Trump Tells Russia to Get Ready for Missile Strike on Syria; Kremlin: Won't Take Part in Twitter Diplomacy; Two Hundred and Fifty Seven Killed in Algeria Military Plane Crash; Zuckerberg Tussles with Lawmakers Over Data Privacy
ZAIN ASHER, GUEST ANCHOR, QUEST MEANS BUSINESS: There we have it. A round of applause marks yet another trading day out of Wall Street. We were actually probably in the red today. The Dow ended down, triple digits or so today. The story had nothing to do with trade. It was all about geopolitical risk. This fear that markets have that perhaps President Trump, the US could be planning a missile attack in Syria in retaliation for the chemical weapons attacks that we saw. Okay, it is Wednesday, 11th of April. Tonight, markets get a jolt as Donald Trump threatens Russia over Syria. And the European Alliance are being warned that airstrikes could indeed be imminent. And Mark Zuckerberg makes few friends on his second day of hearing in Washington. Hello, everyone. I am Zain Asher and this is "Quest Means Business." Hi, welcome, everybody. I am Zain Asher, so tonight investors, airlines and foreign governments are scrambling as President Trump taunts Russia and says that US airstrikes on Syria are coming. He says that they are imminent. As stocks -- let's take a look here -- struggled throughout. This session, the Dow ended down 218 points. And by the way, it has been such a volatile week at the stocks. This does appear to be the new normal. The President's tweets and Russia's defiant response echoed in all corners of the market, so it's pretty much just one story today. This is what the markets were focused on and oil prices spiked to a three-year high over fears about supply disruptions. Demand for safe havens also rose. Gold prices hit their highest in two months. In the meantime, the Russia ruble fell to its lowest level against the dollar since 2016. It recovered ever so slightly later on in the day. Art Hogan is chief strategist at B. Riley FBR. He joins us right now from Boston. So, Art, thank you so much for being with us. And here is the thing, this time last year, if I could just compare this year to last year, this time last year, the markets really did sort of seem to shrug off any kind of geopolitical news. This year, it has become so much more sensitive to every single headline, whether it is trade, whether it is North Korea, whether it's the potential strike against Syria. What gives?</s>ART HOGAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF MARKET STRATEGIST, B. RILEY FBR, INC.: It's interesting. I think you stated that perfectly clear, right. So, last year, we saw eight days with the S&P 500 move 1 percent. We have already had 28 of this, this year where we saw 1 percent or more movement in the S&P 500, so, literally, you have four times the volatility and twice of volatility of an average year. And I think that really hinges around three things. I think it's a fear of a mistake whether it's a monetary policy or in trade and now, it's a fear of pickup or an escalation of geopolitical concerns in the Middle East. So, clearly, we have shifted from China and a trade war to Syria and perhaps an actual war where US involvement, it looks like it is going to be increasing in the near term, not decreasing and investors don't like that kind of uncertainty. So, I think that is why we saw the movement in the market today, and you add on top of that the Fed minutes came out, they were slightly more hawkish. Remember, the CPI came out a little bit harder this morning. The Feds sounding a little bit more hawkish on rates. So, when you get that juxtaposition of hawkish Fed and geopolitical problems in Syria, not a good combination for the market.</s>ASHER: And not a good combination, but were the markets really focused on those Fed minutes or was it just more about the potential airstrikes in Syria?</s>HOGAN: Well, I will tell you, the market tried to post a bit of a rally. It bounced off its lows this morning, but you know, a half an hour after those Fed minutes were released, and really had time to disseminate that, you saw the acceleration into the late afternoon, so I think part of that, I think that the Fed talking about changing their statement from you know, one that is accommodative to one that is neutral makes people think about the fact that they are in line. They are going to continue this. They probably have five more interest hikes over the next two years, probably two more this year. And rising rates trend to slow down the economy. So, I think that's playing a part of this, but clearly, the number one catalyst to the down side today was the Syria and the back and forth over Twitter talking about missile strikes.</s>ASHER: And it wasn't just markets that are affected, stock markets rather that were affected. Also, oil prices rising on the back of the geopolitical risk. Syria isn't necessarily a major oil producer, but the fear is that you know, if there is some kind of attack that could actually lead to a major disruption in terms of supply. Just walk us through that.</s>HOGAN: Yes, certainly, we haven't seen a bid in the oil market for a fear of disruption of supply and there have certainly been areas that haven't been able to produce up to their quotas. OPEC members like Venezuela hasn't been producing their quota. But, this -- you know, when something is happening in the Middle East, whether it's an oil producing country or not, that disruption causes that fear of disruption of supply because that's not the right reason for oil prices to begin to go up. There is no economic benefit to that 10 percent increase we have seen over the last week or so in the price of barrel of oil. We would like to see oil rise because the blind demand dynamics have balanced out. That's not necessarily the case of this particular week.</s>HOGAN: Also, look at the yield on the 10-year. It was in the, you know, 2.83 and then as soon as we started thinking about the ramifications of Syria and missile strikes and what that could mean, that's another flight to safety, so you saw money coming in to the -- for the US 10-year. We also saw it in gold. Gold up almost 20 bucks at the close and you know, clearly, all three of those are harbors of safety, so you've got the pop in oil, you've got a pop in gold. You have got a movement into the US 10- years and you even -- we actually saw some action in the currency markets in terms of the end. So, you know, a typical flight to safety kind of afternoon as markets sort of accelerated their losses from the two o'clock hour to the close.</s>ASHER: All right, Art Hogan live with us there. Thank you so much, appreciate that. All right, US officials tell CNN that President Trump's tweets caught aides and allies off guard. It came as a huge surprise today. The President wrote, I just want to walk you through the tweet that started all of this. He wrote, "Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia because they will be coming. Nice and new and smart and you shouldn't be partners. The gas-killing animal who kills his people and enjoys it." Elise Labott is in Washington for us. So, Elise, gosh, so much dig through there. I thought it's really interesting when I read this tweet that the tweet was more directed towards Russia than towards Bashar al-Assad. I mean, the alleged perpetrator of the chemical weapons attack in the first place. Didn't that strike you as a bit strange?</s>ELISE LABOTT, GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, CNN: It's interesting, isn't it, Zain, how recently when it comes to Syria, President Trump and you have seen those kind of in the last couple of weeks that President Trump has kind of turned his anger on Russian President Putin for its support of the regime rather than the regime itself, although, look, the State Department, the Pentagon, and others continue to blast the Assad regime for its responsibility. And I mean, we have to be careful to note that investigators are still trying to prove the responsibility of the Assad regime, they say it's consistent with previous attacks and that it does look like this. But you know, you heard the Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis today say that they are still going through the intelligence to try and prove that responsibility.</s>ASHER: Correct me if I am wrong, Elise, but isn't it rather difficult for the President to change his mind in terms of launching an attack against Syria in the wake of this tweet. I mean, now that he has announced it to the entire world, surely, he has to go through with it?</s>LABOTT: Well, he said that he is going to and I think, you know, he has made it pretty clear that he has decided to respond and I think you look at the French definitely want to have some kind of retaliatory response, possibly the Brits and I think they are kind of formulating now what they want to do. I don't think it's a question of it, but the scope and the timing. I think they are deciding you know, whether they want to do something small like they did last year to kind of just send the message or whether they want to do something a little bit more crippling against the Air Force. Of course, if they do that, that then becomes more of an open conflict and particularly with Russia. And I think when -- to go back to what you were saying about President Trump before, he has kind of made it more of a conflict now with Russia and so when those missiles or whatever they are, are going to start flying into Syrian territory. Is President Trump aiming at Russian targets or is he aiming at Syrian targets? Or is he conflating the two? And I think by that tweet, he kind of conflates a conflict with Syria and a response against Syria with a conflict and response against Russia.</s>ASHER: All right, Elise Labott, live for us there. Thank you so much. Okay, so in the wake of the geopolitical risks that our Elise Labott was just talking about, European airlines are being warned about potential air strikes in Syria. The advice that is specifically coming from the European Aviation Safety Agency has directed out flights operating over the Eastern Mediterranean. It is not clear if it was based on any sort of specific military information. We don't know that yet, but the warning relates to part of this area. This area right here around Cyprus close to Syria shown in blue, refers to the possibility of air to ground attacks or cruise missile launches in the next 72 hours in the next three days or so, and possible disruption to navigation equipment. Looking at the region right now, let's take a look here. This is a live view if you will on Flight Radar 24. It's a live view of all the flights that are in the region right now as I speak and take a look. Come closer because it is apparent that planes are avoiding this area right here. That is the area between Cyprus and Syria. Planes are avoiding that area. You see the war is there in clear blue. I want to bring in David Soucie, CNN's aviation analyst. So, do we know whether this warning, David was based on any sort of direct, credible, specific military information or was it just sort of a general warning based on media reports? How do we know?</s>DAVID SOUCIE, SAFETY ANALYST, CNN: Well, the fact that they only made it a 72-hour restriction is very telling because that means that they do have some information to say that there is a beginning and an end to whatever is going to happen. Now, if you go back to your previous story about President Trump's tweet, I can't imagine that they would be using a tweet as some reason to do this, but nonetheless, there is something going on there and they are basing all of these movement on the fact that something is going to go on there to what those -- with missiles in the area.</s>ASHER: So, if a missile attack on Syria in retaliation for the chemical weapons attack is indeed launched, will the airlines get even more specific about timing and location, does that rarely happen?</s>SOUCIE: Unlikely. It very rarely happens. The only thing that get us that (inaudible). Now, the US has had a restriction since August of 2017 on Syrian airspace all the way from Damascus, up all the way through the entire country. So, that has been in place for a long time for US and domestic carriers. But that is mostly to do with security concerns at the airports. This is something entirely different. And Euro control issuing this says that that entire region is in agreement with that state that it is a high risk to be flying over it.</s>ASHER: So, I just showed our audience the map showing just sort of a live view of the region right now and where flights are traveling to and you could sort of see the area that is between Cyprus and Syria just being completely avoided. There it is on our screen, being completely avoided by planes right now as I speak. How much of a disruption is that to airlines? Financially? Just in terms of time. I mean, is it minimal?</s>SOUCIE: No, it is costing millions and millions of dollars every hour that those airplanes have to go around because now, you are also talking about overloading airports, changing schedules, people are having to wait for hours and hours on the tarmac waiting for a gate to get in and out of the airports, it's a huge amount -- if you look on the north side of Syria, you will see that all of the planes are lining up almost in a straight line. Those are all lined up ready to land at various airports. So, it's a very big concern and it is costing probably hundreds of millions of dollars every hour just to -- the fuel burn alone, let alone the inconvenience to the passengers.</s>ASHER: Okay, so it is quite a big disruption, so we know that the Air Traffic Control Agency that oversees Europe has issued warnings, but what about other airlines in other parts of the world. What sort of warnings are they getting?</s>SOUCIE: Well, EASA and Euro Control is really what communicates through and then the International Civil Aviation Organization, they issue these notes and so they go out to every country. Each state or each country is supposed to give that information back to these other reporting agencies if there is something new happening like a military action or something in their country. So, this is something that happened in Ukraine. If you remember MH-17, which was shot down over Ukraine. They were in a very similar situation in which they had put out a restriction and that restriction came out and shared amongst the entire aviation community, yet still an airplane flew over that area and was shot down. So, it's something that is a very good communication network. People know when and when they are not supposed to be in these areas and so they all agreed to it and you could see that is happening. However, if you notice - - I was looking at Flight Radar 24 about an hour ago, and there were a couple of aircrafts that were still flying through their with their IDENT off so there were some commercial airplanes that were flying through Syria trying to, I guess, stay off the radar, but they still are showing up there. And this is an IL-76.</s>ASHER: Okay...</s>SOUCIE: That's similar to the plane that was just shot down -- that just crashed over in the other part of the country, over on the other side of Africa.</s>ASHER: All right, David Soucie, live for us there. Thank you so much. We'll leave it there. Thank you. Okay, so yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg emerged, a lot of people are saying virtually unscathed from that Senate grilling. Today, boy oh boy, did they turn up the heat in Washington and we are going to talk about how the Facebook CEO handled it. How did he handle all of that pressure from the House? Coming up after the break.</s>ASHER: Welcome back. So, yesterday, some people said that Mark Zuckerberg certainly had an easy time in front of Senate lawmakers. Today, the lawmakers came back and they hit hard as Facebook CEO gave evidence in the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. And Mark Zuckerberg basically said that his own personal information has been exposed. Again, he reiterated his apology. He said that Facebook has taken responsibility. They made a big mistake by not taking a broad enough view of their responsibility as a company. Facebook stocks by the way closed up, interesting enough for a second day adding nearly 1 percent. Yesterday, it felt like lawmakers were sparring with the Facebook boss. Today, it came down to brass tactics. Take a listen.</s>FRANK PALLONE, US REPRESENTATIVE, NEW JERSEY, DEMOCRAT: Will you make the commitment to change all the user -- to changing all the user to full settings to minimize to the greatest extent possible the collection and use of users' data. I don't think that's hard for you to say yes to, unless I am missing something.</s>MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACEBOOK: Congressman, this is a complex issue that I think deserves more than a one-word answer.</s>PALLONE: Well, again, that's disappointing to me.</s>ANNA ESHOO, US REPRESENTATIVE, DEMOCRAT: Do you think you have a moral responsibility to run a platform that protects our democracy? Yes or no?</s>ZUCKERBERG: Congresswoman, yes.</s>ESHOO: Have users of Facebook who are caught up in the Cambridge Analytica debacle been notified?</s>ZUCKERBERG: Yes, we are starting to notify people this week. We started Monday, I believe.</s>ESHOO: Will Facebook offer to all of its users a blanket opt-in to share their privacy data with any third-party users?</s>ZUCKERBERG: Congresswoman, yes, that's how our platform works. You have to opt-in to sign in to any app before you use it.</s>ESHOO: Well, let me just add that it is a mine field in order to do that. Are you aware of other third-party information mishandlings that have not been disclosed?</s>ZUCKERBERG: Congresswoman, no. Although, we are currently going through the process of investigating every...</s>ESHOO: So, you're not sure.</s>ZUCKERBERG: ... that had access to a large amount of data.</s>ESHOO: What does that mean?</s>ZUCKERBERG: It means that we are going to look into every app that had a large amount of access to data in the past before we locked down the platform. I...</s>ESHOO: You're not aware.</s>ZUCKERBERG: ... imagine because there are tens of thousands of apps, we will find...</s>ESHOO: All right, I only have four minutes. Was your data included in the data sold to the malicious third parties? Your personal data?</s>ZUCKERBERG: Yes.</s>ESHOO: It was. Are you willing to change your business model in the interest of protecting individual privacy?</s>ZUCKERBERG: Congresswoman, we have made and are continuing to make changes to reduce the amount of data...</s>ESHOO: No, are you willing to change your business model in the interest of protecting individual privacy?</s>ZUCKERBERG: Congresswoman, I am not sure what that means.</s>ASHER: "Congresswoman, I am not sure what that means." Okay, so even if members of Congress couldn't pin down Zuckerberg on every single topic, we actually got an insight into his thinking, into his thought process when he actually left his notes in the middle of the hearing room yesterday. Uh-oh. So, these -- take a look here were on show for everybody to see. That was an entire section devoted to Tim Cook's criticism of the company and said, "Important to hold everyone to the same standard." And one bullet point read, "No accountability for MZ?" And it goes on to say, "Accountable to you, to employees, to people who use Facebook." Now, reviewing his performance, Brian Stelter joins us live now in New York, Laurie Segall is in the Capitol for us as well. So, Brian, let me start with you. Despite the obvious sort of time constraints, right, they were -- they only had four minutes each and that...</s>ASHER: ... that they couldn't really follow up in a way that they should have been allowed to, did lawmakers do a better job today compared to yesterday of holding Mark Zuckerberg accountable?</s>BRIAN STELTER, CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Well, we learned a little bit more. The questions were feistier in some cases. We found out for example, Zuckerberg's own personal data was shared through this Cambridge Analytica situation, however, I don't think these lawmakers successfully landed many blows against Facebook's Zuckerberg. His company has to feel good at the end of two days of testimony. They were able to start a lot of questions...</s>ASHER: But you found the questions today, it's seemingly a little bit more difficult to answer than yesterday?</s>STELTER: I think that's true for some of them. There was also a lot of focus on issues like alleged conservative bias on Facebook. There is very little evidence to back up those claims, but we did learn more about data practices and about election meddling and Facebook has been given a long to-do list now of questions they promise to follow up on. So, it certainly is a moment for Congress to appear to be holding the company accountable. Count me skeptical though that we are going to see systemic change or new regulation as a result of this.</s>ASHER: Okay, so Laurie, Brian is skeptical that we are going to see any sort of systemic change, but do you think there really will be regulation that comes out of this? Changes that we see as a results of the hearings today?</s>LAURIE SEGALL, SENIOR TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Well, I think that one of the things was that, it was very difficult for lawmakers to understand, A, the platform and B, what kind of regulation would be the right kind of regulation. So, I think there are actually even more question marks than there were before. Facebook has been trying very hard to get in front of the regulation conversation. You know, they have started talking about the Honest Ads Act, talk about election transparency and labeling political ads and the Mark Zuckerberg used a phrase, "we need the right kind of regulation" so we heard quite a bit about that. And also, looking at European regulations, we heard Mark Zuckerberg answer a lot of questions about that. You don't get an idea that there is going to be a clear solution to this problem following today, Zain.</s>ASHER: Yes, Brian, I mean, it's an important point that a lot of people have brought up. How do lawmakers draft and craft the right regulation, when they don't even know, I shouldn't say they, but a lot of them don't even know how Facebook works.</s>STELTER: Today, at least some of the House members said they are active users and they sounded like they were. But a lot of these lawmakers were showing their age for over two days of testimony and that's understandable. You know, but constituents, most of their constituents are using Facebook. Facebook is a utility at this point. It's like infrastructure. It's like bridges or banks, and it's not always treated that way. And I think the questions we heard from lawmakers underline some of the embarrassing and awkward questions, was it real anxiety or real tension about the power of these social networks and tech giants in our lives? And that's real. Whether some of these questions were off base, they were, but there is a real tension here. And we might see it play out in the midterms, in the next Presidential election and in elections all around the world. This sense, this gnawing sense that these companies will become too big, too powerful and are abusing their power, abusing the data we give them. It is sometimes hard to pin that down, but some of the lawmakers tried today, and I think that anxiety is going to be with us and these tech companies are going to have to fight it for a while.</s>ASHER: So, Laurie, one question that came up over and over again today, and I think a little bit yesterday was this idea that people should be allowed to opt-in to have their data shared, as opposed to it being just the default. I mean, are we at least going to see -- just in terms of changes, are we at least going to see the terms and conditions of sort of a user agreement between Facebook and a user -- ordinary user like myself or yourself become a lot more simple and clear to understand?</s>SEGALL: Well, I think Facebook's company line right now is transparency and you heard Mark Zuckerberg get skewered there. I mean, essentially every single lawmaker was saying, "You have to be more transparent. Your terms of service are terrible." I think Senator Kennedy actually said, "They suck." You know, I think actually, we will see more transparency, but you know, I am not sure we will ever see, you know, an opt-in option. I don't think people even really understand the power of their data and what it does and you know, I think we really should have a larger conversation about privacy because you know, I don't think people quite understand targeted advertising while we are having this conversation and it can be very reactionary. You know, I do think the question you know, what Brian talked about, about are these tech companies too powerful? I think that is emerging and that is going to be one of the most important question that we are all going to be grappling with. You know, it was funny, Mark Zuckerberg said something today. He said, "You know, I feel competition. You know, the average person uses eight apps a day," you know mentioning Facebook and apps, as well as if you take a look at that...</s>ASHER: Yes, Facebook owns most of them, yes.</s>SEGALL: ... three of those -- Facebook owns three of those apps, and you know, this is an incredibly powerful company and you know, they talk about -- they always get the question, "Are you a tech company? Are you a media company?" And you know, that's a really important question and while Mark Zuckerberg says, "We are a technology company." He admitted that they are responsible for the content on their platform over the last couple of days, and I think that's a very significant admission because it comes along with a lot of power and responsibility...</s>SEGALL: ... and you know, we saw today on Capitol Hill, lawmakers saying Facebook has a conservative bias, calling out conservative bloggers that have been kicked out the platform. So, you're going to see Facebook falling into these really nuanced questions of hate speech and political speech and that fine line and there is a lot of nuance there. Mark Zuckerberg himself said they are struggling with that and it goes back to the idea of artificial intelligence, which is going to really help fix a lot of this. It's going to help proactively police. Well, that's going to open up a whole new set of problems, so you know, there are a lot of fundamentals that I think came up in these hearings. We might not have gotten as much information about data collection, but I think if you kind of take a step back, there are a lot of ethical issues we can look at when we look at the future of Facebook and just how big and important it has become in all of our lives.</s>STELTER: At the end of this day, we have talked about this data scandal for almost three weeks, and yet, Zuckerberg today has said there has been no meaningful impact on his business. Meaning, people aren't using Facebook less.</s>ASHER: See, that I believe.</s>STELTER: ... their accounts.</s>ASHER: That doesn't surprise me.</s>STELTER: So, to me, that's one of the headlines.</s>ASHER: As Laurie mentioned, you know, the average person uses eight apps a day, Facebook owns three of them. They are in some ways, a monopoly.</s>STELTER: I was watching Laurie's Instragram's from Washington. It looked like a fun scene and I was thinking, wait, this is a Facebook app I am using right now.</s>ASHER: Oh, that's hilarious. We're all addicted. We're all addicted.</s>STELTER: They've got us.</s>ASHER: Guys, I've got to go. Laurie, thank you so much. Brian, thank you so much.</s>SEGALL: Thank you.</s>ASHER: Guys, I appreciate that. Okay, so elsewhere in Washington, we actually saw a rare case of bipartisan agreement today. Lawmakers came together in an attempt to combat online sex trafficking. In fact, President Trump signed a new law which aims to help victims hold websites accountable if they knowingly -- if these websites knowingly facilitate sex trafficking. However, the bill certainly does have its critics. Joining me now, Jean Bruggeman who is the Executive Director of Freedom Network USA. Jean joins us live now. So, Jean, here is the thing. Some good news is that there are some websites that facilitate -- that apparently facilitate sex trafficking that have already been shut down. Obviously, that is certainly a step in the right direction, but how much of a dent does it make in the underlying problem do you think?</s>JEAN BRUGGEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FREEDOM NETWORK USA: Well, I think it's hard to say. Time will certainly tell. But what is -- I think what is the challenge is that we haven't identified any sources, any platforms that are solely used for sex trafficking. What we are talking about is platforms that are broadly used for a wide variety of businesses including sex workers who trade sex for a variety of reasons. Some of whom are certainly coerced and forced and need protection and others who are engaging in work through their own choice that are conventional sex workers. And I think that distinction is lost in this legislation unfortunately.</s>ASHER: Okay, so then how much of a problem does it make the legislation? I mean, if you have websites that aren't solely used with sex trafficking that like for example, you know, Craigslist, they just shut down their personal ads section, so if you have websites that are used for a variety of reasons, how much more difficult does it make sort of crafting legislation and going after these websites?</s>BRUGGEMAN: Certainly, that's a challenge. You know, going after the abuse and exploitation in any industry and the various trafficking that occurs in all industries and all different forms of labor, we see trafficking victims from teachers to agriculture to mining to domestic work. And so, isolating those who are committing these acts of violence and exploitation is a challenge for law enforcement and is an important task and more tools are needed to assist law enforcement and identifying those traffickers, going after those traffickers, and protecting and providing services and support for those survivors. And it's not easy to do and yet, that is the task before us and we can't take -- we can't take the easy way. We can't excuse ourselves from doing that hard work of being very specific and going after the traffickers in a very nuanced way.</s>ASHER: It's such an important task ahead. All right, Jean Bruggeman, live for us there. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Okay, so the Speaker of the House prepares to go silent, that the 48 years old, Paul Ryan's departure from politics has some people asking why. Why is he leaving? After the break, I want you to hear what he told CNN just moments ago. That's next.