Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Trump Threatens to Close Southern Border Next Week; Congress Will Get Redacted Special Counsel Report within Weeks; Interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D) Maryland; Preliminary Finding Reached in Ethiopian Airlines Crash; Pope Mandates Reporting of Sex Abuse Claims in Vatican City. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired March 30, 2019 - 11:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:59:52] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone. And thank you so much for joining me in Atlanta this Saturday.

I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

We begin with President Donald Trump doubling down on his threat to close the U.S. border with Mexico. He now says if Mexico does not stop all illegal immigration he could close the border or large sections of it next week. And warned he could keep it closed for a, quoting now, "long time".

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mexico could stop it right at their southern border. It is very easy for them to stop people from coming up and they don't choose to do it.

Well, we're not going to give them hundreds of billions of dollars and tell them that they're not going to use their strong immigration laws to help the United States. So there's a very good likelihood that I'll be closing the border next week and that will be just fine with me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right. This move would impact people and trade. Mexico is a top U.S. trading partner. In 2018, trade between the two countries averaged out to $1.6 billion per day.

Border officials say their resources have become strained and that the U.S. immigration system is at a breaking point. So President Trump is putting pressure on Mexico.

Let's check in with CNN's Natasha Chen at the southern border in front of the Hidalgo, Texas point of entry. So what more can you tell us about this threat from the President?

NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred -- this is going to be a major impact if the border closes here. We have been watching people living on the U.S. side going toward Mexico today. They just go about their daily business, they run errands, they go to the dentist, see their families.

They say that lot of people cross to go to work and maybe live on the other side. And so this is going to be a really big impact on their daily lives. Of course, the commercial cargo traffic goes through a different port about two miles away from us.

Now, of course, you've seen President Trump's words there in his speech as well as on Twitter talking about how Mexico needs to stop the illegal immigration from their side because of the massive influx of people. But right now, the ports are all still open.

A senior Homeland Security official says that while the border closure is on the table, what they're doing right now is moving some resources from ports of entry like this to help with the influx of people coming in between ports of entry illegally.

I want to read a statement Secretary Nielsen put out recently. She said "Make no mistake, Americans may feel effects from this emergency as personnel are relocated to join the crisis response effort. There may be commercial delays, higher vehicle wait times at the border and longer pedestrian lines. Despite these impacts, we cannot shirk our responsibility to the American people to do everything possible to secure our country while also upholding our humanitarian values."

And of course, if President Trump does indeed close the border, that would be a major impact not only on these people's lives but on our ability to get fruits and vegetables from Mexico as nearly half the fruit and vegetable imports into the United States are from Mexico -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Could be a pretty sizable impact. Thanks so much, Natasha Chen. Appreciate that.

All right. Let's talk further on this. Joining me right now, former senior adviser to the national security adviser under President Obama Samantha Vinograd; national political correspondent for "Time" Molly Ball; and assistant editor at the "Washington Post", David Swerdlick. Good to see all of you.

DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hey -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Samantha -- you first.

The President boasts that, you know, closing the border is all about security. So what potentially are the security implications of this kind of threat -- closing the border?

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, ahead of the security implications, I want to point out that the law and order president is saying that he is going to do something which actually is illegal. There's no basis in U.S. law for the President to close the border.

And if he chose to do so and was somehow able to implement that, I don't know if he is planning on posting sentries all along our the southern border, he would be precluding the ability of Americans living in Mexico, there's about 1.5 million of them to cross into the United States. Again, no basis in U.S. law to bar these 1.5 million Americans from trying to enter the United States.

And finally we have obligations under international law to process asylum claims. If we closed our border, we would be breaking our international legal obligations.

And from a security perspective, we really have to wonder about resource diversion here. We would be closing our points of entry, we would be stranding people on the Mexican side of the border in highly insecure places while at the same time, Fred, the President is cutting off funding to Central America.

He has started implementing that decision. Our funding is used to address the root drivers of illegal immigration, so we would be taking money away that's used to address these endemic causes of illegal immigration while at the same time making illegal moves.

WHITFIELD: Those countries being El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras.

And Molly, I mean Sam makes an amazing point there. Can the President act unilaterally or does he need to get, you know, seek approval in order to close the borders like he is describing?

[11:05:03] MOLLY BALL, CNN POLITICAL ANALSYT: Well look, I'm not a legal expert or a lawyer. I think it is up for debate what he could do.

It depends also what you mean by closing the border. Does he mean closing ports of entry, closing some ports of entry, partially closing ports of entry, doing things that would simply make it more difficult to cross but not, you know, entirely.

It's very similar to the wall, right? It sounds so simple to just seal this imaginary line that people have in their minds but when you get to the practicalities of it, it isn't that easy as we have seen with the attempt to build the wall.

But this is the kind of thing tat if it could be done, you can imagine he would face a lot of resistance, including from within his own party because people who would be effected, particularly in a state like Texas which is a very Republican state where I think you could expect lawmakers from that state to send a very urgent message for the President.

But finally I would just say nobody has any idea really how seriously to take this threat from him because he has made it repeatedly in the past.

He has repeatedly spit-balled, I guess you could say, about closing the border. And then he doesn't follow through. So even, I think, the government of Mexico doesn't know how to respond and whether it is an empty threat.

WHITFIELD: Yes. and a couple of things on that, you know -- David. I mean, a -- what could it mean for the relationship which is already pretty frayed between the U.S. and Mexico as a result of, you know, the President's rhetoric as president and as a candidate?

And then is this the President flexing muscle, feeling, you know, rather boosted after, you know, that Mueller report, feeling like, you know, it is time to unleash, do all of the stuff that I want to do.

SWERDLICK: Yes. Good morning -- Fred.

I think you're right on both of those counts. I do think that federal law and the constitution does give the Article 2 branch of government, the executive, wider latitude on border enforcement than it does in some other areas.

That being said, and to Sam's point, whether or not the President has the authority to specifically shut down all points of entry, let's say, or almost all points of entry. Preventing the right of citizens to cross back and forth is another matter.

I think also the question of whether this would cut against the grain of some of out trade agreements with Mexico remains to be seen. I think we need a little more analysis on that.

But yes, in raw political terms this is the President tacking back to an issue that has been successful for him and an issue where he feels comfortable.

Earlier in the week he had that tweet saying the Republicans will be the party of health care and didn't get the traction I think that he wanted out of that issue. That's an issue that was good for Republicans ten years ago, not as good for Republicans now.

This is an area where the President feels strong, likes to talk about immigration, and senses that his basis is with him on this issue. And if he can't get a wall as Molly just referenced, then maybe he can get further talking about closing the border.

There's a situation here where he tweets this out on a Friday, has all weekend to see how it plays, and then he can decide next week whether he's going to really make good on this threat or whether or not he's going to move on to another issue that has political resonance for his voters.

WHITFIELD: So Secretary Nielsen, you know, sent out a letter, you know, requesting DHS volunteers, you know, at the southern border. She also, you know, wrote that, I'm quoting now, "e must be vigilant and we do not create new problems by resourcing against others. But right now, the situation at the border has reached a breaking point and requires the help of individuals willing to temporarily use their expertise to help address the situation."

So Samantha, what do you make of this request?

VINOGRAD: Well, what I make is that the President is undercutting his own team with the actions that he took yesterday. Secretary Nielsen did make the statement but two whole days ago she also signed what she called a historic agreement with her counterparts in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, talking about the unprecedented cooperation on security issues and on trying to stem illegal immigration between all of our countries.

And then two days later, the President upends that historic agreement and says that these countries are not doing what they should to stem illegal immigration, and he said the same thing about Mexico.

And going back to your question to David about the impact on our relationship with Mexico, President Trump unfortunately isn't making these comments in a padded room. Mexico and other governments are listening to him. And at this point, Mexico is not taking the bait. They said they're not responding to his threats.

But we have a range of other security initiatives with Mexico separate from trying to stem illegal immigration. Separate from trade, counter narcotics, trying to stem the flow of weapons across our border.

And at what point does the President Obrador who has to date had a good relationship with President Trump said that he is going to have to say that he has to take a step back because he can't be bullied on these kinds of issues by the President when the President is looking for a scapegoat for the fact that the immigration policies that he put forward are not yet working.

[11:10:02] WHITFIELD: Yes. And Molly -- you know, while this might widen the divide between Republicans and Democrats -- or really the President, you know, and Democrats it really might create newer fissures between the President and members of his own party.

BALL: Yes. I mean we have already seen this repeatedly specifically on immigration.

Why did the Republican Congress not do anything to build a wall during the first two years of Trump's presidency? Because Republicans in Congress aren't interested in the wall the way the President is.

When he pushed them on it and did the national emergency, did the shutdown, you saw a lot of Republicans distance themselves from that position because it's not as important to them as it was to him.

When he made the midterms all about the caravan and immigration and it wasn't the political winner across the board for Republicans that the President hoped it would be, you saw some Republicans wishing he would change his focus. But he is very fixated on this issue.

And look, I think the President looks at places like Mexico, places like China and thinks well, they need us more than we need them, therefore we should have some leverage.

He is not entirely wrong. We do see China coming to the table to change our trade agreements with them, for example, in response to the tariffs that have been imposed. But the whole point of those relationships is that they are mutually beneficial.

And if you do something to spite your partner, it is going to hurt the United States as well. And that I think is the message that members of his own party are going to try to get the President to accept. WHITFIELD: And David -- you know, the President made this threat

before, closing the border. But what might be different this time, that he might make good on that threat?

SWERDLICK: Well, he's got a range of options, right. He could close some points of entry, some ports -- not all of them. He could deploy different resources from Homeland Security, Border Patrol and other -- ICE and other enforcement agencies at various places.

But there would be a severe economic impact if he completely shut down the border. Mexico is an ally as Sam said and it's a huge trading partner. The idea that we would --

WHITFIELD: Right. To the tune of $1.6 billion a day. That's, you know, that's according to 2018 numbers.

SWERDLICK: Right. Right. Mexico and Canada are neighbors with huge land borders, with huge trade implications. The idea that we would just shut the door and lock it and throw away the key I think is unrealistic.

That said -- and I agree with Molly, not all Republicans are interested in this in the way the President is. That said, I think he feels like it is such a signature campaign promise of his -- build the wall, make Mexico pay for it -- that he has to push forward on something now that he's got the Barr summary letter behind him as you mentioned earlier. That makes it seem like he is pushing ahead on the issue.

He made other campaign promises in 2016 but this is the one that's so closely branded with him -- being tough on boarder enforcement in one way or another.

WHITFIELD: All right. David Swerdlick, Molly Ball, Sam Vinograd -- we'll leave it there for now. Thanks so much.

SWERDLICK: Thanks, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Still ahead, the public could see Robert Mueller's full Russia report by mid-April, if not sooner. Will it be enough to satisfy some Democrats who say Attorney General Barr's summary smells of a coverup.

Plus, stunning new details on the crash of that Ethiopian Airlines flight. What preliminary findings the flight records are telling investigators.

[11:13:25[ (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. Welcome back.

Mark your calendar. U.S. Attorney General William Barr says Congress and the American public will get their first look at the redacted Robert Mueller report by mid-April, if not sooner. Barr says the redaction process is now under way with Mueller's help. He says once they finished combing through nearly 400 pages, the

report will be released. Barr is also open to testifying, suggesting that May 1st for the Senate Judiciary Committee and May 2nd for the House Judiciary Committee.

Congressman Jamie Raskin is a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and is joining me right now. Good to see you -- Congressman.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D), MARYLAND: Good to be with you.

WHITFIELD: So your reaction to this new time line and Barr's offer to both testify and to release a redacted report?

RASKIN:: Well, we're standing by our time line which Chairman Nadler's request to have all the materials turned over to us by April 2nd. That was still a more permissive and open deadline than any independent counsel or special counsel had ever been given.

If you think back to the Kenneth Starr report, the report was delivered basically the next day. And the big boxes of supporting materials came over in vans to the U.S. Congress. It was the same thing in Watergate. The Attorney General worked with Congress to go to court to say the grand jury material should be released to Congress.

(CROSSTALKING)

WHITFIELD: So what are your suspicions here? What are your suspicions here as to why it was done very differently?

RASKIN:: Well, we have no idea, of course, what's in the Mueller report because it hasn't been turned over to us. We've been able to torture out of the Department of Justice the revelation that there are more than 400 pages in there of factual findings and about presumably not just whether or not there was conspiracy and whether or not there was obstruction but also the counterintelligence conclusions and all other kinds of material.

In fact yesterday, the Attorney General was back pedaling rapidly saying he did not summarize the report. He just zeroed in on those things he wanted to talk about.

So the questions grow more voluminous by the day here. The basic problem, of course is that as far as we can tell Special Counsel Mueller said there was substantial evidence for the President having obstructed justice. But then the Attorney General just closed the door on it and said there was no obstruction of justice.

[11:19:59] And presumably he was acting on the authority of his own 19-page memorandum, (INAUDIBLE), which operated kind of like a job application, in which he said the President of the United States could never be guilty of obstructing justice because he's the President.

WHITFIELD: So you said these questions are, you know, voluminous by the day, and of course, if the redacted report is released by mid- April and if indeed, you know, Barr is to testify on Capitol Hill, your questions, you know, by May, may be very different from what your questions are now. You know, what does your instinct tell you now about the questions you would want to ask Barr if you were to have the opportunity to ask him.

RASKIN:: Well, the first question is why did he throw out all of the evidence that Mueller found about presidential obstruction of justice, some of which was public he said but some of which still has not been made public? Why was all of it thrown out? And why did the Attorney General decide as a matter of law there was no obstruction of justice?

Was he just echoing his own conclusions in that 19-page memo where he advanced a very extreme and marginal view within the law, which is that the President as a matter of law cannot obstruct justice.

The theory is because the President sits on top of the law enforcement function in the Department of Justice, he can interfere in any case he wants, he can dismiss witnesses, he can end cases, he can throw out prosecutions just because he's the President.

Nobody else really believes that, but our Attorney General does, and he is the one who made the call about whether or not there was obstruction of justice. So we need to read that report.

WHITFIELD: So House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler says, you know, he is very disturbed by this lack of transparency. Your Senate colleague, Mazie Hirono said this last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO (D), HAWAII: The House Committee is entitled to that information because it is the committee that any investigation into impeachment starts with the House.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: So from your perspective it would be ok to share some of this very sensitive information with the House Judiciary Committee on a very confidential basis but could not be made public, is that right?

HIRONO: The House Judiciary Committee is entitled to a nonredacted version. They're entitled. I'm not saying that the senate committee should get that, although it would be good, you know. I'd like to see it.

BLITZER: Why should the house committee be entitled but not the Senate committee?

HIRONO: Because anything relating to impeachment starts with the House, so they need the full report.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So Congressman -- if indeed, you know, that's the case as she states it particularly because of, you know, oversight on impeachment proceedings. If the House Judiciary Committee does not receive the unredacted version and everyone then only gets redacted, what are your thoughts on that?

(CROSSTALKING)

RASKIN:: Well, Senator Hirono -- she's exactly right. There's a basic confusion of institutional roles here. It is up to the Congress to decide what materials should be redacted in the interest of national security. It's up to the Congress to decide what materials are not appropriate for the public to see.

Not for the attorney general to be doing that. And if you look at the entire past practice of the prior independent counsel and special counsel, they just turned everything over to Congress because it's our constitutional oversight function which is in play here.

And the attorney general --

(CROSSTALKING)

WHITFIELD: So how do you see that -- as a challenge strictly in court or --

RASKIN:: Well, we may have to go court. We'll see if the Attorney General continues to play games with this, which his vague mid-April deadline. We may have to go to court.

We gave them a hard deadline of April 2nd, which was extremely liberal and permissive if you look at the history of the independent counsel, special counsel report being turned. He had more time than anybody.

Look, he had enough time overnight to determine as a matter of law that the President was not guilty of obstruction of justice. How long is it going to take him just to turn over the report and send us all of the supporting materials which also we have a legal right to receive.

WHITFIELD: All right. We'll leave it there for now. Congressman Jamie Raskin -- thanks so much for being us.

(CROSSTALKING)

RASKIN:: Thank you for having me.

WHITFIELD: Appreciate it.

All right. Still ahead, the Mueller report is coming, but what exactly will everyone see and can lawmakers or activist groups indeed sue to get the full unredacted report?

[11:24:11] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. Hello again. And thanks for joining me.

We now know that a redacted version of the Mueller report will be released to Congress in the next couple of weeks. Attorney General William Barr says he is working with Robert Mueller to decide which parts of the nearly 400-page report to make public. Barr may even appear before Senate and House committees, May 1 and 2. The President says he welcomes the release.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I have great confidence in the Attorney General and if that's what he'd like to do, I have nothing to hide. This was a hoax. This was a witch hunt. I have absolutely nothing to hide. And I think a lot of things are coming out with respect to the other side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: that was the President at Mar-A-Lago last night. So with me now is Michael Zeldin, who was Robert Mueller's former special assistant at the Department of Justice and a former federal prosecutor. Good to see you -- Michael.

All right. So help us understand, what would be the kind of material that the Attorney General Barr and, you know, prosecutor, Special Counsel Mueller would be redacting from this report before making it public?

ZELDIN: Three categories principally. That which implicates executive privilege which the President has the right to assert; that which is classified; and that which is grand jury, what they call 6-e material.

[11:30:02] Those three categories appear to be what they are redacting from the report.

WHITFIELD: Now, why in the first place, you know, would Mueller even give any, you know, charging authority to the Attorney General, isn't that something the prosecutor would independently do?

ZELDIN: Exactly right. I think the biggest problem in this case so far has been that the Attorney General, I believe, exceeded his authority under the special counsel regulations. Those regulations prescribe that the Attorney General has the power at the end of the investigation by Mueller to notify Congress of the fact that it is over and to advise Congress whether he denied Mueller any right to proceed. That's all he has the authority to do.

But what he did on March 24th was to take over the investigation from Mueller and make the ultimate charging decision, in this case, no obstruction. I think that's the biggest problem. That has set us in this spiral downhill when he exceeded what he has authority to do under those special counsel regulations.

WHITFIELD: Is there any way of knowing at this juncture whether the Attorney General took that authority or if it was Robert Mueller who handed over the authority to the AG as opposed to giving that charging authority to Congress?

ZELDIN: Well, it's not clear what Mueller did in terms of his communications with Barr but it appears to me that what Mueller did was to say in his report "I don't have enough evidence to reach a final conclusion about whether the President's conduct was criminally wrong," meaning that I could indict him for obstruction of justice.

Instead, what Mueller seems to have done is say there are equities on both sides. The evidence doesn't exactly exonerate the President so I'm going to pass this off to you, Congress, to make a determination about whether irrespective of whether it's a criminal law violation, it is a violation of his office, abuse of power, high crimes and misdemeanor analysis, that the house would then make.

But Barr intercepted the pass off from Mueller to the House and intervened and made his own determination which is why we are in this conversation that we're having now -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: And which is why you have so many Democrats in Congress who are saying they want the full, you know, unredacted version. In fact, the House Judiciary Committee is saying that, you know, it is owed the unredacted version. Do they have the law on their side?

ZELDIN: Well, certainly have the equities on their side. If you look back to the Monica Lewinsky, Ken Starr investigation -- what Ken Starr though he was under a different statute is what Barr should be doing here which is Starr went to the special division that oversees his investigation, in this case it would be that judge who oversees the grand jury, he asked that the judge release the grand jury material to Congress for its evaluation in its impeachment consideration.

What Barr should be doing is, rather than redacting this report, he should be finding a way to send the report, including all of the grand jury material over to the House for its consideration.

The classified information is another matter and that could be put in a separate classified appendix but that's what Barr should be working on, not redacting, but figuring out a way how to get the entire report including the grand jury over to the House for its consideration.

WHITFIELD: All right. Michael Zeldin -- we'll leave it there for now. Thank you so much.

ZELDIN: Thanks -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Investigators may be one big step closer to finding out why a Boeing 737 crashed in Ethiopia killing everyone on board. We'll ask a former pilot what he thinks of reports that it may have come down to a single faulty sensor -- next.

[11:34:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. We're learning stunning new details in the deadly crash of the Ethiopian Airlines jet as investigators move closer to learning the cause. The "Wall Street Journal" citing multiple unnamed sources saying investigators have reached a preliminary conclusion. They suspect a stall prevention feature automatically activated before the crash and may have been triggered by a single faulty sensor.

Investigators have similar suspicions about the October crash of a Boeing 737 Max flown by Lion Air. Boeing is scrambling to update the plane's software while hundreds of the planes are grounded around the world.

To get more on this, I'm joined by Les Abend. He was an American Airlines pilot for 34 years and is the author of the book "Paper Wings". Good to see you -- Les.

So is this new preliminary finding enough to convince you that the issue is this anti-stall software?

LES ABEND, FORMER AMERICAN AIRLINES PILOT: It is getting pretty close. I mean we have to understand the investigation, the field investigation is still in progress with Ethiopia, in actually it's still in progress with Lion Air.

But you know, at this point with the analysis of the flight data recorder, it is pointing more and more towards this MCAS system that we've been talking about for the last few weeks. And you know, this is -- it's stunning for Boeing to have designed the system without allowing pilots to take control of this situation.

WHITFIELD: Right, because there's so been so much criticism that the pilots didn't get properly trained on the system, that there was some iPad type of short course, you know, criticisms about that.

So help people understand what is this MCAS system, what is it exactly in this auto pilot, you know, automated kind of capacity?

[11:40:01] ABEND: Sure. This system was designed as a result of the bigger engines and where these engines were mounted. They were more forward and in an underslung aircraft -- the tendency when you add power is the nose will come up. When you add -- when you put the engines further forward, the nose has the tendency to come up even more. So to counteract that they put in this MCAS system -- this maneuvering characteristic augmentation system which basically says hey, you're close to a stall, we're going to take over for you and we're going to push the nose down.

Well, unfortunately there was a faulty sensor that said the airplane was close to a stall, and these pilots tried to wrestle it away.

Here's the rub with the situation is that the pilots did have a checklist procedure that they could have utilized according to Boeing. I'm still not positive that will absolutely alleviate the problem or would have eliminated the problem.

But here's the deal, that checklist situation is what we call a run away stab trim situation. So we'd actually see a wheel between the two pilots, two wheels spinning, and if it is spinning, that makes sense to disconnect the switches that Boeing is now recommending to do, but in this circumstance I don't think those wheels were turning which even though the Ethiopian crew knew of the Lion Air situation, it still didn't make a lot of sense to them.

And as you pointed out, it is limited in training and what Boeing presented to all crews all over the world.

WHITFIELD: So then Les -- how much more troubling is it about that report, you know, just a few weeks ago that a crew that was flying on the very aircraft, the Lion Aircraft before that fatal flight, because they had a third person in the cockpit who wasn't assigned to be at the ready for flying but had the time and wherewithal to go through a manual, you know, when they felt like this plane was doing something that was unexpected, and they were able to correct it, that there wouldn't be some sufficient reporting that would happen after that which would send an alert either to Boeing or to all aircraft that have that particular plane to look out.

So where do you place blame on reacting to that kind of emergency?

ABEND: Well, they were up at altitude, the situation -- I believe you're referring to the flight just prior to the tragedy of Lion Air.

WHITFIELD: Yes. the fatal one. ABEND: Having a jump seat rider, first of all, is not unusual to be in the cockpit and it is great. I always love to have a jump seat rider because they were my third pair of eyes.

So that jump seat rider wasn't -- didn't have a myopic vision of what was happening ahead of him and could focus more and come up with creative ideas since he wasn't at the controls, fighting the controls, trying to keep the airplane from diving at the ground, so he could be more creative with the process.

You know, at this point the pilots were doing the right thing, they were looking, or at least at being assisted by the particular jump seat rider to look in a particular checklist. You always want to go to a checklist and refer to something, but you have to diagnose what your emergency is before you go to the appropriate checklist.

WHITFIELD: All right. Les Abend -- thank you so much. And congrats on the new book as well.

ABEND: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Glad you could be with us.

All right. Still ahead, the Vatican now requiring papal officials to report sex abuse to church prosecutors. Does the change go far enough or is it relying too heavily on the church to police itself.

[11:43:45] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Pope Francis is announcing new changes for how the Vatican handles sex crime allegations. He is now requiring Vatican and papal officials to report any sex abuse claims to church prosecutors. It is the first time the Vatican has drawn up official guidelines for itself on this very issue.

Here is CNN's Delia Gallagher.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN VATICAN CORRESPONDENT: Fredricka -- these new laws are for employees and residents living and working at the Vatican or in its embassies and diplomatic missions abroad. You know, the Vatican is of course, its own country as well as being the headquarters of the Catholic Church.

And while it has had some laws on its books regarding sexual abuse issues, it is the first time it has comprehensive legislation such as you might find in other countries. So it really only applies to the 5,000 or so priests, nuns and lay people who are working directly for the Vatican.

But some of the new laws include mandatory reporting of potential sexual abuse to Vatican police and authorities, raising the statute of limitations to 20 years from the 18th birthday of an alleged victim, and an automatic dismissal from office for anybody found guilty of sexual abuse.

And it has been some time in the making. You know, back in 2013 the U.N. asked the Vatican for these new laws. And it was something that was raised again in February at the sex abuse summit here in Rome.

So certainly a good sign that Pope Francis and the Vatican have now published these new laws and guidelines, something which can be seen really as sort of closing a gap in the larger fight against sex abuse on the part of the Catholic Church.

[11:50:00] That is the gap that the Vatican itself didn't have on its books a comprehensive set of laws and guidelines when it came to sexual abuse that happened in their territory or by their employees -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Delia Gallagher -- thank you so much.

I want to bring in CNN's senior Vatican analyst John Allen now. So John -- good to see you.

So why did this take so long and will these new rules, you know, have a major effect on the church as a whole, or is this symbolic?

Hey, Fredricka, well listen, it is a great question why this has taken so long. You know, and will these new rules, you know, have a major effect on the Church as a whole or is this symbolic.

JOHN ALLEN, CNN SENIOR VATICAN ANALYST: Hey -- Fredricka.

Well, listen, it is a great question why this has taken so long. You know, in 2011 the Vatican issued what's known as a circular letter, basically an order to bishop's conferences all around the world telling them that they had to draft their own anti-abuse guidelines and the Vatican kind of rode herd to make sure that that happened.

It has almost been irritating to a lot of people that the Vatican never did that for itself. You know, here we are eight years later and that hole has finally been plugged. You know, you asked will this make a major difference for the church around the world.

Well, no because as you heard from Delia Gallagher, this really applies only to the physical territory of the Vatican -- the 108-acre city state here in Rome and then Vatican's foreign missions around the world, so its embassy in Washington and the other countries of the world.

But it is symbolically important, I suppose, because it sends a message that there's not going to be any nook or cranny of the Catholic Church where the expectations outlined in these anti-abuse policies don't apply.

WHITFIELD: So in these new guidelines, you know, there's a requirement of reporting these crimes to Vatican prosecutors. And therein lies, you know, the rub for a lot of people. How can you have an expectation that the Vatican will police and prosecute itself?

ALLEN: Yes, well, of course these guidelines only apply to crimes that are committed on Vatican territory, and of course the Vatican is a sovereign state. So it would be its prosecutors who would step up and be responsible for those crimes.

But, you know, in terms of the Catholic Church worldwide, this really has nothing to do with what happens, for instance, if a Catholic priest in Dubuque, Iowa commits sex abuse against someone. In that case, the Vatican has taken the position that bishops and other superiors have to comply with the law of the land that they're in.

And so if they're in a place where mandatory reporting is law, then they need to make those reports and they have to suffer the consequences if they don't. And that's not just idle talk, Fredricka. Just recently we saw a cardinal in France, Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Leon who was sentenced to a -- was suspended but a six-month jail term for failing to report an accusation of sexual abuse against one of his priests.

So in some ways, you know, the question of what the Vatican guidelines here are going to be, while interesting, is not as relevant as it once was because what we're clearly seeing is that several prosecutors and police forces around the world no longer are showing the deference to church personnel they once did, and if there's a perception of a coverup, that's going to be prosecuted. On the other end of that church leaders could end up doing jail time if they don't handle these cases appropriately -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: And the Pope -- Pope Francis also made it clear that he wants to help convicted priests. In a letter, you know, he said and I'm quoting now, "The person convicted for having abused a child or a vulnerable person is removed from his duties and at the same time he is offered adequate support for psychological and spiritual rehabilitation also for the purpose of social re-integration." How is that being received?

ALLEN: Well, in terms of the reception, I think it's being received with question marks. I mean, the Catholic Church is, at least in theory, and Pope Francis himself, committed to a policy of zero tolerance. What that means is that for even one act of sexual abuse against a minor, you are supposed to be out of the field permanently, that is, no longer able to represent the Catholic Church in any way. If you're a priest, it typically means that you're going to be defrocked. And exactly how this new policy is going to square with that remains to be seen.

Presumably what it means is that somebody who has -- who is engaged in this behavior, even though they're going to be permanently removed and therefore will no longer have access to children as a representative of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church doesn't jut -- and the Vatican in this case doesn't want to just wash its hands of these people. They want to acknowledge some ongoing responsibility to make sure they're not a danger to themselves or others.

WHITFIELD: John Allen, we'll leave it there for now. Thank you so much.

[11:55:00] And we're standing by to hear from Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke. He is holding his first campaign rally since announcing his candidacy.

We'll bring that to you live as it happens.

Plus, be sure to tune in for an all new episode of "TRICKY DICK", exploring the rise and fall of President Richard Nixon. The series continues tomorrow night at 9:00 right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Hello again, everyone. And thanks so much for being with me this Saturday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

A direct clash over how to handle the immigration crisis is coming to a head this hour. Right now in El Paso, Texas Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O'Rourke is officially kicking off his campaign for the White House.

[11:59:56] It's the first of three rallies today across Texas. After announcing his candidacy he's been meeting with asylum seekers and pledging on Twitter that he will continue his push to protect them.