Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The AIH Transcript for July 17, 2018

Hosts: Laura Lynch and Karen Gordon

Prologue

LAURA LYNCH: Hello, I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Carol Off.

KAREN GORDON: Good evening, I'm Karen Gordon, sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

KG: Tonight…

LL: What a difference a day makes. 24 hours after dismissing charges of Russian meddling, Donald Trump dismisses that dismissal and insists he was misunderstood.

KG: Shooting more than just the breeze. The FBI arrests a Russian woman and charges her with trying to use her relationship with U.S. gun groups to influence American politics as an illegal foreign agent.

LL: Red sky right now gives volcano tourists no warning. A ball of airborne lava turns a Hawaiian sightseeing cruise into a morning that will be seared into the memories of more than 20 lucky survivors.

KG: Pre-emptive strike. The owners of a Las Vegas hotel where a gunman stationed himself before killing dozens of concert goers is suing victims of that shooting in a bid to prevent them from suing the hotel.

LL: Gone fishin’. An independent investigation blows the lid on a never reported incident involving some bomb worthy plutonium that was left in a car in a parking lot — and then went missing.

KG: And…Borrowed time. The closure of two stores in Alaska leaves just one Blockbuster still operating in the United States. And we call them up to find out what movies are hot on those blue and yellow shelves. As It Happens: The Tuesday Edition. Radio that is packed with new releases.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Russian Agent Charges, Las Vegas Lawyer, Last Blockbuster

Russian Agent Charges

Guest: Michael Isikoff

KG: President Donald Trump wants to clear something up. In Helsinki yesterday he said he didn't see any reason why Russia would have interfered in the U.S. 2016 election. But today, he told reporters he needed to make a teensy correction.

SOUNDCLIP

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Now I have to say I came back and I said ‘what is going on, what's the big deal?’ So I got a transcript, I reviewed it, I actually went out and reviewed a clip of an answer that I gave and I realize that there is a need for some clarification. It should have been obvious. I thought it would be obvious but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn't. In a key sentence in my remarks I said the word would instead of wouldn’t. The sentence should have been, “I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia,” sort of a double negative.

KG: Just to remind you, here's part of that clip we played of President Trump last night.

SOUNDCLIP

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: President Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I will say this, I don't see any reason why it would be.

KG: In the 24 hours since the Helsinki Summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Trump has been trying to mend fences within his own Republican Party. And today, President Trump told reporters something he was unwilling to say in Helsinki, that he accepts the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Michael Isikoff is the chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News. He recently co-wrote a book called Russian Roulette. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

LL: Michael, President Trump says he was tongue tied. Do you believe him?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well, that does sound like an unusual walk-back by the president, but it's kind of hard to accept his rationale there given everything else he said in President Putin's presence, in which he threw up all the objections to the evidence that his own government had assembled about the Russian role and started talking about the DNC server and somehow bringing in Hillary Clinton's emails. You know, a whole bunch of dust, which clearly was designed in the presence of the leader of Russia to suggest that he doesn't buy the fundamental conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community and the U.S. Justice Department, now with those indictments from last week that this was unmistakably a Russian attack on American democracy.

LL: Why do you think President Trump changed his tune?

MI: Well I think he was getting ferocious blowback from Republicans, from members of his own cabinet, and I think somebody tipped them off that he was facing a near rebellion within his own ranks over what he said at that summit.

LL: Does it matter now that he's walked it back or has the damage has been done — or tried to walk it back anyway?

MI: He had the world stage in Helsinki, I guess by his own admission he blew it. And when one thinks about all the prep that went into that summit and all the briefings he got — and the briefing he got from his own deputy attorney general about the indictment that was brought against twelve Russian military intelligence officers just last week — to think that he just there was one little misspoken word and he meant to say wouldn’t when he said would, you know, it's kind of hard to accept that explanation. You know, I think everybody is going to process this the same way, he was speaking from his heart when he spoke before Putin and now he's just trying to cover his tracks.

LL: This isn't the only matter related to Russia and the United States that's happened in the last 24 hours. Russian national Maria Butina was arrested and charged with being an unregistered Russian agent. When you learned about that what did you think?

MI: A lot of us have been tracking the activities of Maria Butina and her boss Alexander Torshin, the Russian central banker, for some time. David Corn and I wrote about this duo as sort of a Boris and Natasha of this story in our book Russian Roulette. They had been making concerted efforts to infiltrate and influence American conservative political organizations, The National Rifle Association and the Conservative Political Action Conference, forging relationships with members of Congress and people who were close to the Trump campaign. This is something that seemed very unusual to a lot of people. It looked very much part of the Russian influence operation and the charges brought by the Justice Department this week reinforced that.

LL: I want to go back to something that you actually wrote about. I want to play some tape from 2015. Maria Butina is asking then Candidate Trump a question at one of his rallies, here it is.

SOUNDCLIP

MARIA BUTINA: I'm visiting from Russia.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Good friend of Obama, Putin. He likes Obama a lot.

MB: If you would be elected as president was a movie a foreign policy especially in the relationships with my country? And do you want to continue the politics of sanctions that are damaging both economies, or you have any other ideas?

DT: OK. Obama gets along with nobody. The whole world hates us. I know Putin and I'll tell you what, we get along with Putin, I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin, OK?

LL: Now you did, as I said, write about this in your book. What struck you about the incident?

MI: Well, there's one more bit to that clip where Trump says ‘and you won't need sanctions if I'm elected’ and that's what the Russians wanted to hear from Donald Trump. They wanted him on record that he was opposed to the sanctions that the Obama administration had imposed on Russia over its annexation of Crimea and intervention in Ukraine. But what, as we write in Russian Roulette, this particular incident, which was very early in Trump's campaign, just a few weeks after he announced his candidacy in June of 2015 — much later in the campaign when people started inside the Trump campaign to focus this Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus to Trump's top campaign advisers were watching this video and trying to figure out what's going on here. Why is this woman, Russian woman, at this event in Las Vegas? Why does Trump call on her? Why does he have a full-fledged fully baked answer about Russian sanctions? And it seemed to them very odd. And, as we wrote, Priebus tells Bannon, you know, this woman she's been showing up everywhere at conservative political events. And it seemed to them, at the least, that this was a Russian attempt to influence the Trump campaign. You know, it puzzled and worried some of Trump's top people.

LL: But that's another thing that I wonder about. All of her actions seem to be transparent. She has appearances at these NRA events, she is well known there, there's lots of photos of her posing with Republicans, people knew she was well-connected in Russia. So what's new in the indictment? Did these charges really come as a surprise?

MI: Yeah, because we didn't know they were coming and we didn't know that It ripped the FBI’s radar. And they got a hold of her laptop and they saw the multitude of messages, directives from her boss Mr. Torshin. I think there are suspicions that there is more to this story, that money may have been involved. We don't know yet, but this does seem to have been a concerted effort to establish back channel relationships, that's what the charges are here in the criminal complaint.

LL: Now there has been a lot of talk today about the fact that Russia must have what they call kompromat, incriminating information on President Trump to explain why he has been so chummy with Putin. And I want to play you another piece of tape. This is Democratic Senator Bill Nelson speaking through CNN making a plea to the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

BILL NESLSON: Mr. Secretary, please come forward and tell us what it is that Putin has hanging over the head of Donald Trump. Why does Donald Trump continue to defer, to curtsy, to bow, and will never say unkind word toward Vladimir Putin? What is it that is going on with the U.S. president that he believes Putin instead of our own U.S. intelligence community?

LL: Mike, what do you think? Has that kompromat question taken on new meaning in the last few days?

MI: Well, this has been an enduring mystery for a long time now. That would seem to be a rational explanation for Donald Trump's conduct. And, you know, some of us who have followed Trump for a long time might push back and say you can't find rational explanations for Donald Trump's conduct. You know, some of what he does and says is so bizarre and so off the wall that it defies rational explanation.

LL: Michael Isikoff, thank you for your time.

MI: Anytime.

KG: Michael Isikoff is Chief Investigative Correspondent for Yahoo News. He was in Washington, D.C.. And if you'd like to hear that interview again, go to our website www.cbc.ca/aih. Speaking in Nova Scotia this morning, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had this to say about President Trumps comments in Helsinki.

SOUNDCLIP

PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Canada has been unequivocal in our condemnation of Vladimir Putin and Russia. Whether it's their illegal annexation of Crimea, their incursion into the Donbass in Ukraine — and the fact that we're glad to have 200 Canadian soldiers there helping train Ukrainian armies — whether it's their interference in Syria and their support for the murderous Assad regime, whether it's what they were responsible for and the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury on U.K. soil against British nationals, whether it's the fact that we stand very strongly with Eastern European nations like the Baltic states. I was just last week in Latvia meeting with the troops, the Canadian troops that are forming the leadership of the battle group that is holding the eastern front against possible Russian aggression. Canada has always been clear and unequivocal in our condemnation of the actions of Vladimir Putin and Russia.

KG: That's Prime Minister Trudeau speaking this morning in Sutherlands River, Nova Scotia.

[Music: Electric Guitar Plucks]

Las Vegas Lawyer

Guest: Robert Eglet

KG: When a gunman opened fire on concert goers in Las Vegas last October killing 58 people, He did it from a hotel room. Now the company that owns the hotel is suing victims of the massacre. MGM Resorts owns the Mandalay Bay hotel from which a gunman fired more than 11 hundred rounds of ammunition into the crowd below. He had stockpiled an arsenal in two adjacent hotel rooms over several days placing do not disturb signs on the doors. In the months since many survivors and victims’ families have sued MGM for not doing more to prevent the shooting. The company is hoping its own lawsuit will protect it against those claims. Robert Eglet is an attorney representing several of the shooting victims. We reached him in Las Vegas.

LL: Mr. Eglet, what was your reaction when you heard that MGM was going to court to try to halt any lawsuits from victims of the Las Vegas shooting?

ROBERT EGLET: Well, in my opinion MGM’s lawsuit against the victims and the family members is the most reprehensible thing I've seen in 30 years of practicing law.

LL: Help me understand what MGM is trying to do? They're trying to secure a form of legal immunity, how are they trying to do that?

RE: Yes. They're trying to secure legal immunity that they are not entitled to. But this issue, why these lawsuits were necessary, is this issue is already before a judge in federal court here in Nevada and has been briefed by the parties and we're waiting for a hearing for the judge to decide that. They don't like that judge, we suspect, because he's an Obama appointee, so they're trying to usurp his ability to make that decision and file these cases to other federal courts to try to try to draw a more favourable judge who they think will get a better ruling out of.

LL: You say they're looking for a better judge.

RE: Yes, pure and simple judge shopping on their part.

LL: Can you explain it in terms that the layperson can understand what MGM’s actual argument is their argument?

RE: Their argument is — the Safety Act came about by the federal government after 9/11 — and the reason for the Safety Act was to encourage to try to get private security companies to assist the U.S. government in preventing terrorist attacks on our soil. In order to encourage them to go through this training and get certified by Homeland Security, they provided these companies that got this the training and the certification with certain immunity from lawsuits. They were not hired by MGM, they were hired by the concert promoter, they’re the security company at the venue, they're not Mandalay Bay's security or MGM’s security company. Mandalay Bay and MGM has nothing to do with this security company and they're trying to say that ‘Well, since that company has immunity, that immunity should expand and applied to us.’ Well, it doesn't do that, that's not the law. It wasn't meant to give immunity to a hotel casino who engaged in negligent security.

LL: Yeah okay, you argue exactly that that it's negligent security. Tell me how that works? What is your argument that the hotel does bear responsibility legally?

RE: Well, this shooting occurred on the MGM properties. The victims may have been across the street at the concert venue, but the shooter was in a Mandalay Bay suite, two rooms which he requested. He took his arsenal of guns and assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition up to these rooms over a multiple day period. He had his ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign so people couldn't get into the room for multiple days to see what was going on. He had security cameras that he placed in the hallway that he was viewing from his room. He put an L-lock on the stairwell door that was right next to his room.

LL: So how is that how is any of this the hotel's fault?

RE: The hotel has a responsibility to make sure that guests don't bring assault weapons on their property and engage in this type of activity. And they knew that this is a possibility because less than three years prior to this they had another guest, who is now in federal prison, who brought guns up to his room had one set up in a manner that was pointed at the strip like he was going to shoot people and it was discovered by an employee. He was prosecuted and is in federal prison now. So they knew that this is something that could happen and they took no security measures to prevent this.

LL: How concerned are you that MGM’s bis, whether you call it judge shopping or making an argument about immunity, how concerned are you that this court will be successful?

RE: I don't believe it will be successful at all. They're not entitled to this immunity under the Safety Act and it just doesn't apply in this case. This act has never been — no one's ever tried to use this act in the manner that they're trying to use it in history in the law.

LL: Well, then if the verdict was in their favour in this court action would there be broader legal implications?

RE: Well, yeah, I mean, basically any time any security company that is anywhere in the area, I suppose, across the street to some other venue is providing security and you have a problem on your property you can claim all of those people had Homeland Security Agency and we should get immunity because they did. I mean, that's essentially what they're doing, they have no relationship to CSC whatsoever. Mandalay Bay and MGM have no relationship to CSC. They didn't hire them, they don't work for them. They didn't have their own security go through the Homeland Security training and get certified. They could have done that but they didn't. This is not their security that has this immunity. So it has nothing to do with them.

LL: MGM says it's taking this step and because this is a quote “years of drawn out litigation and hearings aren't in the best interests of victims, the community and those still healing.” What do you make of that?

RE: That is just absolutely laughable and the biggest fattest lie I've ever heard. The MGM and Mandalay Bay have no interest in the victim's. The only interest they have is watching their own money. And what they say is not true, because if the Safety Act were to apply in this case state and federal court, federal actions take much longer to get resolved than state court actions in Nevada — much, much longer, years longer. So to suggest that this somehow helps the victims is nonsense because the security company has immunity and there are limits on how much they can be sued for. And this basically is MGM and Mandalay Bay trying to get immunity and not have to be responsible for any damages that their negligence caused.

LL: Mr. Eglet, thank you for your time.

RE: Thank you.

KG: Robert Eglet is an attorney representing several of the victims of the October 2017 shooting in Las Vegas.

[Music: Woodwinds]

Last Blockbuster

Guest: Sandy Harding

KG: The blue and yellow Bockbuster sign once reigned supreme in the video rental business. In 2004 the chain had something like 9,000 stores. Now, after the closure of two blockbusters in Alaska, there's just one blue and yellow sign lit up in all of the United States — it's in Bend, Oregon. Sandy Harding is the general manager. We reached her in Bend.

LL: Ms. Harding, how does it feel to be the general manager of the last remaining Blockbuster in America?

SANDY HARDING: Oh, my gosh, it is so exciting and so much fun and, you know, we never thought this day would come or we would be the last standing. We really truly thought the Alaska stores were gonna outlast us. And so this has just been a lot of fun and super exciting.

LL: So you were aware that there were these other two stories up in Alaska. What was your reaction when you found out they were closing?

SH: Shocked, a little sad. Every time one of the stories closes, you know, it gets a little closer to the end of the era. So it's really sad for us, of course, I know the rest the country already felt that end because a lot of the stores are closed down ahead of time. And over the last couple of years now they just dwindle down to nothing obviously since we're left one. But, you know, it is sad, but again, it's so exciting to know that we've done it, that we've held out and we lasted doing what we always do and giving the great service we always give in. And, you know, it's just exciting knowing that we've made it.

LL: I understand the person who owns the Bend Blockbuster also owned two others in Oregon, but they’ve also closed. So what is it that keeps Bend’s Blockbuster going?

SH: You know we just have always had tremendous community support here. And we have a lot of regular local customers that come in and they know they can get that same wonderful customer service. We haven't changed our prices. They know that we’re consistent.

LL: Since when?

SH: Oh, my gosh, we haven't changed prices since Dish Network closed all the Blockbusters. So last seven or eight years we've been the same prices. And, you know, that was one of the things that we've been able to maintain and which most people are shocked by. But I think it just came from cutting costs in other places so that we could keep our customers coming in and knowing that this was still of value.

LL: So how much is it going to cost me to rent The Godfather.

SH: You're going to laugh — 99 cents for the week.

LL: Oh, that's a deal.

SH: It is a deal. We have other ones that are a $1.99 and then our new releases are $3.99 for anything from three nights to a week. The newest stuff, obviously, is three nights and after about two or three weeks it goes for a week rental. And then we charge a nominal late fee, it's forty -ine cents a day. If you keep it out past that week. Gone are the days of re-renting it every day until eternity and you have hundred dollars worth of late fees.

LL: Now for anybody who has nostalgic memories of visiting a blockbuster, is there anything different about your store?

SH: No, we still operate the same computer system we have the entire time. It's still in 1990s. It still has floppy disks. We still are blue and yellow, we still have the same Blockbuster signs out front. You know, kids still wear blue and yellow t-shirts and we have the Blockbuster nametags that are the ticket — and, you know, nothing's changed. You come in here and it still looks like a Blockbuster store of the 90s.

LL: How can you still use floppy disks and computers that old?

SH: Well, you know, at the time when Dish Network closed the stores we weren't really sure what the status of the stores was going to be, and so it became a cost issue. And so we ended up kind of maintaining those old computer systems simply because we couldn't afford at the time to change to the new ones, to a new system and we weren't sure exactly what our future was going to hold. And then after a while it became a nostalgia thing. I mean, it's a conversation piece, when people come in and see IBM on the computers, it definitely is.

LL: So you say that computers are a conversation piece, the whole story is a conversation piece. Do people come by just to take pictures?

SH: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, this was happening prior to Thursday when Alaska announced that they were closing. We would still have people lined up wanting to take pictures in front of the store and just because we're in Bend and Bend is a tourist town. And so we have people traveling in all the time and see that we're still open and they're like ‘Oh, my gosh, there’s a Blockbuster store.’ And they come in and the first question is ‘How are you still here? Why are you still here? How could you possibly be operating?’ So it is definitely a conversation piece with every customer that walks in the door.

LL: And how busy are you right now?

SH: We're pretty busy. I'm pretty tired. We've been going strong for several days now and lots of people are coming in to visit. And it's pretty wonderful to have this influx of new customers coming in the door again. A lot of local people who had forgotten we’re here and the media coverage has been wonderful, it's been getting people back in.

LL: So considering the store's success what do you think the chances are there might be a Blockbuster revival?

SH: You know, that would be — I would have a hard time thinking that's going to happen because there really is no Blockbuster, there's no Blockbuster corporate there's no one a franchise agreement with and Dish Network owns the rights to the name. So that would be 100 % up to them if they would want to invest in reopening Blockbuster. I have a hard time thinking that that's going to be a chance, but you never know. With all the people and all nostalgia, who knows?

LL: Can you tell me if you know anything about this rumour that I've heard that your owner might turn the Bend’s Blockbuster into a museum if the business doesn't work?

SH: You know, what is so funny is that we've actually had customers calling and telling us that and it's it's just funny because he knew that I had told him that customers were calling to say, ‘Hey, if you ever close the store make sure to turn into a museum.’ And so he had made a comment about that, you know, if the day ever does come that we have to close maybe we'll do that. And I think that's where the rumor started from. I don't think that that's our endgame, our endgame is to stay open as long as we possibly can, but who knows what could possibly happen.

LL: All right, Sandy, we’ll leave it there. Thank you very much.

SH: Oh, you're welcome, you have a wonderful day and thanks for thinking of us.

LL: Bye, bye.

SH: Bye.

KG: Sandy Harding is the general manager of the Blockbuster in Bend, Oregon.

[Music: Jazz]

Back To Top »

Part 2: Hawaii Lava Bomb, Stolen Nuclear Material

Hawaii Lava Bomb

Guest: Will Bryan

KG: Will Bryan and his girlfriend Erin Walsh are on vacation in Hawaii. Yesterday they took a tour. They got on a boat and went to see lava flowing into the ocean from the Kilauea volcano, which as you've heard on this program, has been erupting recently. Then there was an explosion and what's being described as a ‘lava bomb’ hit the boat — more than 20 people were hurt. Mr. Brian caught the moment of the explosion on video. This is what it sounded like.

SOUNDCLIP

WIND BLOWING AND PEOPLE SCREAMING

KG: Mr. Bryan is in Kona, Hawaii today and that's where we reached him.

LL: Mr. Bryan, how are you and Erin doing?

WILL BRYAN: Significantly better today than yesterday. It was a little hard yesterday, especially after afterwards, but we’re doing really good today.

LL: What kind of injuries did you have?

WB: We had some real minor ones, some scrapes and some cuts on our legs from where the debris hit us. And then I have a burn on my ankle, Erin got some in her eye, but all relatively minor compared to some of the other people.

LL: Can you take us back to yesterday? What was it like on the on the boat before the explosion happened?

WB: It was actually really nice. The crew was amazing, the captain, you know, met us right as we were going in and they are all so polite. And then ride out there was amazing, it was awesome. You could see the lava on one side and there was still a ton of strs out. It was very, very beautiful. The tour was amazing until it wasn't.

LL: Why did you want to do a tour like this? Weren't you worried that it might be dangerous?

WB: No, honestly. It's just one of those bucket list things for me, I always wanted to see lava flowing, and this tour has been going on for decades. I want to say they've been around for two decades, they've done it over and over again you just kind of expect it to be safe even though you know you're going to see a volcano. And it obviously was not as safe as I had planned.

LL: Okay, let's get into what happened in that moment. As you say, everything was going really well, it was beautiful, you were looking around — and then what happened?

WB: So we started looking at — there was some lava shooting from the water and we started kind of backtracking going back and forth so everyone could get pictures of it, it was so pretty. And then as we're looking at it another explosion happened that wasn't the explosion we were looking at, it was so much closer. And as you can see it in the video how close that ended up being, and it just hit us. You have like a half a second to do something.

LL: What did it feel like in that moment?

WB: Honestly, the first thing I thought was to protect Erin, but I remember lava as it as it gets shot out it cooled pretty quick. I remember it hitting me in the back and just thinking like I'm about to feel the burn. And it just doesn't come because it cools, the little pieces cool, so it was just — it felt so warm on my back and you just getting pelted with it and you know that was coming more is coming.

LL: How long did it go on for?

WB: No longer than 15 seconds.

LL: I bet that felt a lot longer though.

WB: Oh, it felt like an hour.

LL: And what were you seeing around you at that point? What were other people doing?

WB: It's really hard to see. So the smoke actually covered the boat, so it was so dark when it was happening — like midnight dark with no stars. And we're just trying not to step on people, like not step on anyone underneath you, and get to the other side of the boat, but there's no safe spot. So even the other side you see people cramming up against the wall hoping.

LL: What were you able to see once all of that dark smoke cleared away, what was the scene?

WB: Everyone huddled together and people were crying. There was a girl on the ground that had broken her femur. And then you look to the side of the boat that we were just that was that hole in that roof that everyone has seen the picture of and a piece of the rock, it was like a foot in diameter, and still like glowing red hot and it was just laying on a boat and it had gone through the roof and landed in the boat.

LL: And it was a burning the boat?

WB: Wasn't burning the boat, but it was very hot to touch. When the captain tried to move it he couldn’t actually touch it, they had to get like a sling to do it.

LL: You talked about the picture that, you're right, we've all seen of that roof. What would have happened if the roof wasn't there?

WB: We'd talked — like there was so much debris on that roof that isn’t did in that picture, like there were dents all over — we probably wouldn’t be here if that roof wasn’t there.

LL: That that is a frightening thing to think.

WB: Yeah.

LL: Do you think people would have died?

WB: Oh, absolutely I think we probably — most of us would have.

LL: Now I understand that right where that hole in the roof was, you were planning to sit there initially?

WB: Yeah, we were. As you get on the boat we had seen that spot like ‘Oh, we want to sit there.’ But there was a pole there and I like taking pictures, I'm not good at it, but I wanted to get a spot with no pole so we moved two rows up because there was no pole there, it was the only reason.

LL: What goes through your mind when you think about that now?

WB: I’m a very lucky individual.

LL: There are rules about how close boats can get on these tours. How close do you think you were to this flowing lava?

WB: I'm not a good judge in distance, from the flowing lava, like from the stuff on the side of the island, I think we're far enough away. I mean, we were a good distance away. My camera couldn’t get a good shot of it. It just happened that this part that broke out was so much closer than where everything else was.

LL: Do you think that maybe you were too close?

WB: So in hindsight, yeah, obviously we were too close, we got hit by lave. But from where the lava was flowing, I mean, we were a good distance away, you couldn't feel the heat. So I think if it was something you were looking at that was stable and not moving and not changing, I think you're more than a safe distance away. But the fact that it’s lava and a volcano is ever changing, maybe they should have a longer distance to view it at.

LL: Well, I guess, the question is whether anybody should really be anywhere near an active volcano?

WB: That's true — but if you look at everything in the world, look at everything magnificent — Everest, Kilimanjaro, volcanoes underwater — there's always that inherent risk and that's part of the beauty of it is how dangerous it is. But it's nature.

LL: I'm hearing no regret in your voice.

WB: I regret having Erin there becasue I never want to put her at risk, but I love this stuff.

LL: So I'm curious then, was Erin hesitant to go and you persuaded her?

WB: No, Erin's awesome. She's immediately said yes and she just assumed that nothing would happen as well. She's amazing, she does everything with me.

LL: So when you guys got released from the hospital what's the first thing you did?

WB: We went and got food and made plans to visit Disneyland because it's safer.

LL: I hope so. You're still in Hawaii on vacation. What other plans have you got for this trip?

WB: Well, we had to change a lot of plans because of our injuries and burns. We can't go into the water which kind of sucks because it’s Hawaii and everything is water based, but there's some coffee farms around a sea Captain Cook's memorial. So there are still some great things and the people are still amazing so.

LL: All right, well I hope you have a good rest of your trip. Thank you for talking to us and be safe.

WB: Always. Thank you so much.

LL: Bye, bye.

WB: Bye.

KG: That was Will Bryan. We reached him in Kona, Hawaii

[Music: Ambient Bass Drone]

Stolen Nuclear Material

Guest: Patrick Malone

KG: They were tasked with transferring highly dangerous nuclear materials. Then in March 2017 they were robbed. Those stolen nuclear materials — plutonium and highly radioactive cesium — are still missing. The incident wasn't reported in public until this week. That's because of an investigation conducted by Patrick Malone and his colleagues at the Center for Public Integrity. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

LL: Mr. Malone, who was in charge of this car when it was robbed and what were they tasked with doing?

PATRICK MALONE: Well, there were two experts from Idaho National Laboratory, one of the Department of Energy laboratories here in the United States that works with nuclear materials both civilian and military. And their job was to go to San Antonio, Texas to collect some specimens of nuclear materials that had been on loan to a research facility. They had not yet accomplished that mission when they fell victim to theft.

LL: What was stolen from the vehicle?

PM: Inside the car were two Pelican briefs, very substantial briefcases that would seem quite intriguing to a thief who didn't know what they were, they would look like they held something dangerous or valuable or both — which they did. They contained some gauges that were equipment necessary to conduct their work. But along with those were two samples, one was Plutonium-239, which has one exclusive use in nuclear warheads. The other was cesium, which is used primarily for nuclear medicine, cancer treatments things of that nature. They left them in the back seat of a car while they spent the night at a hotel in San Antonio. And when they got up they discovered that someone had smashed the windows of their rental vehicle and stolen both cases along with the gauges and samples of nuclear material that they contained.

LL: Now it's never nice to have your car broken into and things inside stolen. But what's the big deal about this especially if it was a small amount?

PM: Right, it is not a hugely significant amount by itself. What is significant about it is the program that these folks worked for has been heralded and held up by the United States as sort of a global example of nuclear security. Essentially their mission goes scoop up these unwanted nuclear materials tht are on loan from the Department of Energy for the primary purpose of making sure that every last iota of nuclear material in the United States is accounted for and that none of it is stolen or falls into the wrong hands. So there's some irony there, but there's also some deep concern about the culture of this program that the U.S. has maintained is sort of the global gold standard to this point.

LL: But those materials, even if it is a small amount, those are pretty serious things to lose right?

PM: They are because they can be accumulated and used for some nefarious activity. And there is evidence from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors nuclear materials that are military usable, they actually identified 270 occasions between 1993 and 2016 that were deemed to be carried out with malicious intent. So these are instances where there were attempts to steal nuclear materials with the intent of weaponized.

LL: Now in this case, how did it happen? Why were these materials left in the back of a rental car in the first place?

PM: It boils down to simple carelessness. There are other agencies within the U.S. government that have standards about how materials that are sensitive should be treated and far less sensitive material than these cannot be left unattended and certainly not in a rental vehicle that does not have a trunk.

LL: Does anyone know where these materials went?

PM: No one knows. They have not been recovered. The San Antonio police have been treating this almost as they would the theft of a sleeve of compact discs or a purse or anything else that might be stolen from a car. They monitored pawnshops. No one has tried to hock these things for money and they've not been recovered.

LL: So any idea of motive then, I guess not?

PM: Well, it's hard to say what the motive was. They don't have evidence one way or the other. However, supporting the possibility that this was just an opportunistic act is the fact that there were almost 90 break ins in that same parking lot over the course of the two years that included this theft. I was very surprised to learn as the story unraveled a little bit how closely kept instances of diversion and theft of military nuclear materials are kept in this country, they're just not talked about and they're certainly not written about or released in the public domain through easily accessible means. On the other hand, if we were talking about civilian nuclear materials, which are regulated separately, they update that periodically a list that they maintain online lost and stolen items and then they also issue an annual report. So it's a very transparent process, and one that I think is designed to tamp down the number of these types of incidents. But on the military side we just don't have a window into that so it was very much a stroke of luck that we even discovered this had happened.

LL: So let's just make this clear. In your investigation determined this was just one small amount of all of the unaccounted for nuclear bomb ingredients in the United States, correct?

PM: That's correct. In fact, we don't have a very clear picture of the totality of missing nuclear military material in the U.S. The last complete review of it was conducted by the inspector general of the Department of Energy and that was in 2009. And at that time they determined that there were at least five actual nuclear warheads worth of missing nuclear materials and this is just those that can be attributed to showing up as safe on an inventory at one of the nuclear weapon labs. And then when doing a physical inspection you find it's not there and the possibilities are little bits get trapped in ducts, some gets classified as waste and disposed of without being properly inventoried and sometimes it's diverted. It's just hard to tell which is which when there is such an un-scrutinized system of tracking them.

LL: Does knowing all of this ever keep you up at night?

PM: Sometimes, but the more you're around it you just think that there is always going to be that threat out there. What's concerning about it, and the part that keeps me up at night, is a government and its contractors who say we're better than everyone else at doing this and you find that they’re as capable of human error as the rest of us and sometimes not really trying their hardest. That keeps me up at night.

LL: Mr. Malone I trust you to keep tracking this story. Thank you for your time.

PM: Thank you. Pleasure to speak with you.

LL: Bye, bye.

PM: Bye. Patrick Malone is a national security reporter with the Center for Public Integrity. We reached him in Washington, D.C. For more on the story go to www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Jazz]

Barack Obama Helsinki Reaction

KG: He spoke to the stadium full of more than 10,000 people for over an hour today and not once did he mention his successor's name. But during his speech, Barack Obama described an increase in what he called ‘strongman politics’ and labeled this current era quote “strange and uncertain times.” The former U.S. president was in Johannesburg, South Africa at an event honouring the 100th anniversary of Nelson Mandela's birth.

SOUNDCLIP

BARACK OBAMA: You have to believe in facts. Without facts there is no basis for cooperation. If I say this is a podium and you say this is an elephant, it's going to be hard for us to cooperate. I can find common ground for those who opposed the Paris Accords, because, for example, they might say ‘Well it's not going to work. You can't get everyone to cooperate,’ or they might say ‘It's more important for us to provide cheap energy for the poor, even if it means in the short term that there's more pollution.’ At least I can have a debate with them about that, and I can show them why I think clean energy is the better path, especially for poor countries — you can leapfrog old technologies. I can't find common ground if somebody says ‘Climate change is just not happening,’ when almost all the world's scientists tell us it is. I don't know where to start talking to you about this. If you start saying it's an elaborate hoax I don't know what to — where do we start? Unfortunately too much of politics today seems to reject the very concept of objective truth. People just make stuff up. They just make stuff up. We see it in the growth of state sponsored propaganda. We see it in Internet driven fabrications. We see it in the blurring of lines between news and entertainment. We see the utter loss of shame among political leaders where caught in a lie and they just double down and they lie some more. Look, let me say politicians have always lied, but it used to be if you caught them lying they’re be like ‘Oh, man.’ Now they just keep on lying.

KG: That was former U.S. President Barack Obama speaking in Johannesburg, South Africa today.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

July 17, 208 episode transcript

More Stories Like This