very difficult, Boris, Brianna, for us to know. We're not competent to know what someone else is thinking. We can only discern what they're thinking based on inferences. But whether it's politics, whether it's to take the steam off of it, that's the reality. There's an order you need to follow it. There are consequences if you don't. What that consequence is? We're going to find out when the judge issues the decision.

SANCHEZ: Joey Jackson, always great to get your perspective. Thanks for being with us.

JACKSON: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Up next, a CNN exclusive. There's new evidence that challenges the Pentagon's account of what happened during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some really emotional video after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:37:54]

SANCHEZ: A CNN investigation is raising new questions about the deadly bombing during the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Remember, some 13 American troops and about 170 Afghans were killed in August 2021. And for years, the Pentagon has insisted a single explosion from an ISIS suicide bomber was to blame.

KEILAR: But CNN has obtained never-before released video. It shows that there was far more gunfire than what officials have ever admitted. Our teams also spoke to a doctor who says he personally pulled bullets from the wounded. CNN Chief International Security Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh breaks it all down in this exclusive investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you guys in the right state of mind?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's go.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This video not fully seen in public before reveals brutal facts long denied by the U.S. military.

On August 26th, 2021, a moment of acute savagery at the end of America's longest war. Two Pentagon investigations insisted all 170 Afghans and 13 U.S. military who died here were killed by an ISIS bomber and nobody hit by gunfire.

GENERAL KENNETH F. MCKENZIE, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTCOM: No definitive proof that anyone was ever hit or killed by gunfire.

WALSH: But this new video, which begins outside the airport's Abbey Gate entrance, reveals much more shooting after the blast than the Pentagon said. Combined with new accounts to CNN of Marines opening fire and gunshot injuries in Afghan civilians, it challenges the rigor and reliability of the two Pentagon investigations that declared no Afghan civilians were shot dead in the chaotic aftermath. The bomb detonates. The footage then stops and picks up three seconds later.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You good? You good?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Watch out, there's 12 men in the back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right here, right here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, hey.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I got that on film dude.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're breaking through. Is that all right, guys? Great job. We're doing security.

[13:40:08]

WALSH: Many Marines here were young, some on their first deployment. The gunfire starts. They run for cover.

This long burst is about 17 shots, bringing us a total of 20. We're tallying shots fired and episodes of fire based on two forensic analyses on screen. You cannot see who is still firing here, and we never see Marines or anyone firing in this video.

Short, controlled bursts in isolation. CS gas canister has exploded in the blast, its gas choking this Marine. And in a moment, the total episodes of gunfire you've heard will start being more than the three the Pentagon has said happened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're still here.

WALSH: The gunfire continues. We leap forward 27 seconds. As Afghans, arms raised, run into the airport.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, they're just smoking dirt, bro.

WALSH: One burst, now another.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Is that the (BLEEP) TB bro?

WALSH: They wonder if the Taliban, the TB, is shooting. Two Marines told us they saw the Taliban just after the blast, looking as shocked as they were. Multiple Marines we spoke to who were there said they felt they were under fire. But the Pentagon has insisted for two years no militant gunmen opened fire here. They've said the only shots fired here were two bursts by U.S. Marines and one from U.K. troops. Once in a big burst from a nearby tower. All bursts near simultaneous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's (BLEEP) get down. Are you good?

WALSH: So, according to their investigations, we must be hearing Marines or the British firing here.

Jump forwards nearly two minutes, during which there are three bursts, and they're heading outside to help. That's at least 43 shots in 11 episodes of shooting. Just short of four minutes of sporadic fire, most of which the Pentagon has said for two years did not happen.

This is how terrifying it was for Afghans outside minutes after the blast. So who was shooting? For the first time, a Marine eyewitness has come forward and told CNN the first big burst of gunfire at the start of the GoPro video you just saw came from where U.S. Marines were standing near the blast site. We're using a different voice to hide his identity as he fears reprisals for describing the gunfire.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was -- it was multiple. There's no doubt about that. It wasn't onesies and twosies. It was -- it was a mass volume of gunfire.

WALSH (on camera): Down towards the Abbey Gate sniper tower from roughly an area not too far away from where the blast had gone off. That's where you heard the shooting emanate from?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It would have been around that area, yes.

WALSH: And there were U.S. Marines, right? This was likely emanating from Marines on the ground.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

WALSH: You think they fired into the crowd?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I couldn't tell you for certain.

WALSH: But they wouldn't have fired into the air, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, they would not have fired into the air.

WALSH: Because you had a specific no warning shots order, right? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It wasn't a direct order, but it was a common understanding. No warning shots. These are kids. They're young. And they've only been taught what they've been taught. Some of these kids have been with the unit for quite literally two, three months prior to deployment.

WALSH (voice-over): We spoke to over 10 other Marines anonymously about gunfire. Some felt they were shot at. A couple even said they saw a gunman. But two others stand out, who we were unable to reach ourselves. Both injured. Both admitting some memories were fuzzy. But one clear he heard orders to fire. The other, that he opened fire himself.

ROMEL FINLEY, BLAST SURVIVOR: I see my platoon sergeant walk past us saying, get back on that wall and shoot back at those motherfuckers. So I'm like, oh, we're in a gunfight too.

CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, BLAST SURVIVOR: Like all I hear is ringing and fucking flashes going on. And then I start hearing snaps. And then I start realizing that's a fucking dude shooting at me. I just started shooting at the dude.

WALSH: It's one of the Afghans themselves, 170 of whom died. The Pentagon has insisted all injuries and deaths were from the bomb and its ball bearings. But two years ago, CNN heard significant evidence from 19 eyewitnesses that Afghans were shot and from Afghan medical staff counting dozens of dead from bullets.

[13:45:08]

Key was Sayed Ahmadi, Head Doctor at the Kabul Hospital treating most of the wounded. Back then, he was afraid to speak openly and his account was dismissed by the Pentagon. But now we met him safe with asylum in Finland. He says he and his staff had the expertise to diagnose over 50 dead from gunfire that night.

DR. SAYED AHMADI, FORMER KABUL HOSPITAL DIRECTOR: 170 people were killed totally. But the register what we had maybe 145.

WALSH (on camera): And by your estimation about half?

AHMADI: More than half were killed by gunfire.

WALSH: So when you hear the American investigation say that you're just wrong, you don't know what you're talking about.

AHMADI: I wonder. I hope one day they ask me or they call me what you saw. Like you come here and ask me, you came to Kabul and ask me about the situation. They never asked me.

WALSH (voice-over): Even though we described the video and our findings in great detail to the Pentagon, they said they would need to examine any new, unseen video before they could assess it. They said their first investigation had thoroughly looked at allegations of outgoing fire from U.S. and coalition forces following the blast. They said their review, released earlier this month, focused not on

gunfire but the bomber and events leading up to the blast, but found no new evidence of a complex attack and uncovered no new assertions of outgoing fire, having no materialistic impact on the original investigation.

Investigators have also not interviewed any Afghans for their reports, the Pentagon said, leaving the question of how hungry for the truth are they.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEILAR: We have CNN's Nick Paton Walsh joining us from London. I mean, stunning that they didn't ask those very simple questions of people that you were able to ask questions of there, Nick. What happens next?

WALSH: Yeah, indeed, from an Afghan doctor who said to me he'd be willing to talk to Pentagon investigators had they reached out to him. Remember, we are talking about medical staff in Afghanistan backed up by medical reports talking about over 70 dead after that incident from what they said was gunfire shots.

Now, that's key. Also key to this is the reaction of the families of the 13 U.S. service members who died. They have already at times expressed their dissatisfaction at the official Pentagon narrative. And we've also just heard in the last hours on X.com from Republican congressman from Florida, Mike Waltz. He actually said that 2.5 years have passed and now new questions are still emerging about the Abbey Gate bombing. He says, "I was just briefed last week on the second investigation into the bombing and was told the opposite of this reporting." He's referencing our report there.

He says, "My heart breaks for the 13 gold star members who can't get closure or accountability on this tragedy." And that's ultimately what we're talking about here. That the grieving process palpable at times public amongst those who survived or those who lost people in this Afghan as well is hampered by the truth, it seems, not quite having been laid bare yet.

We do know that the Pentagon are in possession of video. They've put that out in a Freedom of Information Act request. The fact that it's been viewed by the generals in charge was acknowledged during a congressional briefing. So the Pentagon probably know more about this than they've made public in terms of video. The ultimate question is, why is that not more transparently being dealt with throughout these entire two years of investigations?

Back to you.

SANCHEZ: Excellent reporting from Nick Paton Walsh. Nick, thank you so much.

Stay with CNN. We're back in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:53:34]

KEILAR: Flight delayed, maintenance issue, maybe the Wi-Fi doesn't work. You ever run into that one? Well, next time you experience a flight inconvenience, and there's so many. I mean, we could just --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: So many, you might just get some money back. New federal rules announcing today will require Airlines to pay you back in cold, hard cash instead of those awesome travel vouchers and credits.

SANCHEZ: And the new rules do something you would hope that Airlines did automatically. They require them to be more up front about those pesky fees. CNN Aviation Correspondent Pete Muntean is here with the details.

So Pete, how significant are these changes?

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Cash is king, right? And, you know, these were really born out of the pandemic when complaints soared from passengers. We're talking about 9 out of 10 complaints in the pandemic were over refunds. But the issue is that many passengers got a credit or a voucher or miles from the airline, not cash. So this really formalizes that if your flight is significantly delayed or canceled, or even if your bags arrive late, or if the Wi-Fi doesn't work, that money will go back on your credit card automatically.

Here are some of the conditions for a refund. If an airline cancels your flight, if there's a delay of three hours or more on a domestic flight, six hours or more on an international flight, one, the cause was the airline's fault. So that does not apply to things like weather. This also applies to check bag fees. Get your check bag fee back if your bags are 12 or more hours late for a domestic flight. A couple different conditions on an international flight, 15 to 30 hours, depending.

[13:55:05]

Now airlines say they've given about $43 billion in refunds since the pandemic. You do, they underscore, have a chance to book a refundable ticket, but Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said today this really goes a lot further and puts some pressure on the airlines. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE BUTTIGIEG, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: Airlines are not enthusiastic about us holding them to a higher standard. But I believe that this is in the interest of the airline sector because it builds passengers' confidence in airlines as a whole. And I also know that they'll be able to adapt to this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MUNTEAN: Here is when these new rules are triggered without request, automatically, within 20 days is when an airline is supposed to give you that money back. Again, cash, not credits. So this is really significant here.

The good news is that this will come into play during the holiday travel rush by October, so it'll miss the summer travel rush, but it's a time, especially when the weather hits, things get out of position, airlines have cancellations and delays, schedules come tumbling down. This will come into play for a lot of people and provide a lot of help to them when the worst happens.

KEILAR: How are they going to know, for instance, let me tell you about the time my bag was supposed to go to DRO, Durango, Colorado, went to QRO, Queretaro, Mexico --

MUNTEAN: It's a bit different.

KEILAR: -- for 10 days. OK, so but let's say something like that happens. I mean, how are you as a traveler, as a consumer, going to know, OK, I am due this, I'm due that from an airline?

MUNTEAN: Well, the big thing is that the airlines have really had to spell this out for the Department of Transportation. Now, there's this dashboard online where it shows essentially with X's and O's what the airlines agree to and what they owe you, regardless of whether or not they're following this policy. This will hold their feet to the fire, and in 60 days essentially this will go into effect. They say fully into effect by October.

So this is something that will be automatic. You will not have to go and dig through receipts and find your bag claim check to figure this out. This happens right away so you don't have to really do a lot of the legwork on your own.

KEILAR: That's great, because that did not happen for me, as you can imagine.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, how did that go?

KEILAR: Well, I got it back eventually, but it was some interesting clothing I had to buy on the vacation.

MUNTEAN: Sometimes you just got to go to Target in the middle of a trip.

KEILAR: I did.

MUNTEAN: It happens at the best of times.

KEILAR: Walmart.

SANCHEZ: Where there is a time.

MUNTEAN: Yeah.

SANCHEZ: Pete Muntean, thank you so much.

So, happening right now, pro-Palestinian protests at UT Austin appear to be intensifying. This is video from moments ago on that campus. A developing story that we are following. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)